Talk:Joyce Hatto

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Portal:Biography
 Biography Portal
Stub This article has been rated as Stub-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.)

Contents

[edit] Obituary

I have added her Boston Globe obituary. Capitalistroadster 05:51, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Allegations of Fakery from RS

The Gramophone, a reliable source, believes there are something fishy about many of the recordings. See [1].

Several days ago, another Gramophone critic decided to listen to a Hatto Liszt CD, of the 12 Transcendental Studies. He put the disc into his computer to listen, and something awfully strange happened. His computer's player identified the disc as, yes, the Liszts, but not a Hatto recording. Instead, his display suggested that the disc was one on BIS Records, by the pianist Lászlo Simon. Mystified, our critic checked his Hatto disc against the actual Simon recording, and to his amazement they sounded exactly the same.

More astonishing revelations were to come. The pair then checked a track from a Hatto disc of music by Godowsky, and found that it sounded strange, as if the sound had been tampered with. After running checks, they found that the music had indeed been manipulated – the time had been stretched by an “audacious” 15.112% (such an extreme stretch accounted for the odd sound) to alter the tone, but that if the stretch was reversed it became clear that the track was identical to that played by the pianist Carlo Grante on a CD issued by Altarus.

It would take many weeks of intensive work to examine all of the Hatto recordings, but it seems clear that at least some of these great performances are identical to other performances available from other recording companies. Contacted for his comments, Barrington-Coupe – who acknowledged that he produced well-nigh all of his wife’s recordings – was at a loss to explain the similarity. Are the Hatto’s fakes? If so, how many? This, it must be suspected, is a story that won’t go away until the full truth is known.

Pretty damning so far. Should be covered in the article. --70.48.70.219 03:06, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Added a paragraph on this. --Tagishsimon (talk) 03:18, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Totally damning. But her supporters are out in force on Wiki at least, trying to minmize the damage.

I have listened to several of the Godowsky_Chopin recordings back to back with the Grante and at least some of them are not identical. No.4 "Ignis Fatuus" is likely a remastered version of Marc Andre Hamelin's recording on Hyperion, (the tempo and rubato are identical, the sound is not) but this needs to be verified by someone with the equipment to do so. It is absolutely not the Grante recording of the same piece. There is not doubt that many of the Hatto recordings of these pieces sound very odd indeed. Also my computer identifies it as "Unknown recording".

-

I think it's pretty unfair to only mention the allegations near the end of the article; I wouldn't want someone who's never heard of her to read the first two paragraphs and quit, thinking she's a dazzling pianist. -br

This article has been edited in the last day or so to remove all the original opening material. She was a reasonable and competent pianist in her concert days; it is only the post-retirement records that appear to be fake. A person coming here and looking at this article would think she was nothing but a hoax. This is very misleading. For all we know she was dying and unaware of it, and it was her husband doing it all. But she was a real pianist for many years. 23:51, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
This is a fascinating story! I went to a recital by Joyce Hatto at (I'm pretty sure) the Queen Elizabeth Hall in London something like 35 years ago (so it must have been right at the end of her performing career), and I remember that it was really quite bad, especially given the prestigious venue. From what I remember there were lots of wrong notes, and generally insensitive and heavy-handed playing. AndrewWTaylor 23:29, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
Her husband has effectively admitted the fraud. Of course, it's possible that Joyce knew of this, but there may be no way to know this unless subsequent apologies/admittals are published. So for the time being, it is fraud, and it has been proven. --Otheus 17:39, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Semi-protection request

I have requested semi-protection of this article because of the edits from 80.47.*.*. Sam Blacketer 22:26, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

I put a very short protection on - can extend if need be. Plus I blocked both IP adresses for a week. Hopefully that will be enough, let me know if it's not. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 22:45, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
Note, Joyce Hatto (not this wiki article) just got slashdotted. --Otheus 23:39, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
And yesterday, dugg. --Otheus 01:58, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Why should this website host commerical material (the discography is from one company) where such severe and strongly evidenced allegations have been made?

The discography is not commercial material, it is a list of commercial material. It's the equivalent of Wikipedia listing the cons pulled off by a famous con-man; listing those cons is not "hosting" them. (210.160.15.16 00:06, 18 February 2007 (UTC))
The discography looks very detailed to me as if it's been copied and pasted from a web site or something. And as such seems likely to infringe copyright. The fact that it's a list of commercial material doesn't mean it's not in itself copyright - almost any non-trivial list of anything is copyright. Even a price list is copyright. Ben Finn 18:24, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
True, but the question was about "commercial material", not "copyrighted material", and it was about whether it should be hosted "where such severe and strongly evidenced allegations have been made". That is, it seems to me that the asker is saying "why should we advertise a fraud", not "why should we host copyrighted materials". I put forth that listing a list of cons is not advertising, and whether or not it should be published has nothing to do with whether or not its a con. As for whether copyrighted materials should be published or not, that's a totally different question altogether, but, again, one where the answer does NOT change based on whether the "severe and strongly evidenced allegations have been made". (124.101.242.85 22:47, 19 February 2007 (UTC))

As the original poster of her Concert Artists discography, I would like to state that the list was not "copy and pasted from a web site or something". It took about two weeks to collect and collate the information from multiple websites selling her recordings as well as websites reviewing her recordings. Some of this material is no longer available on the web. I am not a legal expert, so do not know whether the list is copyright protected or not; however, I based my posting of the list under the telephone-book interpretation of U.S. copyright law:

Perhaps an example will help illustrate. It is axiomatic that facts cannot be copyrighted. The United States Supreme Court has held that names, addresses and telephone numbers in a telephone book are facts. Therefore, individual names, addresses and telephone numbers are not copyrightable. This is not to say, however, that a telephone book is not copyrightable. In most telephone books there are many original works of authorship that are deserving of copyright protection, such as the prose works at the beginning of the book. Therefore, there may well be parts of the telephone book that are copyrightable. The copyright will, however, extend only to that which is original. Thus, it would not be copyright infringement to copy wholesale all the names, addresses and telephone numbers because these are not protected. Thus, the copyright obtained in a work such as a phone book would be considered "thin," meaning that much of the work is available to the public domain. ([2])

[edit] Links

The New York Times and International Herald-Tribune stories appear to be identical. (I believe the IHT reprints stories from the Times and other papers). The article should probably only link to one -- which would be better? -- Perodicticus 21:05, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

The IHT article appeared a day before the New York Times, so in terms of precedence, perhaps it should be the link that remains.


[edit] Stop Removing the correctly identified performances

This entry provides a central place for people to post the identity of the actual performers when they are discovered. Please stop whoever it is that keeps removing that information!

