Jump to content

Talk:Philip Glass/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2

Article too long?

Do others agree with me this this article is disproportionately long and detailed in relation to the importance of this composer in the great scheme of things? It runs to some 5000 words - more than 10% longer than the article on Beethoven himself! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.232.212.61 (talk) 13:23, 3 June 2008 (UTC) No, considering Glass's prolific output and importance, the article is very concise. There are tons of books and information about Beethoven (incidentally my second favorite composer next to Glass), but not much info available on Glass, even though he is the most important composer alive today. It doesn't even go into much detail about his most important works. Glass has written a lot of music, and the article is basically a rundown of his works (and it even misses a few, such as "1000 Airplanes on the Roof" which I did not see mentioned). Glass drew 2,200 people for a concert of "Music in 12 Parts" (a work completed 35 years ago) in San Francisco on a Monday evening, Feb. 16, 2009, which started at 5pm and ended around 10:30. How many other composers could achieve a turnout like that for a four hour work written 35 years ago? He drew almost 10,000 for a performance of Koyaanisqatsi at the Hollywood Bowl, July 23, 2009. His music is everywhere- used in the new "Watchmen" film, American Express TV ads, you name it. He's the only serious composer to be the musical guest on Saturday Night Live. I could go on and on, but hopefully you get the idea. His new work, "Songs and Poems for Solo Cello" is a masterpiece. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.79.155.1 (talk) 20:54, 27 February 2009 (UTC) I think it could be longer. If possible, somehow some musical examples (just showing some harmonic movement so as not to mess with copyright) would be great. Gingermint (talk) 06:12, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Introduction

His music is frequently described as minimalist. Is there such a controversy that we must state that some people think of him as a minimalist musician, instead of simply stating that he is a minimalist musician? --Liberlogos 05:28, 2 Aug 2004 (UTC) culminating in the four-hour-long Music in Twelve Parts (1971-1974), which ironically uses a twelve-note theme as the material of the last part. Is ironic really the right word to use here? Is this really ironic at all? He himself does not want to be called a minimalist. "I wish that word was stamped out" is his comment about it. He freely admits that all work up to and including Music in Twelve Parts may be called minimalist, but starting with Einstein on the Beach his work had reached maturity and therefore was no longer experimental. I think its a good idea to keep the idea that not everyone sees his music as this way, although it is a good shorthand for classifying his music. catisonh 06:33, Aug 18, 2004 (UTC) Ransom Wilson was a flutist for Philip Glass during the original performances of Einstein on the Beach. Regarding Glass' repetition, he said, "At first I was bored-- very bored. The music seemed to have no direction, almost giving the impression of a gigantic phonograph with a stuck needle. I was first irritated and then angry that I'd been taken in by this crazy composer who obviously doted on repetition. I thought of leaving. Then, with no conscious awareness, I crossed a threshold and found that the music was touching me, carrying me with it. I began to perceive within it a whole world where change happens so slowly and carefully that each new harmony or rhythmic addition or subtraction seemed monumental."--Dar-Ape 00:56, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC) It's interesting that Philip Glass and Peter Shickele were at Juilliard at the same time, and Glass helped Shickele build the first hardart for the Concerto for Horn and Hardart. I'm not saying this is significant, but it is interesting. Here's the citation: http://www.juilliard.edu/update/journal/j_articles285.html That must have been one heck of a composition class.

That is pretty cool. Why does the name Albert Fine sound familiar? Isn't he a famous composer too? I think its funny to see Glass with a cigarette in his mouth back then. -- Suso 18:08, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

As a huge Glass fan, I don't care for the mentioning of Richard Strauss, Kurt Weill, and Leonard Bernstein in the opening paragraph. PG deserves a much better one! I don't care for Strauss' music, and Leonard Bernstein called Glass "Philip Plexiglass". Why do these names have to be mentioned here? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.168.2.173 (talk) 03:00, 9 July 2010 (UTC) This long list of friends, collaborators, etc. does not belong in the introduction, if anywhere. Globbet (talk) 15:20, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

I somewhat understand your opposition to it in the lede section, as the lede is to summarise the article, but it should be kept in the article with references. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:50, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

The list is longer than the actual "connections" section. Wikipedia is not a gossip magazine. I don't think people care who his friends are. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.165.143.228 (talk) 22:47, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Interesting. It should be moved not removed. It's interesting since this is an art music composer who has "friends" in areas that are not art music. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:03, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

A joke

I just wanted to put this out there, as I find it pretty damn hilarious: Knock knock Who's there? Knock knock Who's there? Knock knock Who's there? Knock knock Who's there? Knock knock Who's there? Philip Glass! aubrey 22:17, 9 December 2006 (UTC) If you had thought that through (and to be a bit sniffy), the joke should have more accurately gone something like that : Knock knock - who's there? Knock knock knock - who's there? Knock knock knock knock - who's there? Knock knock knock - who's there? Knock knock - who's there? But then again, by phrasing it that way, it would then make logical sense, rendering the (incorrect) original point of the "joke" rather idiotic and false (not that it needed much help in the first place to qualify in those categories, mind you.) Try this other one: - Philip Glass Organ Works - Mine does too...! Now that one is far funnier.

