Talk:Henry Cowell

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Henry Cowell is related to WikiProject Composers which has been provided as a place for editors of biographical articles of Music Composers and Songwriters to discuss common issues, discover neglected composer articles and exchange ideas. All who are interested are invited to comment and contribute.

	This article in the Arts category is being tracked by the Work via WikiProjects group at Wikipedia 1.0, as part of our plan to organise and build a collection of articles for offline release.
A	This article has been rated as A-Class on the assessment scale.
edit

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject LGBT studies, which tries to ensure comprehensive and factual coverage of all LGBT related issues on Wikipedia. For more information, or to get involved, visit the project page.
A	This article has been rated as A-Class.

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.	Biography Portal
A	This article has been rated as A-Class on the Project's quality scale. [FAQ] (If you rated the article, please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)

Henry Cowell has had a peer review by Wikipedia editors which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.

Contents 1 Latin American connections 2 Cowell's book on Ives 3 Anger Dance note 4 Endnote & external link auto-numbering sequence conflict 5 Earlier tone cluster guy? 6 Monograph removed from bibliography 7 References 8 This article needs more!

[edit] Latin American connections

Could someone add something about how Cowell was an important link to the contemporary composers of Latin America (Chavez, Roldan, et al.), via the Pan American Association of Composers? Badagnani 19:58, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Cowell's book on Ives

There's a more recent edition of Cowell's "Charles Ives and His Music," from Da Capo Press, but online sources disagree as to whether it's 1981 or 1983 (of course, it's possibly both). Anyone have a copy? —DCGeist 17:08, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Anger Dance note

While the note on this piece is sufficiently long that the idea of moving it out into an entry of its own might be entertained, Anger Dance simply has nowhere near sufficient significance in musical history to merit a specific article. On the other hand, Cowell's description of its inspiration is revealing of his psychology and the question of just how proto-minimalist the piece raises questions most interesting in the context of his biography. The information in the note, I believe, is thus most useful in its present location. —DCGeist 06:44, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Endnote & external link auto-numbering sequence conflict

As stated in the history, I went in and hand numbered the inline external links as a separate sequence from the endnote numbering sequence. (It was doing fine through callout 1 [endnote], callout 2 [endnote], callout 3 [external link], callout 4 [endnote]...oops! Pops down to the right endnote text...but numbered 3.) My clumsy temporary solution would necessitate re-hand-numbering in the event anyone adds any more external links in the future. On the other hand, I can't stand the current Wikipedia:Footnote3 guideline for articles with both endnotes and external links--that a text fragment serve as the callout for each external link. I think it's visually klutzy and can severely disrupt the flow of reading. Any opinions on that? And what do you think's the best solution? Is it possible to restore the autonumbering of the external links and change to an older endnoting method that's somehow compatible (hand numbering the endnotes, for instance, though not a perfect solution, would be more practicable than my stopgap)? —DCGeist 09:50, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

It was suggested that either degree marks or arrows be used as the callouts for all the inline external links. A truly elegant solution! By their very nature, such links cry out for neither number sequencing nor text fragments. Though the arrows occupy a bit more space than degree marks, they seems more logical and appropriate. I'm very happy with this solution--please discuss what you think of it. —DCGeist 22:33, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

I think it looks weird but may be the best solution if there are numbering problems the other way. All in all, Wikipedia is eminently user-friendly and easy to learn, footnoting being one of the only exceptions.

[edit] Earlier tone cluster guy?

