Talk:Erik Satie

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article falls within the scope of the WikiProject contemporary music, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of contemporary music subjects. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
Mid This article has been rated as mid-importance on the importance scale.
Erik Satie is related to the Composers WikiProject 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.
France Portal
Erik Satie is within the scope of WikiProject France, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to France on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please join the project and help with our open tasks.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the Project's quality scale.
(If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments, explaining the ratings and/or suggest improvements.)
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Biography Portal
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]
This article is supported by the Arts and Entertainment work group.

Contents

[edit] Cats

If Satie is not a "classical composer" then his compositions are not classical music. Hyacinth 00:25, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I reiterate the above. Satie is a classical composer. Hyacinth 18:47, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Well, as far as wikipedia categorisation is a rough approach I agree with Hyacinth's categorisation scheme. On a more fundamental level, no, I don't completely agree (this has been discussed with Hyacinth on several other places, he knows how I think about this) - Anyway, I'll leave the categorisation as it is now.
Still, if Hyacinth again passes here I'd ask him, like I did before, to give his comments on the wikipedia:categorization of people guideline (which I de-thinktanked a few days ago) - still don't know whether Hyacinth thinks this a helpful guideline or not, and I do appreciate his opinion on that matter.
--Francis Schonken 14:25, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Overlinking

In my early days here at wikipedia I did dreadfully overlink. The Satie article still needs some cleanup in that sense. I'll do whenever I've got some time, but anyone wanting to help: don't withold yourselves. --Francis Schonken 14:25, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Archives Erik Satie feedback

Some months ago I received a nice letter from Ornella Volta of the "Archives Erik Satie" in Paris, giving some side-remarks for improvement on the Erik Satie article (which I had sent her as a printed document on 15/08/2004 - Ornella Volta has no regular access to internet, so that was the easiest way to proceed).

Anyway, the suggested improvements will be introduced shortly in the article (I did postpone this too long). Does anyone care to read my exchange of letters and faxes with Ornella Volta? I could publicise copies of (part of) them, though note that most of the conversation is in French.

--Francis Schonken 14:25, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Satie's sexuality

As was probably unavoidable the theme of Satie's sexuality has been introduced a few days ago in the opening paragraph of the article. Well, shows wikipedia can not avoid to treat this topic.

Hesitantly (see m:Friends of gays should not be allowed to edit articles for what is the pun in saying "hesitantly"), I propose to proceed as follows:

  • First, leaving the opening paragraph untouched during these proceedings;
  • Second, starting a new topic in the "Dictionaire d'idées préconçus" section;
  • Thirdly, if consensus has been reached over the content of that new paragraph, adapt the opening paragraph of the article accordingly.

If any problems with this three-pace scheme for tackling this, please report here.

--Francis Schonken 14:25, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)

PS: In the first version of "step two", I made reference to Robert Orledge's point of view on the matter, as expressed on Niclas Fogwall's website. Here's the quote (because the "news group" application of the Niclas Fogwall website can not be deep-linked without mixing up the frames - http://www.af.lu.se/~fogwall/satie/forum/). The quote can be found under the forum topic "Satie était-il homosexuel?", dated Wed 16 Jun 19:42 (i.e. 2004), initiated by hervé Lachapelle:

Niclas Fogwall - InläggSkrivet: Mån 14 Jun 13:33
Regarding if Satie was homosexual and the said affair with Auric, I forwarded this information to Robert Orledge. Here is his answer:
No this is quite untrue. Satie was extremely moral and disapproved of the sexual activities of Cocteau and his circle. Calling Auric an 'omoplat' etc in 1924 was a definite insult on his part. Ornella Volta thinks Satie may have had a brief affair with the poetess Henriette Sauret in the summer of 1914, but there is no proof of any relationship other than with Suzanne Valadon. He seems to have been a bit of a voyeur (see his letter to Milhaud of 4 February 1921 about one of Caryathis's wilder parties), but despite the suggestions regarding Debussy in Marc Bredel's book, he was not homosexual at all. His problem was that he was 'a man whom women did not understand' and thus became asexual.