"Cuddly persona" paragraph

I have removed the following from the text as a potential POV violation:

"Philip cultivates a "cuddly" persona as a contrast to former ensemble mate Steve Reich, but ensures that his mini-empire of publishing companies, record labels and recording studios is run as a tight ship by deploying his "bully boys" Kurt Munkacsi and Rory Gallager (the former road manager for the Sex Pistols) to do his dirty work."

The anonymous user who posted the above also placed a questionable and erroneous statement regarding Laurie Anderson being the heir to a paint company fortune (something that no one I've contacted has been able to confirm). I do not know enough about Glass to make the same claim about the edit made here, but at the very least I think it needs to be reworded.23skidoo 02:53, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I would consider it a NPOV policy violation, and not potential, though possibly done in ignorance of the policy, linked to again here:
The fact that Laurie Anderson has been similarly edited against the NPOV policy is slightly alarming as it does suggest vandalism, though, again, it could be a new editor or someone otherwise ignorant of the NPOV policy.
However, Glass takes obvious pains to sculpt his public image (which I consider ego-centric), though I have no idea what his "dirty work" is (I picture something out of the Godfather, a stuffed-cheek Phil ordering somebody wiped out). More importantly, POV's are great, I think they are the best part of articles, but they need to be stated in a neutral way. I would love to see a quote or citation for the point of view that Glass cultivates a cuddly image while being a ruthless businessperson. Hyacinth 03:08, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Exactly. I'm not out to defend Glass any more than I'm out to defend Laurie Anderson against a veiled claim that she doesn't need arts grants to do her work (as I interpreted the Anderson edit to imply). But as both additions stand, I consider them borderline libel. If 194.237.142.21 can provide a source, great. But I agree with you that these two edits are close to being vandalism. But let's see what happens. I've got both the Glass and Anderson pages on my Watch list so if this person makes good on the previous edits, then no harm done. I agree there is nothing wrong with POV but they have to be balanced and, when necessary, attributed. 23skidoo 03:38, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Life and Work

This section seems focused on the professional work of Philip Glass and the section is only loosely chronological; so how and where do you best fit in personal details? For example, "He also has two kids, Zack Glass and Juliet Glass" (that tidbit is quite disconnected in it's current location) and the fact that his first wife, and mother of his children, was JoAnne Akalaitis; his current (forth) wife is Holly Critchlow; his third wife died of cancer, etc. There seems to be no logical or intuitive place to include this information. Comments? - Ra* 06:26, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

If I was going to do anything I would seperate the two, making a "Life" section and a "Work" section. I would seperate out the information and then make it chronological, if possible. Hyacinth 08:26, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

A list of works would be nice, or a separate page for that, or (if one already exists and I simply haven't found it) a more obvious link to the list of works. -Unregistered user, 12:33, 4 February 2007

This list is located at List of compositions by Philip Glass. It's the first link in the "Life and Work" section, although it's definitely easy to overlook. Rmannion 20:45, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

I think Ra* is right, there needs to be more information about his personal life. For example, I think Glass has been married 4 times (last time I checked). His third marriage may be the most significant. Its been a while since i read about it, but apparently his 3rd wife died abruptly in the late 80s, like 88 or 89, around the time of 1000 Airplanes On The Roof. I've never been able to find out for sure, but this seemed to have had a direct and dramatic affect on his music. To me, all the music that came after 89 was less powerful and much quieter. He delved into chamber music a lot more and even his film scores where quaint in comparison to earlier film scores. For the sake of the article providing a good overview of his life and music, I think its important to look into this further. -- Suso (talk) 13:47, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

123 123 123432 1234 234...

sa composition est souvent parfaite et tellement limpide... Cette musique a été le renouveau de la musique classique et de la musique experimentale. Ils furent peu nombreux les Young les Riley les Reich, à aller au delà des notes écrites et jouées,et encore moins présents les Nyman, les Shore(et encore),à offrir leur vision au cinéma et vice versa... mecanicule french musician