Please sign your posts. --Otheus 23:40, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Husband a convicted fraudster?

This statement from MusicWeb says, "The discs were not what Concert Artist claimed them to be and it subsequently emerged that William [Barrington-Coupe, Hatto's husband] had already served time for fraud." Can anyone confirm this? I searched on the web, but found no details of when or under what circumstances he was imprisoned -- only a few vague references. -- Perodicticus 19:19, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Try searching groups.google.com for William Halford Barrington-Coupe. No sources given, though, so perhaps best to leave this out for the time being.Stesimbrotus 20:00, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

If there is no reliable source for this charge, it MUST be left out. Sounds possible, though... 24.116.200.178 21:47, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
Telegraph.co.uk (25 Feb. 2007) says that "Mr Barrington-Coupe was jailed [for eight months] at the Old Bailey in 1966 for evading thousands of pounds in tax, in a case that involved radios being imported from the Far East." This is a sufficiently reliable source for the noting of this conviction in the article. -- Jmc 01:38, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
Yes, but I argue for irrelevance, or more precisely, it is relevant to the barrington-coupe/concert artist articles. So, for now, this was removed (again):
He was also a convicted criminal. On [[May 17]], [[1966]], he and four other defendants were found guilty of failing to pay £84,000 in purchase tax. He received a 12-month jail sentence. Judge Alan King-Hamilton said of the crime: 'These were blatant and impertinent frauds, carried out in my opinion rather clumsily. But such was your conceit that you thought yourselves smart enough to get away with it.'<ref>Claudia Joseph and Adam Luck, "Revenge of the fraudster pianist", Mail on Sunday, 25 February 2007: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/femail/article.html?in_article_id=438296</ref>
--Otheus 23:39, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
I'm not sure I agree that it is irrelevant. If we are to make an informed judgement of the weight to be placed on Barrington-Coupe's claim that he acted alone, with Hatto ignorant of the deception, it helps to know that he has a history of dishonesty. The media coverage of the story suggests that I am not alone in thinking that his criminal record is relevant. Of course that is not to say that it should be brought up at this precise point in the article.Stesimbrotus 00:19, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
First, the media loves dirt, even when it's deserved. Second, the frauds were 40 years apart — it's not like there's a serious pattern here. Third, the first time he and four other defendants were guilty; was he "going along" a plan with some friends, was he privy to the scam, or was he a lead conspirator? Fourth, if he's lying to protect the honor of his wife's name, or something like that, then by all means, bring in quotes from the confession-skeptics. I just don't see bringing up a 40 year old conviction is relevant to anything. Then again, I'm not yet 40 yrs old, so.... But let's say I go and sneak into DisneyWorld (hypothetical). I get caught. Then, someone notices on my rap sheet that when I was 17, I jumped a gate at a light-rail station (actually happened). Nothing else on my record. After 20 years, should I get tagged as a serial fare-evader?
--Otheus 00:52, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Posthumous interview speculation

A newly added reference is baseless speculation and should probably be removed: "notes that she might have died in 2002 the interviews being posthumously given over the phone by someone with a "girlish voice"".

The speculation is now sourced to a personal blog, which is reporting it in turn as a rumor on the newsgroups. I don't think either can be taken as a suitable source in this matter. -- Antaeus Feldspar 21:18, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
I put it there because it might prove useful the more we hear about this whole thing. Of course, ref-like footnotes at wiki are somewhat new, and I don't think clear guidelines have been set concerning their usage. But if you removed it, I wouldn't put it back in. --Otheus 02:01, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
Well, if you mean Cite.php-style footnotes (with the <ref></ref> tags) they're newish, but they're only a different way to format citations. The real issue is that so far we only have anonymous people, or people whose credentials we don't know, offering us this speculation -- not reliable sources. If an RS advances this speculation, then we can include it, but we don't know how carefully the dude advancing this speculation currently thought out the evidence of the situation. -- Antaeus Feldspar 05:35, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Pirated?

Does the term pirated really apply in the first line? The recordings were not really pirated so much as copied or plagiarized. I just don't think the word fits.Straterp 20:53, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

No, the first paragraph is out of line. It is not yet fact. It may very well turn out that way,it looks pretty solid, but that point is not here yet. The first paragraph is VERY biased. 24.116.200.178 21:45, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Biggest hoax claim

60.227.192.119 (talk • contribs) changed the following in the intro paragraph:

After her death, it was claimed that many or all of these recordings were the work of other pianists.

to

After her death, it was claimed that many or all of these recordings were the work of other pianists, thus making her the most prolific hoax in musical history.

No citation was given. It may be that a similar statement was indeed made by a RS (though we'd probably have to qualify it with a statement that if the charges made are true, then she would be, etc.) But without a source, I think it's better to remove it. -- Antaeus Feldspar 02:21, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Someone finally posted a citation (but I didn't bother to verify.) --Otheus 17:40, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "covering a vast swathe of the piano repertoire"?

Currently the first paragraph describes the recordings issued under Hatto's name as "covering a vast swathe of the piano repertoire." I don't really get what phrase is supposed to mean; I would understand it if it referred to her repertoire but I've never heard of "the piano repertoire". Can we clarify this phrasing? -- Antaeus Feldspar 18:15, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Try doing a Google search for the phrase "the piano repertoire". But I've altered this to 'the solo and concerto repertoire' which is more informative (no chamber music recordings: new names and biographies for her collaborators would have been required, and suspicions would have been aroused if these were all as unverifiable as those of René Köhler).Stesimbrotus 19:07, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Not only is the phrase unclear, but it smacks of POV. I'm not saying it is POV, but that it sounds like it. --Otheus 04:10, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] phrasings in the intro paragraph

I have restored some phrasings in the intro paragraph that I feel are important, and I am explaining here why I think these phrasings are important.

"She performed in concert for several decades, but retired from public performance in 1979." -- Without this sentence, the summary of her career starts with her retirement, which is highly misleading. With the knowledge that many of the recordings attributed to her are not so, a reader might reasonably wonder whether in fact Hatto ever played the piano herself at all, the usage of the word "pianist" notwithstanding. The intro should acknowledge her decades of concert performance, both because they were a part of her career (if neither as celebrated nor later infamous as the later part) and because they refute what would otherwise be a quite reasonable suspicion.

"when there appeared under her name a series of highly acclaimed recordings" to "when a series of highly acclaimed recordings appeared under her name" -- This rephrasing avoids the passive tense; I'm trusting I don't have to explain why avoiding the passive tense is good.