--Francis Schonken 16:25, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)

      • Thank you for the kind invitation. I am away from my little black book (Lariviere's tome on famous gays) but when I get back I will dip into it and see what he has to say. It was his opinion which inspired me to interpose - I hope not erroneously. The only thing I have to add now to the discussion is to inquire if anyone has any thoughts on why he gave the title of "Gymnopedies" to those pieces. I find it very suggestive. I also find his "asexuality" a lot to accept, especially of a man who writes hymns to naked boys. But that is only an opinion. Oh, one more thing - what do we know about his relationshiop with Poulenc (who is also said to have been gay), whom he met when Poulenc was young, and which ended up in a tiff after many years? Haiduc 00:32, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Poulenc was gay: "Poulenc was gay, openly so from his first serious relationship, that with painter Richard Chanelaire to whom he dedicated his Concert champêtre: "You have changed my life, you are the sunshine of my thirty years, a reason for living and working." (Ivry 1996) He also once said, "You know that I am as sincere in my faith, without any messianic screamings, as I am in my Parisian sexuality" (Aldrich 2004)." Hyacinth 01:47, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback!

I'd like to kindly draw your attention to List of famous gay, lesbian or bisexual composers, which I'm sure Hyacinth knows already: this is an annotated list of who-is-who in LBG composer-land. Regarding this list:

  • The little black book (Lariviere's tome on famous gays) is not used as a reference there yet (I suppose): I propose to add it as reference [5] to that list. If I've got some time I'll do it already, but I'd like to ask to make it a more thorough reference, I mean, giving full title, ISBN, etc... (I've never seen this little black book myself).
  • Poulenc is on that list already. As I wrote in the new "Satie and sexuality" section of the Satie article: approximately half of the group of Satie's acquaintances was either gay or lesbian. Which of course does not "prove" the other half was gay too. And if looking closer, that information is probably too circumstantial to say anything about Satie himself. For Satie I suppose other sources are needed. Yes, Poulenc was openly gay. Yes, Satie fell out with Poulenc and he refused all of Poulenc's attempts at reconciliation (Ornella Volta, Satie Seen Through His Letters, 1989). This proves nothing about Satie's sexual orientation: in a Freudian way it could be explained as repression; on face value it could be explained as Satie having nothing to do with homosexuality. Neither explanations are conclusive.
  • Auric is not on that list yet. I know too little about Auric to know whether to include him or not.
  • Satie is not on that list yet. If the only reference is Lariviere's booklet I suppose someone having that book is more rightfully placed to add Satie to that list with a correct annotation.
  • Does anyone know more about the "Marc Bredel" book/text mentioned above by Robert Orledge? Could that be used as a reference for the LGB composer list too?
  • I suppose Winnaretta Singer could be added to that list too? As far as I know she had in her marriage contract with the Prince de Polignac that she would have her future compositions executed on the prince's costs. But I don't know whether she did compose anything? So, whether she would qualify as a composer? And if composer, whether she could be called famous composer (which is the title of the list)?

Re. Gymnopedies: I think I'll start the Gymnopedies article ASAP, that should clarify some things too (what I recall is that gymnopedie was a word used in a poem by one of Satie's "Chat Noir" friends shortly before Satie used the word the first time himself).

--Francis Schonken 09:42, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Step 3

I'm about to remove the "homosexuality" reference from the opening paragraph of the Erik Satie article: it seems neither belonging to the most "important" nor to the most "interesting" things that can be said about Satie:

  • If it were all that important his contemporaries would at least have managed to preserve an unambiguous trace of that alleged homosexuality for posterity;
  • I don't see how this could belong to the top most intresting things that could be said about Satie, if there seems to be so little influence of Satie's alleged homosexuality in his music (see: gymnopédie).

I'd like to make a comparison here: Virginia Woolf was also described as "asexual", e.g. by herself in her diaries, by her niece Angelica Garnett, etc... Nonetheless I've always defended Wikipedia articles should be clear about Woolf's lesbianism, simply because it is relevant for her books (e.g. Orlando's main theme could be mistaken as transsexuality otherwise); also it is clear from historical data that Virginia and Vita made an "elopement" trip to France, very similar, be it less intensive, to Vita's adventures with Violet Trefusis in that same country.

Compared to that Satie's presumed homosexuality brings no relevance to an audition of the gymnopédies. I think it's good to have a "Satie's sexuality" section in the "idee reçus" section (questions about that topic appear to be popping up more than often!), and to have some description of how Satie probably understood the term gymnopédie when he firt used it, in the gymnopédie article. I suppose I'd think that the most balanced solution.