I don't mind that you decided to write a description of his style... but why did you do it in French on the English talk page? --Thaddius 16:05, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

selected discography updates

I cleaned up and added quite a few things to the discography today. I suppose we could go for a more "complete" discography, but that would be huge and is available several other places online... --Funks 21:55, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

I noticed - thanks. I reckon edited highlights and whatever anyone feels passionate enough about to add is the best way to let things go. Nice to meet a fellow fan. SophiaGilraen of Dorthonion 07:40, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't see any discography here at all - only a list of compositions, which is a very different thing. Unlike someone such as Bach, for whom a list of compositions is appropriate, Glass produced and performed on his own albums, as well as having many pieces premiered by others. A discography of his albums, collaborations, productions (such as Ray Manzarek's Carmina Burana,) and works recorded by others is long, long overdue.71.205.194.20 (talk) 11:59, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

References

I think it's a bit ridiculous to have an "unreferenced" template at the top of this article, as it clearly has perfectly good references. No, they're not inline, but it is referenced, and is far far better referenced than the vast majority of articles on Wikipedia. I wonder why someone would stick that template on top of the article without even requesting inlines on the talk page? In other circumstances I've only seen inlines requested for disputed statements (if you've have inlines for every accepted fact about someone it's really just cite-cruft, and not consistent with academic practice), and when something is up for FA status. So I guess what I'm trying to say is: WTF? Mak (talk) 16:34, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Nothing in this article is cited and thus none of it is "referenced". Please see Wikipedia:Citing sources. Hyacinth 05:14, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
If I still had my Grove subscription I would already have added inlines. :( Is there anything specific that needs to be referenced? Because for a well-known figure there's only so much that needs to have inline citations. And, no, no inlines does not = unreferenced, it equals not as well referenced, and labeling the references as Other Reading or whatever doesn't change that. I understand that this article doesn't follow best practice, and I don't have a problem with wanting it to be improved. However, it doesn't follow worst practice either, since it is referenced. Would you say Alessandro nelle Indie is unreferenced? Perhaps I should throw in some inlines there, in order avoid a disagreeement such as this in the future. Mak (talk) 15:10, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Rating

Giving this a label "B" rating (see top). It is well past a "start" article but has a ways to go.

Merge sections

What's the purpose of having seperate "Works" and " Selected discography" sections? Shouldn't the latter be merged into the former? Dar-Ape 19:55, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

This page is getting a little long, so unless someone objects, I am going to merge Glass' "works" and "selected discography" sections and then move them to a new page, analogous to List of compositions by Johann Sebastian Bach. Dar-Ape 03:41, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
Note: I have implemented both my suggestions. Dar-Ape 04:38, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Oddly written sentence

From Philip Glass#New Directions: Symphonies, Chamber Operas and Concerti:

The trend of juxtaposing the two idioms which started with the Etudes for Piano and Les Enfants Terribles, and also surfaced to some extent in a score for Godfrey Reggio's Naqoyqatsi (2002), in the Chamber Opera The Sound of a Voice (2003), to a lesser extent in the series of Concertos since 2000 (with mixed results), and in three symphonies which are centered on the interplay of either vocalist or chorus and orchestra.

I don't think there's a verb there, and I don't know what/where it should be... --zenohockey 22:31, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

I fixed the grammar so now "surfaced" is the verb, but it is still a bit awkward and could be rewritten more. Thanks for catching this, Dar-Ape 00:25, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Philip Glass biography - inaccuracy

Hi - I'm not a contributor to Wikipedia, but I wanted you to know about this error so you can correct it. I'm a journalist and this week I interviewed Philip Glass. Wikipedia's biography states that he is a Buddhist and I mentioned this. He is not, he assured me, nor has he ever been. Of course, he has studied Buddhism and supports the Tibetan cause, and this has led many people believe he has embraced Buddhism, so it's an understandable mistake. But no, he isn't a Buddhist. Hope this is helpful. Andrew Burnet80.41.236.198 14:08, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

This is a bit late, but for the record, I excised the disputed material shortly after Andrew pointed it out. Rmannion 04:30, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

This sounds an appropriate excision, but for the record, what precisely is the distinction here (between "studying" and "embracing")? I bring this up because there is some confusion about Leonard Cohen's standing in respect to Buddhism as well. If someone tells me he is an Episcopalian, for example, I usually take that to mean that he was brought up as an Episcopalian, that he attended an Episcopalian church regularly with his parents as a child. I have no idea what sort of religious upbringing Glass had, but I have read he comes from a Jewish heritage (as does Leonard Cohen), and I'd guess he was not brought up as a Buddhist (as Leonard Cohen was not).TheScotch 08:35, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Influences and connections