"her name had been applied to copies" to "many of the recordings released under her name were actually copies" -- right now we know that there was a deception, that the copies were attributed to her but were not her work. We don't know who participated in the deception. "Her name had been applied to copies" implies that it was done without her participation, which we don't know to be the case. What we do know is that the recordings were copies, so I think we should stick with that. -- Antaeus Feldspar 20:33, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Good points. I feel the lead P is still a bit bloated, and I'll try to trim it. I like concise leads :) --Otheus 04:12, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
So now I (Otheus) condensed it as follows:
Joyce Hatto (September 5, 1928 – June 30, 2006) was a British pianist, whose performing career spanned nearly thirty years until the mid-1970's. Late in her life, recordings published under her name won critical acclaim, but then after her death, it was discovered that many of these recordings were the works of other pianists.

Actually her last known UK concert was in 1976: see groups.google.com , search for phrase "Hatto Concert listings from The Musical Times". And 'some twenty years' would be more accurate than 'several decades'. I can acquiesce in your other changes, but you'll forgive me the pedantry if I point out that the passive is not a tense but a voice, and that the sentence 'there appeared under her name a series of highly acclaimed recordings' actually contains no use of the passive: 'appeared' is active. I don't find that "Her name had been applied to copies" implies that she did not know what was going on, but I'll leave it if you prefer it that way.Stesimbrotus 21:05, 21 February 2007 (UTC) 1976 is 3 decades ago not 2, SqueakBox 21:09, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

According to The Gramophone she was appearing in concert in the 40s and 50s. Even allowing for the possibility that it was only the end of the 40s, going from the end of the 1940s to end of the 1970s (again, Gramophone lists 1979 as the year of her retirement) leaves a span of thirty years. As for the passive voice, you are correct about it being "voice" and not "tense"; while you are also correct about it not being syntactically passive voice either, I still feel that the phrasing "there appeared (verb) under her name (adverbial phrase) a series of recordings (subject)" shares the disadvantages of the passive voice and should be avoided if possible. -- Antaeus Feldspar 22:05, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
Please, the passive voice isn't evil: English_passive_voice. Granted, it's not always the best, but it often IS the better option for better flow. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ 23:33, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
The impersonality comes from the use of the dummy subject "there". -- 86.138.233.153 14:28, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
Regarding the dates of her career, the obituary you cite just parrots the 'authorised version' of her life, in which she is made out to have been a major figure intimate with all the most distinguished musicians of her time, including such unlikely figures as de Sabata. Virtually everything in that story has now been called into question. It's best to go on the facts as known from an objective source, in this case the Musical Times. Not that I blame Bryce Morrison for repeating the story as given by the Barrington-Coupes. He had no reason to doubt their trustworthiness at the time.Stesimbrotus 22:32, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

I notice the word "recording" appears three times in second sentence, first paragraph. Perhaps we ought to rephrase, make this less repetitive? Brianrein 01:28, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Record Producer?

An anonymous user added "record producer" to the lead. No additional references were added nor additional discussions mention this. My guess is the user meant to say that she was a recorded artist, but, uh, that is uh, rather obvious from the next sentence. Should we strike this phrase? --Otheus 09:14, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

My guess would be that the user simply made the assumption "wife of the producer of her own records" == "co-producer of her own records" == "record producer". Either way, however, yes, I think we should strike it. -- Antaeus Feldspar 14:44, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Early Discography

An IP user removed the following line:

Hatto's early discography can be found online at the British Library in The British Library Sound Archive ([3]).

Does anyone know what's wrong with this? --Otheus 07:17, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

I was wondering too, as it looked fine to me. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ 12:54, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
Well, the good news is that someone went and got the actual material. But if it's true, it would still be useful to include. --Otheus 02:04, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Mask

Music doesnt wear a mask therefore the section title about unmasked is inaccurate original research, these recordings were digitally manipulated and this is what we should stick with, SqueakBox

While we're being pedantic about the semantics of metaphors, you might want to refer to Lakoff and Johnson's Metaphors_We_Live_By (which redirects to a generalized article on the book's topic). After reading that, then we can have that discussion :) --Otheus 17:43, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
Try typing unmask definition into the Google search box. The verb means 'To disclose the true character of; expose'. That is what has been done to the "Hatto" recordings. "Recordings digitally manipulated" doesn't explain the significance of this case. Virtually every recording on the market is digitally manipulated to some extent, with different takes combined, levels altered, reverberation added, etc. It is the fact that the "Hatto" recordings have been exposed as not what they are claimed to be that is unusual and of significance.Stesimbrotus 18:42, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Google is OR and so I wont be doing that myself, SqueakBox 22:02, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

It's not OR to look up a definition to see if something is connotatively correct or not. Unmasked is properly used in this instance, whether you like it or not. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ 23:34, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

"Recordings digitally manipulated" is not an appropirate subject heading for this section (see the above reasoning by Stesimbrotus). The fact that the recordings were digitally altered is not the focus of this section. The focus of this section is on the discovery that they were digitally altered. I do not see the problem with using "unmasked"; it is a literary personification of the process of discovery. Most people should be able to realise that CDs do not have faces, and therefore cannot wear masks -- but you never know...

Yes, but in fact the focus is not even on the discovery that they were digitally manipulated but on the discovery that they were not made by Joyce Hatto. As I pointed out, digital manipulation is an everyday occurrence in the recording industry..Stesimbrotus 22:53, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] What does Gracenote 'know'?

The firm statement about what Gracenote can or cannot do is not supplied with a reference and may be incorrect. Gracenote has no difficulty whatever identifying individual tracks once they have been copied. Its behaviour with compilation CDs (in effect what some of the Concert Artist CDs are) seems quite complicated. The individual who discovered the fraud may have been working from digital copies, not from the CD. Unless someone has exhausted the possible approaches to this question, using both the Hatto CD and mp3s or other versions of individual tracks from that CD perhaps the claim about Gracenote should be suppressed? It is not an integral part of the 'mystery'.

Since the Gracenote claim made it into reliable sources, I don't think we should "suppress" it but we should be alert for any corrections to it, and note it as a claim published by those sources, not as "what happened".
What we really need to keep an eye on is the discussion of Usenet groups and the growing amount of material sourced to them, because ordinarily Usenet posts are just about the last thing to qualify as RS. I think we may have some exceptions here -- for instance, to support the point that questions were raised about the originality of the recordings even before Hatto's death, I believe we could cite a Usenet post raising those questions. The only thing the source is being called on to verify is, essentially, its own existence and own contents, and that it can do. But the things that haven't been proven yet or apparently even suggested by reliable sources -- for instance, that Rene Kohler is a fictional individual whose name was taken from Irene Kohler -- we can't just put that in the article because "it has been conjectured (by someone on Usenet)". -- Antaeus Feldspar 03:55, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
We can certainly use Usenet archives as the source of "what happened" (I should hope, anyway), but we couldn't use statements there as the source of anything not meta-referencing. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ 11:39, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
What specifically do you mean by "what happened"? Most Usenet postings can only be used to source themselves -- i.e., that a particular post with particular content was made -- but not for much else -- for instance, not even for the true identity of that poster, or that any of the claims made in the post were correct. -- Antaeus Feldspar 02:30, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Going in circles...