--Francis Schonken 10:23, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Gymnopedies

It would really be excellent if the page on these could discuss their style and sound, rather than briefly noting the circumstances of their writing and subsequent modification and meditating extensively on whether they mean Satie was gay, which is what it does now. —Vivacissamamente 00:17, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

See expansion request at Gymnopédie#The music --Francis Schonken 07:40, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

So yes, I wrote a first version of the description of gymnopedie compositions: see gymnopaedia. I reworked part of the description of the ancient meaning of the word too.

Now I'm at a loss: should gymnopédie remain a part of the gymnopaedia article (as it is now), or should this be split in two separate articles (one about the ancient Greek thing, and one about the 19th century poems and compositions), and if so: with or without a disambiguation page?

Presently I intend to redirect all the following to the gymnopaedia page:

Anyone feeling otherwise can split it up (note, however, that Contamine probably referred to the ancient Greek meaning of the word in his poem).

The Gymnopédie compositions description is not fully complete yet, e.g. a description of the exceptional nature of the harmony of this music could be added (but I am a bit at a loss how to tackle that).

--Francis Schonken 14:24, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The connection between the Spartan gumnopaideia and Satie's gymnopedies is really so tenuous that I think they should be split up. Bacchiad 19:49, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I'm presently performing the split, giving following scheme:
BTW: I was wrong about the second half of the word: derives from "paidia" and not "paideia" - see new gymnopaedia page.
--Francis Schonken 12:13, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Fancy template

Erik Satie is related to the Composers WikiProject 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.

(just found out the template above exists - don't shoot me for trying to be funny and thorough at the same time: suppose WikiProject Composers could be helpful. --Francis Schonken 10:59, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC))

[edit] Problem sentences

I'm just copy-editing the article, but I've already hit problems; I'm afraid that I can't make out what these sentences are supposed to mean:

‘He can also be seen as a serial precursor, stretches ahead of many 20th century avant-garde artistic ideas, see below.”

and:

‘This project was something of a pamphlet for a new esoteric sect, the comrades from both the Chat Noir and Miguel Utrillo's Auberge du Clou sympathising.”

Can anyone help? I can see what the basic idea of the former sentence is, I think, so if no-one responds, I'll try to recast it in correct English myself. The latter sentence has me baffled, though. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 13:58, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

  • He can also be seen as a serial precursor, stretches ahead of many 20th century avant-garde artistic ideas, see below. - In many cases Satie has been described as a precursor. So many times, it could be seen as serial (as in serial killer), here used somewhat jokingly. The "below" is an in-page link to the "dictionnaire" section, going in a bit more detail over that aspect of Satie.
Ah, no — I understand 'serial precursor' (though I think a less slangy term might be more accurate) and 'see below'; it's the second part whose grammar has me puzzled. Is 'stretches' being used as a plural noun (like 'streets ahead'), or as a verb? In each case I need to rewrite the clause more idiomatically, but exactly how depends upon your original intention.
That would be the "streets ahead" intention. I liked the poetry of the slangy "serial precursor", but that is a striktly personal appreciation. --Francis Schonken 17:05, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • This project was something of a pamphlet for a new esoteric sect, the comrades from both the Chat Noir and Miguel Utrillo's Auberge du Clou sympathising. - Correct description. The term "pamphlet" refers also to the fact that Satie with his friends & comrades had a Uspud brochure/pamphlet printed. Yes, Satie was very much involved in "esoteric sects" in these days - somehow part of the over-all fin de siècle atmosphere I suppose: there is much less of that after the turn of the century, although to understand his "secret hobby" (the "medieval buildings", as described below in the article), I think this "esoteric sects" episode is part of the picture. "comrades" refers to the "comrade"-type of collaboration this was (or is there another good translation of "cameraderie"?)
It's not the correctness of the calims that I'm worried about, it's the fact that grammatically (and with regard to vocabulary) it's rather obscure. The first problem is that a project can't be a pamphlet. You seem to suggest that a pamphlet was produced, but that you meant something more — and it's the something more that I don't understand. problem with the last part was less with the 'comrades' (though that needs rewriting slightly), more with the 'sympathising'. The meaning as it stands is that they didn't do anything, they just felt that the project (or pamphlet?) was admirable.
Yes sorry, I was condensing too much. Anyway there is both the Uspud "project" and the Uspud "pamphlet" (which is about the same project, but the scholarly research I read about Uspud - Gillmore and some Ornella Volta - is not so clear either where is the distinction between the pamphlet and the larger-picture project/sect). The sources about Uspud are limited, the two major sources are: the printed pamphlet (existing in two editions if I recall well), and an earlier (somehow divergent) score by Satie & Contamine, which was produced to force - unsuccessfully - the production of the piece in a major theatre in Paris. The "supporting friends" derives from some notifications about the project in the "magazines" printed by the two mentioned cafés. --Francis Schonken 17:05, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