Re: "Early admirers included musicians Brian Eno and David Bowie, who acknowledged the influence of Glass's minimalist style.": I've three concerns here. 1) The first has to do with the title of this section. I would take influence, singular, to mean the effect Glass has had on others and "influences", plural, to mean the effect others have had on Glass. In the sentence I've quoted above we're clearly talking about influence, not "influences". "Connections" would seem to comprise both influence and "influences", making "influences" redundant. I think a title such as "Antecedents and Influence" would be better. 2) The second has to do with perspective. Relatively minor "connections" are mentioned here while the main and most obvious connection is completely neglected. No mention is made here of Lamont Young, Terry Riley, and Steve Reich, although the Steve Reich article makes a particular point of this lineage. The discrepancy may have simply to do with different editors working on the respective articles or may have to do with some sort of perceived obeisance to Glass's putative wishes, considering that, as Steve Reich has pointedly remarked, of the four composers in question only Glass has failed to acknowledge the lineage. Terry Riley worked with Lamont Young and has always acknowledged Young's influence. Steve Reich worked with Terry Riley and belatedly came to acknowledge Riley's influence. Philip Glass worked with Steve Reich as an early member of Reich's ensemble (and was a fellow student with him at Julliard) but has never (so far as I know) acknowledged Reich's influence--although everyone else, except wikipedia apparently, has always remarked about it. TheScotch 09:05, 25 February 2007 (UTC) 3) The third is more particular. I don't think the "early" jibes well with lumping Brian Eno and Glass together in the passage I've quoted, considering that the two didn't work together until Glass had already had enormous mainstream success with Einstein on the Beach.TheScotch 09:05, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

citations needed

I added a template tag for the claim that the Composer's Notes documentary was released on DVD in 2005. The title is nowhere to be found via searching online vendors. That wouldn't account for private release, but the current wording implies a commercial product was available as of that date. I also added a tag for the use of the word "appearance" on South Park. It's more likely that the show included a spoof of Glass, and I can't verify that Glass voiced himself for the episode by way of a Google search. If it *is* just a spoof, the wording needs to be changed. —scarecroe 05:09, 11 March 2007 (UTC) On the South Park episode, the Philip Glass character does not speak, he is just shown playing a keyboard. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.79.155.1 (talk) 21:03, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

New York and Nova Scotia

Which one?Lehi 04:53, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Other appearances

Is it worth mentioning the usage of his music in other media - adverts/computer games (he features in GTAIV, for instance)? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Duncan Burnside (talk • contribs) 00:51, 12 May 2008 (UTC) I've only just got into philip glass very recently and I recognised Metamorphosis 1 as being used in the new Battlestar Galactica quite a lot in the last 2 series (http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Music_of_Battlestar_Galactica_(re-imagining)) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.19.62.122 (talk) 01:47, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Trivia. No, unless, you can incorporate it into the body of the article and cite the information with Wikipedia:Reliable sources. Hyacinth (talk) 21:20, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Infobox

Per Wikipedia:WikiProject_Composers#Lead_section and WP:WPO#Infoboxes, consensus exists not to include an infobox opera/composer pages such as this one, unless a contrary consensus exists with respect to the individual article. No such contrary consensus exists here. Fireplace 21:47, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

I have reverted again. The infobox issue should be resolved centrally edit warring to restore it verges on WP:POINT. Eusebeus 22:29, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
I am in agreement with Fireplace and Eusebeus. This page should not be subject to WP:POINT attacks. The same thing applies to Steve Reich and Michael Nyman. --Kleinzach 03:56, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
Sigh, I guess because of the POINTs, we're going to have to go through this everywhere... (anti-infobox Myke) -- --Myke Cuthbert 16:47, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
Hello. I do not understand the controversy. Why we can not use something like this as infobox?
Philip Glass
Background information
GenresMinimalist,
Classical,
Contemporary classical,
Ambient
OccupationComposer
Years active1956-present

