Talk:Maurice Ravel

Template:Vital article

Infobox, revisted

I came to this page searching for some basic biographical information about Ravel - nationality, year of birth, year and cause of death, etc. - and was surprised to see that there is no infobox. I see that there has previously been shockingly heated debate around this question, so I wanted to ask the talk page before simply adding one. I see no reason not to add an infobox to this page, as it would simply make certain information easily accessible in the style and format that is typical of wikipedia biographies. But don't want my head to get bitten off for acting on that opinion... thoughts? Lamacha9617 (talk) 16:27, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

Info-boxes are useful when they give the visitor to the page a quick overview: a cricketer's statistics, a politician's posts, an animal's taxonomy, a place's geographical details and so forth. But for composers they cannot give the reader any useful overview. Have a look at composer articles where there are info-boxes: e.g. Robert Schumann: the one there tells us the name of his nine children and nothing whatever about his music. What could be added to tell people about his music? That he wrote some. What would we include? What criteria would be applied to the choice? The lead mentions some (not all) of RS's best-known works. We'd look pretty silly repeating them immediately alongside in the info-box. What is the best-known thing about Schumann apart from his music? That he went mad. Do we put that in the info-box? The musical artist info-box is designed for people in popular music: "label", "genre", "associated acts", "website". The works of classical composers do not lend themselves to being summarised in a few words, a fact realised by whoever added the staggeringly unhelpful info-box to Beethoven's article, which tells the reader his place and date of birth and death and then, God save us!, asks the poor reader to click into a different article altogether, where he/she is confronted with a list of 148 compositions, with no indication of which are the most important. That is frankly an insult to our readers. The info-box guideline says that i-bs are "'at-a-glance", and used for quickly checking facts'". What facts about Ravel could we usefully put in an i-b? No, let us give a pithy overview of a composer's life and works in the lead section and not pretend we can adequately summarise them in an info-box. Tim riley talk 17:34, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

I see this discussion only now. Schumann's infobox shows his work, and no children (as of 2021). I support a similar concise infobox for Ravel as well. Beethoven's infobox was commuity consensus, in 2015. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:58, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

To be honest, I also see no harm in adding an infobox like Lamacha9617, especially for readers who are just quickly gleaning the article for certain stats such as date and location of birth and death, age at death, birthplace, alma mater, signature, which era of classical music, etc. as I don't think anyone is suggesting that the article introduction or article itself be replaced by an infobox.

In my opinion, having infoboxes helps save time for readers, especially younger ones or those of non-musical backgrounds who don't have the time to read through the entire article in one sitting and just wanted to know one or two small things about the biography. For example, someone who just wanted to know Ravel's age at death without having to scroll all the way to the end just to find out. I do strongly believe in accessibility for all readers and that Wikipedia articles should be written for general readers per WP:TECHNICAL; however, I won't challenge the status quo if it has already been decided that Ravel won't be getting an infobox. Respectfully, WuTang94 (talk) 04:01, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

I completely agree with @WuTang94, I also see no harm in adding an infobox. I don't see the purpose of not including basic information in an easily accessible manner, as nearly every other article includes it in some way. Personally, I also feel that it seems to place some articles above others. Why should a composer like Liszt have his birth and death, occupation, and signature placed for all to see, but not Ravel? It not only helps to have more uniformity among articles (in my opinion) but also seems to help break the "higher than thou" mindset often associated with classical music - which I highly detest. If great writers like Mary Shelley and Leo Tolstoy, artists like Da Vinci and Picasso, and nearly every great artist have one, why not honor composers as well? The average Wikipedia reader, likely won't think to themselves "Wow, Ravel does not have an infobox, I must therefore read the article in its entirety!" and more likely "huh, this Ravel guy doesn't have the little side thingy, weird. Maybe he's not that important?"

I also find it extremely useful simply for the brevity of it, where you don't have to skim essentially an entire synopsis of their life to find basic information. I like to arrange and transcribe pieces, and I try to add the dates of the composer's life, but often I can't find the dates due to being used to having an info box.

I do not see why we should distinguish composers by making it more difficult for the average reader. Pacamah (talk) 06:22, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

See my explanation above. No consensus for adding this pointless and unhelpful clutter. Who in Heaven's name needs to see Ravel's autograph? And how is is compliant with Wikipedia's policy that IBs sum up key points of the text? Tim riley talk 07:58, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

I mean, how does an infobox relate to most pages? Shakespeare's infobox doesn't give me any information besides that he writes in a specific period and place, or yet, why should his father have an IB if it doesn't tell me any specifics about his life? Most pages relating to notable people seem to have signatures as well, so I don't see why Ravel's (or more generally, any composer's) autograph should be singled out. Should we replace it with how they pen their treble clefs?

Also, I think this is my first actual talk chain! (Is that the right word? I guess it keeps up with the notion of classical musicians arguing, haha!) Thanks for replying to my message literally two years after your first one, hopefully my contributions can reach the level of yours one day (though I have a lot more to learn before then).

Thank you for all your work on the many pages you have helped with! Pacamah (talk) 08:32, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

The only pointless and unhelpful clutter about infoboxes is the constant incessant warring about it that seems to happen EVERY DAMN TIME someone who isn't one of the small group of weird anti-infobox editors finds a page without one and wants to add one like almost every other damn page. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 12:34, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

I rather object to the hurtful comment that I am a "weird" "anti-info-box" editor. I add info-boxes to all sorts of articles, most recently [Chicken chasseur|this one]], but only when they fulfil Wikipedia's policy of summing up key points in the text. The proposed box for Ravel tells us that he was born, died and could sign his name. As directing the reader to another page entirely that is a blatant breach of Wikipedia's policy. Not helpful to our readers, which is why almost every major contributor to composer FAs has been against adding them. Tim riley talk 13:36, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

Which concertos

…only four of his works were conceived as concert works for symphony orchestra: Rapsodie espagnole, La valse and the two piano concertos. All the other orchestral works were written either for the stage, as in Daphnis et Chloé, or as a reworking of piano pieces…

There have been reversions of the descriptive 'piano', with the edit summary "We must not imply falsely that there are other concertos: that is why we chose the wording, approved at FAC". That concern strikes me as misplaced; is there actually previous discussion? Sparafucil (talk) 21:23, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

I think the numerous previous mentions of the piano concertos and conspicuous absence of mention of any non-existent concertos for other instruments is something of a hint. You seem to be on a mission of some sort, but I'm blest if I can see what it is. Tim riley talk 21:32, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

Afterthought after another rereading: other editors who watch the article may have views, but for my own part, if it gives you pleasure, Sparafucil, to add "piano" I shall not demur. I don't think it is v. helpful to the reader but nor, methinks, though repetitive, is it unhelpful. Tim riley talk 23:15, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

Even more pleasure to have worked things out with you: some readers may be jumping straight to the #Orchestral works section. I of course came to this from my watchlist changes, with even less context than that! Sparafucil (talk) 02:08, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

Works dedicated to Ravel

The recent extensive addition seems to me to unbalance the article. I suggest we hive it off to a separate article, with a one-sentence mention in and a link from the main article. Thoughts invited on this suggestion. Tim riley talk 21:27, 10 December 2022 (UTC)