This one's also rather obscure: “As its only member, in the rôle of "Parcier et Maître de Chapelle", he started to compose a Grande Messe (later to become known as the Messe des Pauvres), and wrote a flood of letters, articles, and pamphlets, which demonstrated his self-assuredness in religious and artistic matters – amongst others applying for membership of the Académie Française – not making himself more popular at the cultural establishment in the process.” Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 14:04, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

  • As its only member, in the rôle of "Parcier et Maître de Chapelle", he started to compose a Grande Messe (later to become known as the Messe des Pauvres), and wrote a flood of letters, articles, and pamphlets, which demonstrated his self-assuredness in religious and artistic matters – amongst others applying for membership of the Académie Française – not making himself more popular at the cultural establishment in the process. - Completely correct. Maybe the translation of "Parcier et Maître de Chapelle" could clarify? "Maître de Chapelle" is of course "Chapelmaster", for "Parcier" I don't have a good translation, I suppose something like "caretaker"? Grande Messe was the original title of the composition, Messe des Pauvres was the title given to that work when it was published after Satie's death (at least, the parts that were composed and survived). Yes Satie established himself, through his letters, as some sort of "moralist" in these days. The writings of Satie (not less those of this period) are a very important part of his life. This paragraph is connected to the "humoristic switch" paragraph below in the article. No, Satie was not "humoristic" all his life: he took himself serious (too serious one would think) before the turn of the century. Anyway, that also resulted in Satie being rejected and isolated in the last years of the 19th century (as opposed to his friend Debussy, whose star was rising in the mean while, see last section of gymnopédie article). Satie's - unrealistic - candidature for the Académie Française being rejected, is part of the problems he had with the predominantly "romantic" and somehow "Germanistic" established culture of his days (he considered e.g. Saint-Saëns as part of that cultural establishment).
  • Clarifications by Francis Schonken 13:58, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Again, I don't doubt its correctness, but there are some obscurities with syntax in the final part, and vagueness in the first. To whom did he write the letters? What were the subjects of this flood of writing? I see now, though, that the 'amongst others...' actually referred back to the letters.
I'll try to rewrite the passages in question — would you look at them when I've finished to make sure that I haven't made any mistakes? Many thanks.
incidentally, contributors to whose first language isn't English might be interested in Wikipedia:Contributing to articles outside your native language. If I had the courage to contribute to other-language Wikipedias, I'd find it useful. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 14:56, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
To whom he wrote the letters: well, to half the known world I suppose (where the world he knows does not extend very far outside Paris). In that period Satie could be annoyed by an article in a newspaper, and write a flaming letter to the editor, e.g. calling a theatre production heretic, and the like. The "nearly complete letters" is a very thick book, not easily summarized - hope it works somehow as an invitation to go and read that stuff nonetheless, very remarkable indeed.
Thanks for the no-native-language link (and again sorry for the syntax obscurities), this is new for me (I had been looking for something like that before, but did not find). BTW, I enjoy working on the article this way. --Francis Schonken 17:05, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Leaving the army

What was the supposed trick? If no-one knows, should it be mentioned? Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 13:51, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