Seriously. It looks like things are going in circles -- without direct reversions, it's hard to tell (and semi-protection wouldn't help), but I see the same words returning and leaving, and returning, etc... Any ideas? :/ ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ 02:26, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

You're right. I don't know the answer. I got rid of the potted biographies of various Usenet and web pundits, since they add considerable bulk without contributing anything of substance and don't belong in a Joyce Hatto entry anyway, but someone put them back in. I'll try getting rid of them again and see what happens. Perhaps anyone who does restore them could argue out the case for their inclusion on this page.Stesimbrotus 03:33, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
I also agree. I don't want to keep fixing the same basic facts, such as the date in the sentence: Nobody came forward until the Gramophone published its first serious evidence in an Internet article on February 18, 2007, which should be February 15, 2007. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.46.231.222 (talk) 03:58, 26 February 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Barrington-Coupe has confessed

He has admitted the deception to Robert Bahr of BIS (and subsequently to Gramophone) in another wheedling self-exculpatory letter. I made a couple of amendments to the article to reflect this and included a link. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Charles Avis (talk • contribs).

Should this article be added to Category:Hoaxes now? Sam Blacketer 14:45, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
Vote yes --Otheus 17:44, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
I've already been WP:BOLD and done it, into the subcategory Category:Musical hoaxes. Sam Blacketer 22:10, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Earlier Concert Artist cassettes may be fakes

This time it goes the other way. A series of cassettes of Cortot is listed by an ebay seller claiming they are mostly by Hatto! I reproduce the listing below. I am not the seller.

"Cortot (bogus) plays Chopin: 4 cassettes, used, in excellent condition: Vols. 1-3: complete Chopin Mazurkas. Concert Artists CE4-TC-7001-7003 Cortot plays Chopin Ballades and Impromptus (actually Cortot); Polonaise Fantasie (bogus). Concert Artists CE4-TC-7006.

Before the Joyce Hatto scam arose, her enterprising label issued a series of cassettes in 1986 labelled as previously unissued recordings by Cortot. Anyone with ears and a touch of intelligence would have heard a pianist with absolutely no resemblance to Cortot (except for the Ballades and Impromptus). Perhaps the pianist is actually Hatto? Whomever it is, mediocrity was their standard. This fascinating early attempt at musical forgery went virtually undetected by critics and pundits even then, leading to a larger scale deception recently exposed ad nauseum.

While of slight musical value, these objects are indeed rare and might serve as useful evidence for any eventual trials or simply for the pleasure of collecting."

Really, all the activities of Concert Artist now need unpacking.

--Charles Avis 09:10, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

There is an article on Concert Artists. Let's move or at least propagate this discussion there. --Otheus 09:31, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Suspected and unproven attributions

With detail coming in daily on the sources of the Hatto recordings, it is unnecessary to include suspected sources. The information should be restricted to identified matches. I suggest removing suspected matches from the list, especially as some of them are vague (the Naxos piano anthology, for example, is not identified) Rconroy 09:48, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

I'd also like to see some of the assumptions removed. Just because one CD of her Mozart matches Haebler this doesn't necessarily mean that the rest of the CDs are a likely match. They might be a match or they might not. In some cases three or more different pianist are used within a single CD so we cannot jump to conclusions. I'd like to see listings only for recordings that have been compared side to side and are confirmed matches. Entries should state exactly what was compared. For example, were all the Prokofiev Sonatas compared to Marshev or just a couple compared and the rest assumed? There is no way to know from the entry. Malikf 21:50, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

I just learned today that the Prokofiev 3rd Sonata on the Hatto CD does not match the Marshev recording. That strengthens the argument that too much assumption and speculation is going on in the "recordings unmasked" listing. I'm awaiting news on further comparisons between Marshev and Hatto.Malikf 03:41, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

But where did you learn that, Malikf? It only "strengthens the argument" for the rest of us if you can give us a reliable source for your assertion. -- Jmc 09:13, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

From someone who compared the Marshev and Hatto Prokofiev 3rd Sonata. I thought that was obvious.Malikf 12:03, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

- "someone who compared the Marshev and Hatto Prokofiev 3rd Sonata" - well, yes, obvious, as you say. But "someone" is certainly not the RS I was asking for, and which you still haven't named - which means we can't (yet) take your assertion seriously, and your argument that "that too much assumption and speculation is going on" remains as weak as ever. -- Jmc 21:03, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

I see. So we should take the anonymous attributions in the article as gospel, which don't say what or how much was compared, but when someone actually sits down and compares them and gives details about what was compared those results are not to be taken seriously. Are you being serious or just trying to be a jerk? The Prokofiev comparison is still unclear. My "someone" (and if he doesn't want to be involved here or use his name that is his right) says that further comparison is needed as this Sonata in particular has been put to significant digital manipulation. If I had the recordings I would do comparisons myself but I don't so I rely on someone who owns them and whose ears I trust. Malikf 21:55, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

"So we should take the anonymous attributions in the article as gospel … ."
- No. The same criteria for reliability of source must apply to them.
"My "someone" (and if he doesn't want to be involved here or use his name that is his right) …"
- Of course, but that disqualifies him from being cited as a RS.
"Are you being serious or just trying to be a jerk?"
- Resorting to an ad hominen attack only serves to confirm to your audience how weak your argument is.
It would pay to make a thorough study of Wikipedia's criteria for reliable sources - and also Wikipedia's guidelines on civility. -- Jmc 22:31, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Malikf, stop, please, and read WP:CIVIL, if nothing else. There's no need for flames here. This also isn't Usenet or a message board, so responding point by point doesn't work too well. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ 23:48, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Regardless of his somewhat intemperate language, Malikf raises a fair point when he asks (by implication) for RS citations for each of the putative sources listed in the article under 'Recordings and their sources'. Only two of the 25 identifications appeared to have a citation of a RS.
This is clearly unsatisfactory and, arguably, in violation of Wikipedia's Reliable Sources criteria.
The necessarily suspect nature of the claimed identifications is compounded when we have the [Pristine Audio] site (and possible other websites) relaying the Wikipedia list, with only a minimal caveat about the reliability of the claims.
Can we please tidy this up and add RSs for each of the claimed identifications? -- Jmc 01:21, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