--Mattman13 (talk) 16:16, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

I also don't understand why we can't have an infobox on here. I was just about to add one (as I recently did for Leonard Bernstein) -- why can't we have one? -- Hugh 06:46, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
(Resetting tab.) I don't have the links on hand, but basically you'll find that there was a lengthy discussion regarding whether to use infoboxes in the appropriate WikiProject, and consensus was to 'not have infoboxes for composers'. You'll find the reasons there, but in the meantime, we'd better not add any boxes, at least until that consensus changes. Warrickball (talk) 20:44, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
As I've come to understand it, some editors at the composer's wikiproject (discussion here) have decided that since it is difficult to determine some information to a specific degree of accuracy regarding classical composers (ie. nobody knows the exact birthdate of Ludwig van Beethoven) no composer should have an infobox, regardless as to whether they are classical or contemporary. Personally I have no problem adding an infobox because contemporary composers biographical data can be verified and in the case of classical composers, if data can't be found simply don't fill in the field and it won't be displayed.
At the same time, the composer's manual of style states that if a user was interested in adding an infobox they can seek concensus at a specific article's talk page which seems to be going on here. This attempt just doesn't look like it counts for much because it can apparently be overridden by the project that suggested this very action. Hewinsj (talk) 13:06, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
It is not true that the discussion here decided NO composers should have an infobox. Many of those users argue that infoboxes are appropriate on certain articles and inappropriate on others. Hyacinth (talk) 00:31, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
This discussion was over and finished a long time ago. See here. After exhaustive debate it was decided that should not be used on composers pages without consensus. Hyacinth: please cooperate with other editors and remove the infobox you have just restored. --Kleinzach 02:00, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

I think the infobox adds to the article and it seems like several editors here prefer it. Perhaps we should determine consensus? Akohler Talk @ 02:34, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

I am not opposed to using an info box. Hewinsj (talk) 21:02, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

I would also support an infobox here. I can't see any real good reason to exclude it other than personal taste since all of the information is backed up by the article. I'm going ahead and restoring it due to the more general consensus these have outside of the local wikiproject. ThemFromSpace 05:47, 24 July 2010 (UTC)


Students?

A lot of the articles on great composers at least mention some students that they had. However, I've never heard of any students of Philip Glass. Does anyone know? It would be significant because all students of Nadia Boulanger are linked with several other great classical composers via the Boulanger -> Fauré -> Saint-Saëns -> Liszt -> Beethoven line. -- Suso (talk) 13:46, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Links removed per WP:EL
Writings
Interviews
Publisher
Articles, reviews, etc.

Composers project review

I have reviewed this article as part of the Composers project review of its B-class articles. You can find my detailed review on the comments page. The article is pretty good, but it has some things it can improve. It is still B-class. Comments on my review can be left here or on my talk page. Magic♪piano 18:29, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Photograph

The photograph is unattractive, underexposed, on-camera flash, up-the-nose angle and makes Philip look uncharacteristically snooty - surely there's a better one. Remember he is the subject of one of Chuck Close's large scale portraits. Ben Rinner's meditative seated image (he has a gimmick of photographing musicians with their eyes shut that produces some lovely images) http://benrinner.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/04/philipglass-542x660.jpg. Then there's Richard Avedon's 1980s shot of him looking through a broken window (very visual punny Richard!. Eric Antoniou's finger on the cheek shot is at least nicely lit if rather conventional. Also Peter Kollany's shot for Ricky Mountain News. Let's face it, we're dealing with an attractive face here that deserves better!sinarau (talk) 02:34, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

I often frequent this article, and always get irritated at that stupid picture of him. Of all the magnificent, intellectual-looking pictures they could have chosen, they chose the one where he resembles a sleeping drunkard. Please change that! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.67.109.7 (talk) 05:20, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

If you have a better photo that may be used on Wikipedia, feel free to supply it to us and then we can use it. They must not be copyrighted. Close's, Rinner's, Avedon's, Antoniou's, and Kollany's mentioned above all are. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:25, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Suggested Addition to Awards Section

{{request edit}}

I am a member of the NEA's Public Affairs Department. I would like to suggest the following addition to Mr. Glass's bio:

Philip Glass is the recipient of a 2010 NEA Opera Honors Award from the National Endowment for the Arts.

This information can be verified here: http://www.arts.gov/honors/opera/media/2010-opera-honorees.html Starke arts (talk) 20:25, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

It was already added on 22 July [1].  Chzz  ►  06:25, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Alleged controversy

First added by an IP and now continually reentered this "controversy" has no WP:RSs added to the edit and would seem to violate WP:BLP, WP:NPOV and WP:UNDUE among others. IMO until some proof can be added that this "controversy" even exists the edit should not be included. MarnetteD | Talk 15:25, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

File:Nadia Boulanger 1966.jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Nadia Boulanger 1966.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests July 2011
What should I do?
A discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. If you feel the deletion can be contested then please do so (commons:COM:SPEEDY has further information). Otherwise consider finding a replacement image before deletion occurs.