Apparently, from one of the recent Cowell biographies (maybe the "Bohemian"), there was a young American pianist in the early 20th century (maybe the teens?) who achieved some renown for his original cluster-type piano solos. Cowell supposedly saw him play and was impressed; he introduced himself and showed the guy one of his early piano pieces and the guy said Cowell had promise or something. This guy (or his music) has essentially been forgotten but may represent an important precedent to Cowell's brash and modernist style of pianism. Anybody know who this was? Badagnani 06:57, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Sounds like Leo OrnsteinKylegann 19:46, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Monograph removed from bibliography

I removed the following monograph (my own) - *Gann, Kyle (1993). The Overtone Series's Influence in American Music. Brooklyn, N.Y.: Brooklyn College Institute for Studies in American Music - because it never appeared. It was scheduled to, and got listed in various places, but the series closed before it could be published - and even before I finished writing it.Kylegann 19:46, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] References

I think the "references and further reading" section needs to be given more organization, so that it isn't a mass of books assaulting the reader. Also, it should either be more selective, or include essentially everything, a la New Grove, including journal articles. Right now, I have no idea which of these references to go to first if I wanted further reading on Cowell, although I'm guessing I could rule out the various liner notes. Also, the monographs need ISBNs. I would attempt this myself, but I don't know anything about the literature on Cowell.

I realize that some will dislike my suggestion of removing some of the references, so perhaps we could create a Henry Cowell bibliography article (or some similar title) that can take the space needed to be a complete bibliography. -Sesquialtera II 19:18, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] This article needs more!

I came here because I wanted to see if there was a mention/list of prominent composers who had Cowell for a teacher, and I was surprised to see nothing about his teaching career, not even a mention. While what is in the article is very good, it seems to me to be rather unfocused, with some rather large gaps in coverage. --Dmz5*Edits**Talk* 07:46, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

D-u-u-u-d-e!! Before critiquing the article, try reading the article. Everyone who actually does that (after noticing, of course, that Cowell is identified as a "teacher" in both the lead sentence and infobox), finds this:

During this era, Cowell also spread the ultra-modernists' experimental creed as a highly regarded teacher of composition and theory—among his many students were George Gershwin, Lou Harrison, who said he thought of Cowell as "the mentor of mentors," and John Cage, who proclaimed Cowell "the open sesame for new music in America."

and this:

[Cowell] went on to investigate Indian classical music and, in the late 1920s, began teaching courses in world music at schools in California and New York—[Lou] Harrison's tutelage under Cowell would begin when he enrolled in one such course in San Francisco.

and this:

[H]e would spend the next four years in San Quentin State Prison. There he taught fellow inmates....

and this:

Cowell resumed teaching—Burt Bacharach was one of his postwar students....

I'd love to hear about these "large gaps in coverage," but maybe first figure out who's really "unfocused."—DCGeist 09:44, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

As Vman737 said on my talk page, where this was rather unnecessarily reposted, I am not criticizing you or your contributions. The article is unfocused, from the lead right to the references section. It's also rather puffy. I was remiss in stating that there are no mentions of his teaching, I should have said there are no substantive mentions of his teaching. Please take unwanted criticism as a chance to improve the article (which, as I noted, has not been substantially edited in a while) rather than defending its present state.--Dmz5*Edits**Talk* 16:35, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

SOFIXIT. The criticism was and continues to be quite non-specific (and incorrect in the only area in which it was specific). When you ask for more details, do you mean at which institutions he taught, what were the names of the courses, etc.? If so, then say that. The names of several of the students are already given. Badagnani 16:39, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Frankly I don't want to, the topic doesn't particularly interest me. There is a place on wikipedia for outside comments. If anyone wants to nominate this for FA anytime in the near future, you will get pleeeenty of specific criticism. I'm sorry if you think this is unwarranted hit-and-run criticism, but there you go.--Dmz5*Edits**Talk* 16:45, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Okay here's a specific bit of criticism that comes from the project page. Check out the suggested structure there: it breaks articles down into biography, style and influence, legacy, list of notable works, etc. I suppose you could say my general complaint about this article relates to the fact that all of the info is presented essentially chronologically, in relatively uncontextualized bits and pieces, which contributes to what I (and apparently Vman737) feel is the ambling nature of the text. Also, check out WP:LEAD.--Dmz5*Edits**Talk* 16:52, 16 January 2007 (UTC)