The sources for most of these identifications are collectors who sit down and compare recordings until they find a match. Only in a few cases have scientific analysis and proof been provided, and those were special cases where the work was either part of a much larger project (CHARM) or the work of a professional commissioned to do the comparisons (Pristine Audio). It is unrealistic to expect that such measures will be taken with the rest of the Hatto catalogue so we basically have to take those comparisons made by collectors as a starting point. Many of the identifiers post their findings on usenet so for starters the relevant posting could be footnoted. Such postings often provide some detail as to how the identification was made and by whom. This information can be very helpful in evaluating the reliability of the identification (identifier has posted track by track details of similarities between Hatto and pianist X, or identifier is recognized expert in the field). Furthermore, if others independently came to the same conclusion about an identification this would strengthen the reliability of the claim. Malikf 07:53, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Malikf, that would be original research. You're saying "we have to take the opinions of collectors that we can't establish as reliable sources, or otherwise we won't be able to attribute particular recordings to their actual artists." I understand your logic but the problem is that Wikipedia policy only agrees with the "we won't be able to ..." part of your statement. -- Antaeus Feldspar 03:23, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] COI material added

This morning someone added a claim to the article of what the "earliest documented identification of plagiarism" was. The link provided, http://mazurka.org.uk/info/present/cambridge-20061128/cambridge-20061128-1up.pdf, is problematic, as it is just a set of PowerPoint-style slides; one slide titled "Purely Coincidental" shows two similar-looking visual depictions and is accompanied by the text "Two difference performances from two different performers on two different record labels from two different countries." Obviously, in the original presentation, the presenter's irony could come through and it at least could be clear that Hatto was referred to but here it doesn't do the job very effectively.

Even if we use this article which spells out the point of the presentation, we still have a problem. Namely, that the article is by Nicholas Cook and Craig Sapp and User:Craigsapp is the editor who added the link to the article. There's a conflict of interest there, especially when we're dealing with a question of who was "earliest" with some achievement. -- Antaeus Feldspar 16:39, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

But see the slides titled 'Correlation network' and 'Correlation tree': from these it's clear enough that the identification has been made. Still it's arguable that this work should receive slightly less prominence since they didn't go public with it until the Gramophone story appeared.Stesimbrotus 18:03, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
You can also make inferences from my edit history of the Joyce Hatto page which cannot be forged by myself. Craigsapp 18:30, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Career material added

To balance or correct the statement "Her performances were not received with much enthusiasm by the critics." I added the paragraph that begins "On the other Hand..." -- I don't know how to make the footnotes, but here are the online references: "The Guardian reports" references http://www.guardian.co.uk/obituaries/story/0,,1816612,00.html and "The Telegraph reports" references http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/07/28/db2803.xml . I expect they might be incorporated into that area, as these quotes not added before could even be said to be quite 'hype'-like. - Atraveler 19:30, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

A very useful balancing addition, Atraveler. I've put in your references, and made it clear that Cardus is a name to be respected - in fact he was the most respected English music critic of the era, and his opinion of Hatto (at the time) must be given considerable weight. In view of Cardus' approval, I've changed "Her performances were not received with much enthusiasm by the critics" to "Her performances drew mixed notices from the critics.".-- Jmc 21:55, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
It's possible that Cardus did say these things, but I'd feel happier if someone could track down the reference for the original publication, or at least some evidence that the Brahms concert ever took place. There's a danger that these quotations were just invented by Hatto and Barrington-Coupe (and provided to those writing biographies and obituaries) to make her career seem more distinguished than it actually was.Stesimbrotus 23:21, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
Yes, fair point, Stesimbrotus, given what's been revealed of B-C's duplicity and journalists' gullibilty. Still, one would've hoped that someone in The Guardian would've been given the task of checking their own files for the source of the quotation. You can be sure that's what would've been done in Cardus' day! -- Jmc 01:03, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
All good points. I wonder if someone has contacted Jeremy Nicholas and the writer of The Telegraph obituary to get their earlier sources. I might try. I did think Jeremy would have checked The Guardian's own records for their critic's statements, but these days people can be a bit casual! - Atraveler 22:56, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hatto's death not verified

An IP user just added this note. I wonder... isn't it the usual practice of news outlets to somehow verify the publishing of an obit? --Otheus 01:49, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I think we'll take this out. At best, it's ambiguous - could mean there's a possibility she might still be alive. --Jmc 02:29, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
Jessica Duchen's Independent article (http://enjoyment.independent.co.uk/music/features/article2308651.ece) has a contribution from her hospital consultant which confirms the basic facts, so her death isn't in doubt. The precise date (29th or 30th) given varies from obituary to obituary (30th: http://www.gramophone.co.uk/newsMainTemplate.asp?storyID=2589&newssectionID=1 ; 29th: http://www.boston.com/news/globe/obituaries/articles/2006/07/04/joyce_hatto_at_77_pianist_was_prolific_recording_artist/ ), but this discrepancy is easily accounted for if she died during the night.Stesimbrotus 04:40, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Barrington-Coupe — confession doubted or universally rejected?

First, I have removed the following version. Please do NOT put it back in!

His version of events has generally been rejected.

In order to make this claim, especially on a biographical page, you would need to cite 3 or 4 publications which categorically reject his claims. Even the OJ case doesn't have that clarity. On the other hand, one reference is cited in the article that doubts his claim, so the following CAN be justified:

His version of events has not been universally accepted.

Second, the following addendum to Jeremy Nicholas's challenge was, well, silly:

Doubts about the authenticity of her records soon circulated, and in the March 2006 issue of Gramophone, critic Jeremy Nicholas challenged unnamed sceptics to substantiate their accusations by providing evidence that would "stand up in a court of law", although he has not yet offered his own evidence that any of the recordings are authentic. (Bold redacted)

This is a bit silly. Nicholas made this challenge in March 2006, and the fraud came to light earlier this year. At the time, there was no need to offer any evidence -- the burden of proof was on the sceptic. Now, of course, the situation is different. So this statement might not be silly if he reiterated it again in March of this year. And if you can source that, fine. Otherwise, please do not revert again without discussion.
--Otheus 17:50, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Of course Jeremy Nicholas accepted that fraud took place when the evidence came to light: see http://www.musicweb-international.com/classrev/2007/Feb07/Hatto_Howell.htm#jn .Stesimbrotus 18:37, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
Even if Nicholas had not accepted the evidence of fraud, the bold text is unreasonable and could not be re-added to the article. What would "evidence that any of the recordings are authentic" even be? Barring an actual videotaping of a recording session where we can see Hatto's fingers moving precisely in time with the notes on precisely the right notes, I can't figure out what "evidence" could possibly prove a recording "authentic". Authentic, at least in this case, means no fraud, so what the removed text is claiming is that we should find it significant that Nicholas failed to prove a negative. -- Antaeus Feldspar 15:49, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Nicholas' letter is in the July 2006 Gramophone. (unsigned, left by 129.12.22.91 on March 7, 2007).

