Talk:Heitor Villa-Lobos

message: By modern official Portuguese spelling rules, the word uirapuru does not carry an acute accent (an oxytone terminating in u).  It is possible that at the time Villa-Lobos wrote the piece, uirapurú was also an accepted form.  Also possible that the spelling in the score reflects a decision by the French editor. If the standard is to refer to a musical piece by its original designation, the occurrence in the list of works should also be corrected.  However, when referring to the bird  itself (there is one instance), the modern spelling  should be used. Uirapuru, without the diacritical, is already used elsewhere in the Wikipedia. I know, it is nit-picking. -- 201.53.152.184 (talk) 01:25, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, you learn something every day. I see from the timeline of reforms in Spelling reforms of Portuguese that this standard must have been established in 1973, 1986, or 1990—in any case long after the composer's death. For what it's worth, the score was published in 1948, by Associated Music Publishers in New York (though it is still possible the editor was French, I suppose). Both this published score and the autograph manuscript dated "5/6/46" in the Leopold Stokowski collection at the University of Pennsylvania Library have the acute accent. It is probably for this reason that the Library of Congress adopted the spelling with the accent as their standard for the title of this composition.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 22:21, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

text: In Brazil, these spelling rules were adopted in 1943.  Before that there was no official orthography.  A more recent law (1971) eliminated some non-essential diacritics such as in the word Choro, which no longer carries the circumflex.  Hard to say if HVL consciously kept his own spelling for the word at the time of publication.  The piece had been written a while before.  In the little material they have online, the Villa-Lobos museum adopts modern spelling for all work titles in Portuguese.  I am not sure if the Wikipedia has a recommendation on the issue. Either way, it looks like this entry is due for a rewrite.  The spelling in text body is not consistent with list of works, which also incomplete. -- 201.53.152.184 (talk) 17:27, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  The ''Uirapuru'' spelling war 

message: The article may be improved by following the WikiProject Biography 11 easy steps to producing at least a B article. -- Edofedinburgh 01:11, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Wikipedia:WikiProject_Biography/Assessment#Class_parameter|Biography assessment rating]] comment 

message: I wonder why the note for the lost pieces really remind me of the title of a tv series :p sentausa 14:47, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  LOST? 

message: Compare the article to this article:  I think it's copied straight from there. I hate when Wikipedia does this. I find it all over the place. This definitely is not free domain text and needs to be edited. Hazelorb 02:28, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agreed with this comment, and have done something about it.  --RobertG ♬ talk 17:43, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Copied? 

message: In the comment field on an edit made at 02:58 on 24 November 2006, Robert G wrote: this _was_ all referenced! - all my info came from Wright 1992 (which was the only reference I added); thanks for classifying it all as doubtful... I don't have to dig out page numbers, do I?
Yes, page numbers are generally regarded as necessary when citing a source as large as even a full-sized article, let alone a book. (Newspaper articles are another matter.) See the discussion of page numbers in the Wikipedia guide to sources at:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia%3ACiting_sources#Page_numbers
I am the person largely responsible for those flags, some of which were on completely unreferenced statements (such as the one that unnamed "serialists" rejected Villa-Lobos's music in the 1950s and 60s). Others which merely point to Wright's book in some cases contradict information in other sources in the reference list (particularly Peppercorn), and in others are simply interesting points that I would like to verify without having to scan Wright from cover to cover each time.--Jerome Kohl 21:38, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This seems perfectly sensible to me, though I do wonder whether the Invocação em defesa da patria is a work of sufficient importance to deserve such treatment. Certainly the Chôros and the Bachianas brasileiras deserve to have articles, and all the better because they can be dealt with as collections rather than one at a time. As for merging the list of works with the article, I don't see what's wrong with the arrangement as it stands. Considering the huge output of this composer, merging would have the disadvantage of turning an encyclopedia article into a book-length document--Jerome Kohl 21:37, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Citations