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 14:07, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Stoker addition

Not sure why IMDB isn't a sufficient source for the entry. Please explain. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:00, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

For this sort of thing, it apparently is. We can find a better reference when the film leaves post-production and it gets some write-ups. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:04, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
Hard to believe that you have not seen the numerous discussions about IMDb. WP:USERGENERATED is one of several places that IMDb is mentioned as not meeting WikiP's criteria as a RS. It is a wiki with content added by anyone and little to no fact checking. The fact that it has been used in other places just means that those should be removed, or another source found, not that it can be used in other places. What is amazing is that you won't take the time to find a reliable source to replace it. Since your MO is to edit war over this kind of thing I will leave it as is and take this page off my watchlist. Other than this situation I will once again state my thanks to you for taking care of this page. MarnetteD | Talk 18:14, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
It is a reliable source based on the link I gave you, not a self-published source. It may still be user-generated, but that does not detract from its reliability. If you have a discussion that you can back your point with feel free to add it.
If you want a more reliable source, do it yourself. If you don't like the ref, tag it yourself. If you didn't like the original addition, you should have marked it with a Citation needed tag yourself.
What I find amazing is that you haven't tagged or removed the other unreferenced film information you have decided to make this your battle for the day. The current reference is sufficient. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:39, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

collaborating with the dead?

"Glass counts many artists among his friends and collaborators, including... writers (... Allen Ginsberg)" -- maybe better might be: "Glass has counted many artists among his friends and collaborators..."? -- Oniscoid (talk) 03:44, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Both are acceptable, but the latter makes more sense after the subject has died not those with whom he has worked have. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:07, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
surely not? "Glass counts..." (present tense) implies that Glass collaborates with the dead (which if true, should be referenced separately) -- "Glass has counted..." (past present tense) is correct if the subject is alive, but leaves open to some extent whether the individual friendships and collaborations have continued into the present -- were the subject no longer alive, then "Glass counted..." (past tense) would be correct - Oniscoid (talk) 00:42, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
Surely. Glass counts, present tense of the subject, Glass. The subject states that he, who is still alive, has collaborated with others, some of whom may be dead now and the subject counts them as collaborators. Has counted would imply that the subject no longer counts them as having collaborated with him. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:03, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
when i count my friends i don't usually include those who are dead -- do you? does Glass? -- it would be clearer to write, "Glass counts many artists among his past and present friends and collaborators..."; but this perhaps lacks elegance -- let us agree to disagree about the grammatical meaning of the perfect ('past present') tense -- it's a small point (tho one which i suspect may reoccur should he outlive more of his friends and collaborators) - Oniscoid (talk) 19:30, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
Yes I do count friends who have died among my friends, however we're not talking about friends, we're talking about friends and collaborators. A collaborator is anyone with whom I have collaborated. I have collaborated, musically speaking, with two people who are now dead (and many more who are still living). This is the same case as this article. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:42, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
The present continuous tense describes an action that occurred at an unspecified time before the present time and continues at this point and has every expectation of continuing. The idea of collaboration is in the present continuous sense, however not all of the collaborators are. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:32, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Philip Glass/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

Comment(s)Press [show] to view →
==Composers Project Assessment of Philip Glass: 2008-11-17==

This is an assessment of article Philip Glass by a member of the Composers project, according to its assessment criteria. This review was done by Magicpiano.

If an article is well-cited, the reviewer is assuming that the article reflects reasonably current scholarship, and deficiencies in the historical record that are documented in a particular area will be appropriately scored. If insufficient inline citations are present, the reviewer will assume that deficiencies in that area may be cured, and that area may be scored down.

Adherence to overall Wikipedia standards (WP:MOS, WP:WIAGA, WP:WIAFA) are the reviewer's opinion, and are not a substitute for the Wikipedia's processes for awarding Good Article or Featured Article status.

===Origins/family background/studies=== Does the article reflect what is known about the composer's background and childhood? If s/he received musical training as a child, who from, is the experience and nature of the early teachers' influences described?

  • Good

===Early career=== Does the article indicate when s/he started composing, discuss early style, success/failure? Are other pedagogic and personal influences from this time on his/her music discussed?

  • Good

===Mature career=== Does the article discuss his/her adult life and composition history? Are other pedagogic and personal influences from this time on his/her music discussed?

  • Musical work coverage is good, personal details are lacking.

===List(s) of works=== Are lists of the composer's works in WP, linked from this article? If there are special catalogs (e.g. Köchel for Mozart, Hoboken for Haydn), are they used? If the composer has written more than 20-30 works, any exhaustive listing should be placed in a separate article.

  • Good

===Critical appreciation=== Does the article discuss his/her style, reception by critics and the public (both during his/her life, and over time)?

  • Good. Commentary is largely interspersed with the biographic details. A separate section might at some point become appropriate.