Hey! Thanks for using the Talk page!! --Otheus 13:55, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Notice that sequence of events is (1) March 2006 issue of Gramophone contains an article by Jeremy Nicholas titled "Piano Dreams", (2) readers send letters to Gramophone and/or Nicholas questioning aspects of the Hatto story, (3) July 2006 issue of Gramophone contains the letter by Nicholas with the challenge:

Readers of Gramophone will have picked up Morrison's reference to the controversy following Jeremy Nicholas' article 'Piano Dreams' in the March 2006 issue of that journal: a number of readers wrote in to question various aspects of the story, for example whether Hatto was really ill or even whether the recordings issued in her name were hers at all, and in the July 2006 issue Nicholas challenged the doubters to substantiate their accusations by providing evidence that would 'stand up in a court of law'. There were no takers, but the mutterings continued. Indeed they were given a new lease of life in what one contributor called 'one of the most bizarre threads in the history of this newsgroup' ('Hatto hoax?', on rec.music.classical.recordings). It started when, in January 2007, a contributor to the group who had recently purchased some of Hatto's CDs reported, 'I have noticed something eerie: that the pianist playing the Mozart sonatas cannot be the pianist playing Prokoviev or the pianist playing Albeniz. I have the distinct feeling of being the victim of some sort of hoax. Does anyone else share these feelings?' [1]

The challenge is in the July 2006 issue and is a result of questioning of the story found in the March 2006 issue. Craigsapp 15:02, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

I'd add that Nicholas' letter is unreasonably strident. He demanded a very high level of proof that the recordings are inauthentic, yet he had no evidence of his own to the contrary. In essence he was bluffing. What is striking about the episode is the arrogance of defenders of 'Hatto' when reasonable doubts about the authenticity of the recordings had been raised. Nicholas' original article (in March 2006 Gramophone) finishes with a paragraph describing the 'Hatto style', ironically enough. It is instructive to highlight the mechanics of the mythmaking and fantasy surrounding the imaginary 'Hatto' that listeners thought they heard as the uniting presence behind these disparate recordings. -- unsigned, undated; added by anon user at 80.47.170.49
I added a sentence on Barrington-Coupe's 'confession' to clarify the important detail that he did not and has not revealed the extent of the fraud. Those who have followed the story have this implicit knowledge but the article needs to state this important fact. Discoveries of sources have been revealed by others, and B-C has only admitted the use of the Simon recording to Bahr at BIS. B-C has left it to others to work out whether any of the Concert Artist recordings are by Hatto, and even to work out how many of those recordings (supposed to number as many as 120 CDs) ever actually existed (does anyone have them all?). -- further unsigned, undated addition by anon user at 80.47.170.49
It's reasonable enought to mention that B-C refuses to identify the sources for the CDs, but this probably belongs further down the page (and after Barrington-Coupe has already been introduced by name: please don't forget that readers coming to this material for the first time won't know who 'Barrington-Coupe' refers to!), where I've moved it, together with his documented response to a request for details.Stesimbrotus 02:46, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hatto's own involvement

I believe something is now needed about Hatto's own participation in the fraud, however unclear that remains. I've added (under 'Recordings unmasked ') a paragraph with a couple of references. Editing (but not removal!) welcomed. -- Jmc 19:56, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Nicely done, Jmc! --Otheus 10:51, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, thanks Otheus! Bouquets are in short supply around these parts, and to get one makes my day! -- Jmc 22:02, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Dating of first allegations of fakery

Under 'Career', I've altered "Doubts about the authenticity of her records soon circulated" to "Doubts about the authenticity of some of her recordings began to circulate in 2006" on the basis that 'soon' is so vague a term as to be misleading (soon after 2003, the last date mentioned?). I can't find any instances of doubts expressed before 2006, and indeed even by the end of 2006, on RCMR authenticity was not questioned. We really need a reference for the doubts circulated before July 2006. -- Jmc 02:55, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Try http://groups.google.com/group/rec.music.classical.recordings/msg/1f1a275c9e96bcbd or http://groups.google.com/group/rec.music.classical.recordings/msg/b66da748dde58c61 (both from January 2006).Stesimbrotus 03:08, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Stesimbrotus. I'd already tracked down a reference myself - to the letters columns of Gramophone - from the CHARM site (don't have the relevant Gramophone issues themselves) and added it. I'll now have a look at the Google groups. --Jmc 03:16, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

I've now had a look at the Google groups references. There just seems to be a single sceptical voice (Peter Lemken) and he appears only to be questioning the volume of output and the elusive conductor. As I mentioned above, by the end of 2006, on RMCR authenticity was not questioned, and Lemken's scepticism seems to have been buried. On that basis, I've restored my reference to Gramophone readers to give us a RS for the statement about doubts. -- Jmc 03:29, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Actually I think you have misinterpreted the statement on the CHARM website. I don't think Gramophone actually published any of the letters from sceptics that they received, and the website reference does not indicate that they did so. Even if Peter Lemken was a lone voice, he was the first, and I don't believe there was any allusion to the controversy in the pages of Gramophone before Jeremy Nicholas issued his challenge in the July issue. As for 'RS', I'm not all that familiar with the jargon, but I would have thought the Google archive was a reliable historical record of what happened on Usenet groups. Also, I'm not sure I can agree that on RMCR "authenticity was not questioned" when Lemken clearly had his doubts, as you say. So on the whole I prefer my vaguer formulation to yours, in which the doubters are exclusively Gramophone readers.Stesimbrotus 04:00, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
The porblem with Google archives is that sometimes people set it so their posts won't be archived -- so there's a lot missing... ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ 11:57, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

See Craigsapp's posting above under 'Barrington-Coupe — confession doubted or universally rejected?'. Whether Gramophone did or did not publish the letters they received from sceptics, they certainly published the fact that they had received a number, whereas on RMCR, Lemken's vaguely (and sarcastically) worded posting was the merest straw in the wind - and quickly blown away on RMCR. (By "by the end of 2006, on RMCR authenticity was not questioned", I meant that any doubt he had raised was long buried - and not exhumed till the 'Hatto hoax?' thread was started there in Jan 2007).