message: Four times in the past two days a text, apparently claiming (the grammar is so bad that it is hard to tell exactly) that Villa-Lobos fathered an illegitimate daughter in 1935, has been added to this article, and removed by me on grounds of vandalism. Each time, the item concludes with a statement to contact one Ronald Paz, at a yahoo.com email address, for further information, though it is not certain that Mr. Paz is the individual responsible for this persistent reposting. It is possible that this addition was meant sincerely, in which case I ask the anonymous poster (from four different but possibly related addresses, 200.87.183.201, 200.87.183.84, 200.87.181.37, and 200.87.181.244) to bring the discussion to this page.
In case the writer accepts this invitation, I find the following defects:
# The writer claims that "all 'the official' biographies" state that Villa-Lobos was sterile. These biographies are not named, nor are page references given. I know of only one "official" biography (the brief one published by the Villa-Lobos Museum), and it contains no mention of Villa-Lobos's fertility or lack thereof. Nor do the other biographies I have read (admittedly not every single published one).
# The citation of a biopic (Villa-Lobos Uma Vida de Paixao, 2000) is not a reliable source of verification for biographical facts.
# Reference to "docuemnts [sic] in the Congress (Conference) the International Heitor Villa-Lobos, celebrated year 2002 in Paris-France" is vague. A conference-paper citation requires (1) the title of that paper, (2) the author's name, (3) the date on which it was delivered and, ideally, actual or prospective publication data. It is not clear even if these claims were made in a formal paper, or if they may have been made in casual conversations in the corridors or over lunch.
# I have cross-checked the Villa-Lobos articles on the French, Portuguese, and Finnish Wikipedia sites (the Conference in question was jointly sponsored by institutions in Brazil and Finland), none of which mention these claims.
# A search of the International Villa-Lobos Conference official website does not turn up any mention of such a paper, nor does a general web-wide search, though five or six other papers presented at the conference are easily found. It seems preposterous that such information, if well-founded, would not have been disseminated for five years following the conference.
# Given the oblique reference to monetary claims owing to the alleged daughter, legal proceedings must have been filed in a court of law somewhere. Such filings would be public records, and could be cited as references, along with the findings of the court.
It is of course commonplace for such claims to be made in cases where a substantial amount of money may be involved. However, this erstwhile contributor has not even documented where and how these matters have been brought up. If in fact documentation can be brought forward, I will cheerfully concede the merit in these claims. For now, it looks to me like only malicious and unfounded gossip.--Jerome Kohl 01:15, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Definitely keep it out of the article unless a reliable, published source can be found.  I've never heard this before either.  Thanks, Antandrus  (talk) 01:50, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Persistent vandal?

message: My name is Ronald Paz and I am the author of the note inserted in the page of Wikipedia. I am the grandson of Heitor Villa-Lobos and in that quality I write. Therefore I am not a vandal. I understand your surprise when seeing suddenly an affirmation like which I do. But my story is true and I can say that: You of the personal life of Villa-Lobos nothing knows. You write with sources of third hand; that's not my case. For your information: 1. I was present in Paris in the Conference; 2.I presented officially the document denominated “In memory of Heitor Villa - Lobos, Results of a Research”, where with luxury of details it is related as the existence of the Daughter of Villa Lobos were hidden by the Museum Villa Lobos and in individual by Mrs. Arminda Neves de Almeida. Therefore, one was not conversation in the corridors. 
           
                 Why the conclusions of that Conference were not published? 
3. I know all those that participate in this conference: Turibio Santos; Pierre Vidal; Eero Tarasti and much others including the representative of Max Esching: publisher, with who my grandfathers had to subscribe a inescrupulous contract. 
With these antecedents, I recommend you that before erasing the things one inquires more. Finally, I must say you that I am going to follow insertanto my truth in the page of Wikipedia, because It's my right and You are not the owner of this free encyclopedia 
Kindly Ronald Paz
:Mr. Paz, I can see that you are sincere, but the polemical tone you adopt is, as one other editor has pointed out, "not encyclopedic". Removing matter written in such a tone does not require that an editor "inquires more". Rather, it is the responsibility of the contributor to provide adequate documentation, especially when exceptional claims are being made. It is not your "right" to insert just anything at all. On the contrary, it is not only the right but the duty of other editors here to remove undocumented, contentious or dubious material. Please see Wikipedia:Reliable sources, particularly the section titled “Exceptional claims require exceptional sources”. I get the impression that you are not very familiar with Wikipedia policies and guidelines, and so I recommend that you read:
:Wikipedia:five pillars (also in Spanish and French)
::as well as three key policies:
:#Neutral point of view (Spanish, French)
:#Verifiability (Spanish, French)
:#No original research (Spanish, French)
:If you adhere to these guidelines and provide the necessary documentation, there will be no need for anyone to remove your contribution (though of course, like everything else on Wikipedia, anyone can edit the text).--Jerome Kohl 18:53, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Answer to Mr. Kohl 

message: I don't feel strongly enough to put it back, and obviously others disagree with me, but as the main contributor to this article I do feel I need to register that I think this assertion is not even wrong.  --RobertG ♬ talk 23:37, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I take it that you are denying any difference between "classical" and "popular" music?—Jerome Kohl (talk) 23:41, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Not at all :-)  I think Piazzola studied with Nadia Boulanger, and his works are in the repertoire of "classical musicians" such as the Katona twins.  --RobertG ♬ talk 09:02, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

text: Well, Burt Bacharach studied with Milton Babbitt, but that doesn't make him well-known as a classical composer, and Jimi Hendrix's "Purple Haze" and "Little Wing" are in the repertoire of "classical musicians" such as the Kronos Quartet, Nigel Kennedy, Michael Nicolella, and the Polish Chamber Orchestra. FWIW, I just checked a web-based classical-music CD outlet and was surprised to find 360 recordings with music by Piazzolla there. Mind you, 148 of them are of his three best-known tangos. The same site lists 471 recordings of Villa-Lobos, if that is anything to go by.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 22:09, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: That's fascinating.  I don't think Bacharach's or Hendrix's oeuvres are like Piazzola's.  You'd probably find that most of the hundreds of available recordings of Johann Strauss II are of his ten most popular waltzes, marches and polkas.  To get back to the point - I am fairly certain that Villa-Lobos is not easily the most well-known classical composer from South America.  --RobertG ♬ talk 09:36, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