===Illustrations and sound clips=== Does the article contain images of its subject, birthplace, gravesite or other memorials, important residences, manuscript pages, museums, etc? Does it contain samples of the composer's work (as composer and/or performer, if appropriate)? (Note that since many 20th-century works are copyrighted, it may not be possible to acquire more than brief fair use samples of those works, but efforts should be made to do so.) If an article is of high enough quality, do its images and media comply with image use policy and non-free content policy? (Adherence to these is needed for Good Article or Featured Article consideration, and is apparently a common reason for nominations being quick-failed.)

  • One sound clip. Article could use more images (not necessarily of the subject), given its length. Sound clip is fair-used, would need to check WP:FUC for FA status.

===References, sources and bibliography=== Does the article contain a suitable number of references? Does it contain sufficient inline citations? (For an article to pass Good Article nomination, every paragraph possibly excepting those in the lead, and every direct quotation, should have at least one footnote.) If appropriate, does it include Further Reading or Bibliography beyond the cited references?

  • Article requires more inline cites for GA/FA.

===Structure and compliance with WP:MOS=== Does the article comply with Wikipedia style and layout guidelines, especially WP:MOS, WP:LEAD, WP:LAYOUT, and possibly WP:SIZE? (Article length is not generally significant, although Featured Articles Candidates may be questioned for excessive length.)

    • The lead, while fairly well-written, is not per WP:LEAD a summarization of the article. It contains things not contained in the article (the Ira Glass reference), and does not summarize the bio.
    • Editors need to be wary of WP:SELFPUB, a number of the citations refer to Glass-written publications or interviews with him. It's not clear to me if the level of their use is problematic, but the article may benefit from scrutiny in this regard.

===Things that may be necessary to pass a Good Article review===

  • Article requires more inline citations (WP:CITE)
  • Article lead needs work (WP:LEAD)
  • Article needs (more) images and/or other media (MOS:IMAGE)
  • Images and media have copyright/fair-use issues (WP:IUP or more specific GA/FA criteria) (sound clip is copyrighted/fair-used, need to check against WP:FUC for FA consideration)

===Summary=== This article contains a wealth of musical-biography about the subject. It is short on personal biography, especially in the middle-later years. There is one issue I couldn't fit well into the boilerplate above, because it is in part opinion:

Most of the article is organized by time, and contains commentary on style and critical reception throughout. Then there is a separate subsection on his film music. In my opinion, this seems out of place, leading to questions like:
  • why a separate section, when much of it is covered elsewhere?
  • why not additional separate sections on other musical genres, e.g. opera, concertante, orchestral/symphony?

There is a fair amount of WP:SELFPUB reference to Glass publications and interviews. While with a living, active, and vocal subject, this is clearly unavoidable, I wonder if there's too much of it. I've not done an analysis; this is just an impression, but it may raise flags and require justification if the article reaches GA or FA review.

The article could use more images; they need not be of Glass, just somehow relevant to the context where they appear.

The lead, while interesting reading, does not satisfy WP:LEAD, which states that the lead should be summarize the important points of the article. It mentions several things (his religious "affiliation" and his relationship to Ira Glass both stood out) that do not occur elsewhere in the article.

Article is still B-class. Magic♪piano 18:27, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Last edited at 13:27, 11 December 2008 (UTC). Substituted at 20:38, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Redux: infobox problems

This is a summary of the debate (above), about editing the infobox in line with the content of the article:

Supported by Kleinzach, Gerda Arendt, Michael Bednarek, Opus33
Opposed/reverted by Walter Görlitz [2]
  • Deletion of record labels field in the infobox
Recommended by Michael Bednarek, Kleinzach, Johnuniq, Opus33.
Opposed/reverted by Walter Görlitz [3], [4]
  • Lead sentence: "Philip Morris Glass (born January 31, 1937) is an American composer and performer of contemporary classical music " to be changed to ‘’Philip Morris Glass (born January 31, 1937) is an American composer”’‘.
Supported by Kleinzach, Opus33
Opposed by Walter Görlitz

To understand the editorial impasse here, I note Walter Görlitz states "the article needs to be expanded to discuss the information discussed in the infobox".[5] "I wouldn't call [Glass] a composer either. He's a song writer. He is also a performer. As stated below, Glass' music would not be known today if it had not been for his performances of his compositions with his ensemble. Period." . . [6].