I think my "Doubts about the authenticity of some of her recordings were expressed by Gramophone readers in early 2006" is still an accurate and substantial reference for the first surfacing of allegations of actual fakery - and doesn't imply that "the doubters [were] exclusively Gramophone readers". (RS? see WP:RS). -- Jmc 04:31, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

I think 'merest straw in the wind' is an underestimate. See also http://groups.google.com/group/rec.music.classical.recordings/msg/1285e13898fcec63 , for example. Is that more like what you're looking for ('allegations of actual fakery')?Stesimbrotus 05:22, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the reference, Stesimbrotus. Again, though, it's just a single voice (Lemken's) and all he's doing is to question who 'Mr. Köhler/Kohler' might be, without (at this stage, at least) making explicit "allegations of actual fakery" of the recordings themselves. But Andrys Basten of the The Joyce Hatto Hoax webpage has written to me separately with further details of discussions, both online and offline, and I need to read carefully through those with a view to establishing more precise - and fair - dating of the initial surfacing of the allegations.

-- Jmc 07:19, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

I think it's important to document the salient stages of the debate about the fakery from the first raising of suspicions, through rebuttal, up to the situation at the end of 2006, just prior to the 'unmasking'. So in the wake of offline discussions with Andrys Basten, who's done an immense amount of research in various forums, I've prepared the following paragraph to amplify the one that currently ends 'Career'. Here it is, on the table for discussion, prior to insertion:

"In early 2006, doubts about various aspects of Hatto's recording output were expressed by Gramophone readers and in the RMCR group. Scepticism principally centred on the immense output within a short period by a single pianist, especially one in her 70s fighting cancer, and on the identity of the accompanying orchestra and conductor. These doubts were vigorously countered, most publicly by Gramophone critic Jeremy Nicholas who, in the July 2006 issue, challenged unnamed sceptics to substantiate their accusations by providing evidence that would "stand up in a court of law". By the end of 2006, the expression of doubts had become muted, so that, in December, Radio New Zealand was able, in all innocence, to broadcast an hour-long programme of glowing appreciation of the Concert Artist Hatto CDs. This programme included excerpts from recent phone interviews with Hatto herself, in which she said nothing to dispel the presenter's assumption that she was the sole pianist on all the CDs."

A couple of points:

1) It alludes to the RMCR postings - which Stesimbrotus is keen to see credited.

2) Since this is an article about Joyce Hatto, it refers to what she herself is on record (literally!) as saying just prior to the dam breaking.

I believe this is a balanced representation of the situation through 2006 - pending further research. Feedback welcomed!

-- Jmc 00:26, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

This seems mostly fine. I would re-word it slightly. Here's the whole paragraph again for convenience:
"In early 2006, doubts about various aspects of Hatto's recording output were expressed, both in the RMCR group and, following the publication of a lengthy appreciation of Hatto in the March issue of Gramophone, by readers of that magazine. In particular, some found it hard to believe that a pianist who had not performed in public for decades and was said to be fighting cancer should produce in her old age a vast number of recordings, all apparently of high quality. It also proved difficult to confirm any of the details of the recordings made with orchestra, including even the existence of the conductor credited. The doubters were vigorously countered, most publicly by critic Jeremy Nicholas who, in the July 2006 issue of Gramophone, challenged unnamed sceptics to substantiate their accusations by providing evidence that would "stand up in a court of law". Nicholas's challenge was not taken up, and in December, Radio New Zealand was able, in all innocence, to broadcast an hour-long programme of glowing appreciation of the Concert Artist Hatto CDs. This programme included excerpts from recent phone interviews with Hatto herself, in which she said nothing to dispel the presenter's assumption that she was the sole pianist on all the CDs."
(Jeremy Nicholas is not a regular critic for "Gramophone", I think.)
Comments welcome of course.Stesimbrotus 02:44, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Excellent, Stesimbrotus! I was trying very hard to condense in the belief that the briefer (within the bounds of intelligibilty) the more likely its acceptance by fellow editors. But I'm very happy to support a version that gives the facts more breathing space. Your approval is sufficient for me to go ahead and insert your version.

But I'd be happy to see feedback here from other editors, too.

-- Jmc 03:05, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Morrison on Hatto's Mozart

An IP user has inserted a reference to a review of the "Hatto" Mozart Sonatas. The reference seems to me misleading and I'd like to give my reasons here. The review is at http://www.gramophone.co.uk/gramofilereview.asp?reviewID=200215660&mediaID=224033&issue=Reviewed%3A+Gramophone+1%2F2007 . The Wikipedia text as it currently stands:

Bryce Morrison favourably reviewed Hatto in his January 2007 Gramophone review of the Mozart Sonatas issued under Hatto's name. Morrison dismissed the "doubting Thomases" and asserted the superiority of Hatto's versions of these to those of Ingrid Haebler, whose Mozart is said to be "an altogether more limited experience." It has been since claimed that these recordings are indeed performances by Haebler recorded on Denon.

Then the next paragraph begins "Doubts about the authenticity of some of her recordings were expressed by Gramophone readers in early 2006". My objections: 1. Haebler recorded two sets of the Mozart Sonatas. The second, little-known set, of which the Hatto is a copy, was issued recently on the Denon label and is only available in Japan. The first is the well-known and easily available Philips set. The text as it stands suggests that BM found the Hatto superior to the recording from which it was copied. This is unfair to BM, who was probably entirely ignorant of the existence of the new Haebler recording. All he says is that Hatto's K545 "is never merely bright-eyed in a way that can make, say, Ingrid Haebler's Mozart an altogether more limited experience." This is turned by the author of the Wikipedia addition into a general verdict on the Hatto set as a whole compared to the Haebler set (as though there were only one). BM is only saying that Haebler's Mozart "can" be more superficial, and this is a perfectly reasonable if subjective verdict on some of Haebler's Mozart recordings (not all of them, as 'those of Ingrid Haebler' in the Wikipedia text implies).

Jed Distler knew them (Feb 2007). Why didn't Bryce Morrison? They are well known.
You can't expect someone to know every recording, or even ever "well known" recording. It's silly to suggest otherwise, even for a critic. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ 17:08, 11 March 2007 (UTC)


2. "Morrison dismissed the "doubting Thomases"": in the context of the Wikipedia entry this suggests that he dismisses a definite group who doubted the authenticity of some of the Hatto recordings (see the beginning of the next paragraph as quoted above). But BM is not referring to doubts on that score, but to any readers who may doubt whether this particular Mozart set can be as good as he claims. This is clear from the context:

Scrupulously true to the score, she offers us her own personal illumination, acutely yet naturally sensitive to the profound inner light that so often shines beneath Mozart's outwardly benign surface. Doubting Thomases should turn for confirmation to the slow movement of K533...
Compeletely wrong. BM had already used the phrase in his review of the Liszt and Chopin Godowsky studies and it certainly does refer to those who doubt the authenticity of the recordings.