text: All right, then, accepting that Piazzolla does not fall into this category, who would be Villa-Lobos's closest competitors? Revueltas? Ginastera? Ponce? Gomes? Although all of these are well-known, I can scarcely imagine any of them as serious rivals for fame. There is also the question of what criteria determine "well-known-ness". Would simply removing the word "easily" from the lede satisfy you? Or might it be better to quote Gerard Béhague's New Grove article, which more modestly calls him "the single most significant creative figure in 20th-century Brazilian art music"?—Jerome Kohl (talk) 22:16, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, I cannot have expressed myself clearly.  I still think Piazzola is his "closest competitor" - although that phrase turns it into a beauty contest, which it surely isn't.  I agree with you about the others.  I also think the fact that we can have this discussion makes the lead's assertion about Villa-Lobos and South America into original research (unless there's a reliable source).  I like Béhague's comment very much - and I think that would be much more apposite.  I rank a composer's creative significance as much more notable than his well-known-ness, anyway.  --RobertG ♬ talk 23:49, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

text: OK, I think we are in agreement at least that the sentence in question amounts to OR. I have changed the lede accordingly, to incorporate Béhague's assessment.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 03:37, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I concur.  Thank you.  --RobertG ♬ talk 09:05, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Best known 

message: "Villa-Lobos has become the best-known and most significant Latin American composer of all time." presented at the synopsis of the book on google books http://books.google.com.br/books?id=cFlaAAAAMAAJ&dq=Villa-Lobos+Oxford+Simon+Wright&lr=&ei=xoNFSbv0PJzAMrveod4N  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.26.42.26 (talk) 22:16, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  About Wright 1992  

message: Could someone please add his choir compositions such as Bendita Sabedoria? It seems they are not yet in the list.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.201.70.116 (talk) 06:34, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Choir Works  

message: I notice that the work list within this article has grown and grown, and yet there is still a note at the head of the section directing the reader to the complete List of compositions by Heitor Villa-Lobos. I believe it is usual in cases like this to retain only a short list of the most important or characteristic compositions, or even to list only the most important compositions not already discussed in the article text. What do other editors think?—Jerome Kohl (talk) 18:40, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. The List of compositions by Heitor Villa-Lobos info should not be duplicated. --Kleinzach 02:47, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  I've now removed the duplicated sections, moving some details to the list. --Kleinzach 03:04, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Work list 

message: Is there a possibility to add an infobox for this article?--Mishae (talk) 05:48, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: There is always such a possibility, but I personally oppose such a thing, in agreement with the objections raised on Wikipedia:WikiProject_Composers#Biographical_infoboxes.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 07:05, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: How many people object?--Mishae (talk) 15:08, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

text: I suggest you read this guideline, and this one, and also this one, and then re-phrase your question.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 23:19, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I miss infoboxes, and other important composers (e.g., Bach and Beethoven) have small infoboxes. In my opinion, they are better to see quick facts like birth/death dates/places, and family associations. Hence, there is no consensus about this. --Rudolf Hellmuth (talk) 13:34, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

text: It is true that some other important composers have infoboxes, but many do not (e.g., Palestrina, Monteverdi, Telemann,  Vivaldi, Haydn, Mozart, Chopin, Wagner, Schoenberg). You are correct, there is no consensus across Wikipedia on this, and no consensus for change on this article, either.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 18:59, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Infobox 

message: , Tagged 5 links as dead. Cheers!  {Talk} 09:37, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: All fixed, now. Thanks for calling my attention to these.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 18:38, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tagged 5 links as dead 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Heitor Villa-Lobos. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080921190048/http://www.tar-radio.com/myapp/articles/view/130 to http://www.tar-radio.com/myapp/articles/view/130
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:51, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Villa-Lobos mostly self-taught but taught some by Alberto Nepomuceno? Schissel | Sound the Note! 17:37, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Please expand. I do not find Nepomuceno mentioned anywhere in this article, though his own bio article mentions Villa-Lobos as among his pupils. Is that the point?—Jerome Kohl (talk) 22:27, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

text: Well, then, all we need is a reliable source. Caution is indicated, however, given the long history of "reliable sources" on this composer that have proved less than reliable upon closer examination.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 02:49, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

text: Gerard Béhague in New Grove fails to mention Nepomuceno at all. The other obvious places to look are the biographies by Tarasti, Peppercorn, Negwer, and Wright. Volpe's 2001 dissertation discusses Nepomuceno alongside Gomes and Villa-Lobos, but I can't recall whether any teacher-student relationship is mentioned.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 03:19, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

text: OK, scratch Volpe's dissertation from the list of sources to investigate. Despite her extensive discussion of Brazilianism in Nepomuceno's music, she never once mentions that Villa-Lobos studied with him.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 03:29, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nepomuceno