Any comments? Kleinzach 05:23, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

  • I really find the 'debate' difficult to comprehend. Glass played some of his own works, especially in the early days. In that sense, Glass's favourite composer Schubert could also be listed as a performer - he also played his own stuff from time to time - but we wouldn't think of listing him as a performer - would we? Similarly he has written songs, as did Schubert, but his ambitions seem to have been (as with Schubert) to create art-works rather than top 10 hits, so why 'downgrade' him culturally to 'songwriter' from 'composer'? I doubt that many people who have attended his vocal works could hum his 'songs'. I would dispute that Glass is primarily, or even generally at all, known as a performer, outside the US. Walter Görlitz's views, which he is entitled to hold, are nonetheless WP:OR - his sources do not prove, or even indicate, that 'Glass's music would not be known today if it had not been for his performances of his compositions'. They are just other people's opinions. Therefore if there has to be an infobox at all, I am with Kleinzach. For what it's worth, as in my opinion Glass is vastly over-rated anyway.--Smerus (talk) 09:49, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
  • The second quote of Walter Görlitz's comments above ("I wouldn't call [Glass] a composer either. He's a song writer.") is patent nonsense, as is the current lead sentence, "... composer and performer of contemporary classical music" – he and his ensemble have only ever performed his own works. And for what it's worth and for balance: I don't think he's vastly over-rated. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 12:03, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Smerus's analogy is a good one; Haydn, Berlioz, Britten likewise performed their music in their own time but are remembered overwhelmingly as composers. This will be true as well of Glass, I think. Opus33 (talk) 19:00, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
Thank you. I have now made the corrections indicated above. --Kleinzach 23:08, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
And once again, they are not "corrections" they are removing appropriate information for a performer of classical music. Restored as discussed above and until someone can prove he is not a performer of classical music and has not recorded on these labels, they will remain in the article. Any improvement to the prose of the article is welcomed, but only by those without an WP:AXE to grind that composition is somehow more important than performance or recording of music. Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:16, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
There seems to be a clear consensus here for those changes implemented by Kleinzach. I'm tired of repeating the arguments supporting those changes yet again – please re-read them above. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 10:47, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
It is not necessary to convince everyone—consensus does not require unanimity. Is the only outstanding disagreement this edit (23:14, 14 April 2013) which changed {{Infobox person}} to {{Infobox musical artist}} and inserted a few recording labels? The article has a large amount of material on Glass being a composer, and on Glass winning various composition awards, but the article says almost nothing about recording labels. That is a good sign that the labels are insignificant. Please just edit the article because waiting for everyone to agree first is not going to work. Johnuniq (talk) 11:23, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
Prove it? That's all I've asked from the outset. I've never denied that he is a composer, but denying that he is a performer and recording artist is a misrepresentation of the subject. There has been not quantitative proof that he is better known as a composer than as a recording artist. At least I have proven that he recognized as a performer and recording artist. Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:14, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Consensus

  • Opus33's version of 16 April 2013‎ has now been restored [7]. This has my support. The problem here has gone on for over a month. I sincerely hope we are now at the end of it. Kleinzach 11:53, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
Once you leave this article, the problem will be at an end. Until then, the problem remains. Unfortunately the cult of the composer is a lie. Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:07, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
  • A certain amount of snarkiness may be a reasonable human failing, but a long-term pattern of similar comments would lead to unfavorable results at a noticeboard where editor behavior and collaboration was under discussion. Johnuniq (talk) 07:19, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Infobox person

I restored the infobox from "classical composer" to "person". The other seems no improvement. It doesn't show his website, but instead the list of his compositions, which should be not difficult to find. Infoboxes are not supposed to link to paragraphs within the article. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:06, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

There are two pieces of new user-visible information provided by the classical composer infobox: The historical era in which in which the composer was considered to be active and a direct link to the composer's work, as you noted. I'm confused as to your note that it's not supposed to link to a paragraph within the article - that it not the case here it is linking to List_of_compositions_by_Philip_Glass. The missing URL is a shame, that should be added to the classical composer infobox. Unless I've missed something Philip Glass is a composer and the standard is to use the classical composer infobox, as noted here: Template:Infobox_classical_composer. --Jeresig (talk) 02:11, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
You are right about the list, I added it. "Contemporary" is not much of a surprise for a living composer, and so broad in meaning that it says about nothing. I always prefer a general template to a special (limited) one, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:35, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Infobox

The infobox in this article is somewhat unnecessary, since it only states, as important information, his date of birth (which is already in the lead) and per Wikipedia:WikiProject Composers#Biographical infoboxes, the infobox in this article is not really useful, and I feel should be removed. Feel free to reply below. Thanks. 189.18.52.98 (talk) 18:48, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Philip Glass. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:30, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 9 external links on Philip Glass. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:12, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Talk:Philip_Glass/Archive_1&oldid=1231616473"