In short, the text as it stands seriously misrepresents BM and in the process insinuates a serious charge against a distinguished critic, but the charge does not stand up to close examination. I don't think there are any grounds for referring to this particular review when the article already says that several critics praised the misattributed recordings. That is the only point that needs to be made. If this review is to be singled out for particular mention, the concerns mentioned will have to be addressed, and it will not be possible to do so without devoting a disproportionate amount of space in the article to the question.Stesimbrotus 16:50, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Untrue. BM used his reviews to go to war against the 'doubting Thomases' and there is nothing wrong with saying so.

1.It's said in the unsigned reply above that 'Jed Distler knew them (Feb 2007)'. I don't know what 'them' refers to here. If it's the Haebler Mozart Sonatas on Japanese Denon, could you give a reference? Also, could you give some evidence to support your claim that Haebler's Japanese Denon recordings are 'well known'? Thanks. (Of course even if Distler had obtained the Haebler from Japan, which I doubt, that's not to say that every critic writing on Hatto's Mozart should have known of and bought these recordings from Japan.)

2. You didn't make any attempt to address my concerns about the false insinuation that Morrison was comparing two copies of the same recordings, when all he said was that "Hatto's" K545 lacked the superficiality found in some of Haebler's Mozart recordings. Sorry, but we can't have tendentious material like this in a Wikipedia article. If you want to bring this review in, please do not misrepresent it. Thanks.Stesimbrotus 18:03, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Just to add, on 'doubting Thomases', I think it's clear from the context, as I said, that the doubts in question are doubts about the excellence of the performances, and not doubts about who is performing. BM is picking out highlights to demonstrate that the performances are indeed as excellent as he claims, even though the pianist (as was then thought) is largely unknown and old and in poor health: that's what would lead people to be sceptical about his claims.Stesimbrotus 18:22, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

I support Stesimbrotus' removal of the insertion by an anonymous user of the Haebler/Hatto review reference:
1) We need to be very careful about referring to doubts in this context unless we can provide an incontrovertible explanation of what those doubts are about. The anonymous user maintains that they "certainly [do] refer to those who doubt the authenticity of the recordings", but does not provide evidence of this.
2) Stesimbrotus rightly says that "If this review is to be singled out for particular mention, the concerns mentioned will have to be addressed, and it will not be possible to do so without devoting a disproportionate amount of space in the article to the question" (my emphasis). Yes, we must be careful to keep a balance here. The article after all is principally about Hatto and her oeuvre, and reports of others' opinions on those topics need to be succinctly expressed.
(I also deplore the manner in which the anonymous user has interpolated unsigned comments - in bold! - in the midst of Stesimbrotus' entry above. This makes the discussion very difficult to follow, and I reserve the right to edit those interpolations in the interest of clarity.) -- Jmc 19:26, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
See this link for BH's other criticism of 'doubting Thomases'. [3]. I'm sorry but your reasoning is false and I have restored the BH text. If you want to reword it fine but deletion is not welcome. The Denons were available in this country and were reviewed by Gramophone (thought not by BH). Their existence was no secret. I have clarified that the Denon versions are those referred to in the main text.
Alongside the Mozart review it is instructive to compare BM's review of Heisser's Goyescas [4] to the review he posted when Heisser's work reappeared as a 'Hatto' [5]

In reply to the anonymous user: the source recording for the "Hatto" Goyescas has not been identified to the best of my knowledge (not on Wikipedia, not on RMCR, not on Yahoo Pianophiles or Great Pianists). Perhaps you are thinking of Iberia? In any case, this has no bearing on the points made by me and Jmc, which you have not addressed. As for the Denon recordings, it's true that Denon had a UK distributor in the 1980s, and perhaps even into the 1990s (I take it that "this country" above refers to the UK), but they do not any longer. Morrison would have had to order the recordings from Japan, as I've said. Stesimbrotus 20:55, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

I have again removed the 'Morrison' text inserted by the anonymous user. For my rationale, see above, particularly the point about the need to maintain a balance here - this article after all is principally about Hatto and her playing and recording. The anonymous user may like to start another Wikipedia article about reviewers - and to sign his/her Talk contributions, in accord with Wikipedia policy. -- Jmc 21:40, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
I have once again removed the 'Morrison' text inserted by the anonymous user - and will continue to do so. Another point to consider (and this was alluded to by Stesimbrotus in his initial item under this subhead) is that - apart from anything else - it's misplaced chronologically; it refers to BM's Jan 2007 review, and the following paragraph begins "Doubts about the authenticity of some of her recordings were expressed by Gramophone readers in early 2006". -- Jmc 21:40, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
Well you better be careful, one of you or both already broke the 3RR rule. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ 22:43, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
Good point, Melodia! Over to you, Stesimbrotus, if the anonymous user comes back with another reversion (his/her fourth) -- Jmc 23:17, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Dating Hatto's Second Coming

Following further off-line correspondence with the indefatigable Hatto researcher Andrys Basten, I've given a more precise dating to the revival of interest in Hatto: under 'Career', I've added to the sentence beginning "From 2003 onwards …" ", sparked by a blind-listening test in December 2002 posted on ThePiano Yahoo group featuring a recording under Hatto's name of Liszt's Mephisto Waltz." This does indeed appear to be the event that began the resurgent interest in Hatto via the CA CDs.

Given the two very distinct phases that Hatto's career falls into, it could be advisable to have a second subhead for the part of the article beginning "In her last years …"? (possibly not with the title "Hatto's Second Coming ", though!) -- Jmc 20:28, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Roberge identification of Chopin-Godowsky original, 2005

Thanks very much, Musicarius, for your fascinating added paragraph on Roberge's posting of May 2005 about a misreading in Hatto's performance of Godowsky's Chopin Study No. 2, and please excuse my condensation and moving of detail to the footnote. To have left that amount of detail in the article itself would've greatly unbalanced it. The rest of this section on 'Later Attributed Recordings' is necessarily condensed as well and, following the editing, your added paragraph now has a roughly similar level of detail. IMO. -- Jmc 00:26, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Removal of WB-C confession material from introduction

I've removed the second paragraph of the introduction, relating to WB-C's confession. All this material (including the Gramophone reference) is covered later in the article, and having it still featured at the beginning of the article gives it what is now undue prominence. Since the first (and now, only) introductory paragraph ends with "after her death it was discovered that many of these recordings were taken from CDs recorded by other performers", this matter is covered adequately at this initial point, and leaving the second paragraph would unbalance the article.

-- Jmc 01:24, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../j/o/y/Talk%7EJoyce_Hatto_cdad.html"