  • Walking outside, in the winter cold, bare-chested. He was hospitalised, and later acquitted from his army duties. (is this detail important? - The fact that he succeeded in escaping the army with a trick is the thread in the story I suppose). --Francis Schonken 14:05, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    more vivid to include it. Septentrionalis 05:50, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
    • "vivid" is nowhere listed in wikipedia's inclusion criteria, as far as I know. --Francis Schonken 11:44, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
      • "well written" means that the prose is compelling, even brilliant -Wikipedia:How to write a great article. Dullness is a bug, not a feature, even in encyclopedias. (It is also a flaw to leave the reader with obvious, unanswered, questions.) Septentrionalis 16:19, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
Oh, that's another critique. It's about "inclusion" of the factoid how Erik Satie got a cold in 1886. For "inclusion" the criterion is: (1) it has to be interesting; (2) it has also to be important (these inclusion criteria for article text are retrieved from the NPOV tutorial). Wikipedia:importance has a whole list of what "importance" means in wikipedia context, none of them imply "vivid". And, as my personal assesment: the factoid of Satie's cold in 1886 is less important than the other stuff in the article.
So let me rephrase the question: "is this detail important?" (well it's the same phrasing as above, but I don't see another phrasing).
Question of style ("well written"), that's another matter. Has nothing to do with inclusion criteria. And MoS certainly doesn't override inclusion criteria: there's no "add factoids to make a story more vivid" to be found there. If the thing is appealing enough so that people go looking for more information about Erik Satie than the over 30kB that's in the article, I would say: mission accomplished. The piece is "brilliant" while it provoked people's curiosity, while at the same time holding the essential facts about the composer. Remember that "perfect article" can't be used to slap people on the head with: that guideline is clear enough about that. Anyway, you would only be slapping Mel Etitis in that case: he restyled the article (...and I reproached him having made it duller in the end, see discussion below...). Regarding the importance of the 1886 cold of Satie, Mel apparently agreed it was not important enough to come back on it. --Francis Schonken 18:48, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
Wikipedia:importance is a proposed policy on the inclusion of articles. Since no one is questioning the inclusion of Erik Satie, it is thus irrelevant on two grounds.
NPOV tutorial is guideline and is about article text needing to be "important". --Francis Schonken 10:49, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
I support inclusion of the cold, as a memorable detail; I could accept leaving it out entirely; I oppose being vague about it and teasing the reader.
Presently the "cold" is left out entirely, as it was before. So I think you're entirely happy. The only thing that's important in the story of his life is (1) he didn't stay in the army for a long time; (2) getting out of it before the term of his subscription resulted from his own initiative, neither following official procedure, neither doing something illegal in the strict sense (a.k.a. a trick).
No; the trick should either be explained or omitted. I have now tried the second alternative (which I do not prefer). Septentrionalis 18:29, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
"should", as in "I'm the boss here"? --Francis Schonken 08:02, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
Btw, "factoid" implies not only triviality but doubtful truth. If it is being used correctly, Francis should remove the cold from the article; he is himself my authority for it Septentrionalis 19:08, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
Sorry if my use of "factoid" is not what you understood by it.
Anyhow, as far as I'm concerned this has taken long enough. I oppose to deterioration of the Erik Satie article, even if it's marginal deterioration like the one you propose. --Francis Schonken 10:49, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
I am sorry to see Francis claim ownership of this article. Septentrionalis 18:29, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
No, I don't, that's the last thing I'd do. I'll go and have a look at the change you propose. If I like it, I leave it. If I don't, I change it to something I think better in line with wikipedia policies & guidelines, that's how wikipedia works.
I don't like your factoid dispute. I know you're a bit frustrated while missing your usual playmate for irrelevant disputes, and that I have some responsability in pointing out this guy's disruptive behaviour. But don't go picking on me. For me the quality of wikipedia articles in general is more important than disputes that only marginally relate to wikipedia's quality. --Francis Schonken 08:02, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
Edit wars! There's nothing better than that. You are wrong about this issue, btw--Wormsie 18:15, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, what you wrote is simply not correct, Satie did not "secure a discharge from the army in a few weeks", there was considerable time delay between the "trick" and the acquittal, anyway more than "a few weeks". After his stay in the lazaret he was home several months, expecting to have to return to the army after healing. Only the next year (if I remember well), and after additional doctor's reports the discharge was "secured".

I oppose you filling in phantasy details, for which there's no shred of a reference. In a prior edit you supposed the ailment was pneumonia, it wasn't: it was bronchitis (Volta, 1989). Please consider this is an encyclopedia, talking about Erik Satie as a musician (and his other occupations that make him a relevant person in history), not about filling in filmic romanticised details having no real bearing on that.

Provisionally I return to my previous version of that paragraph. I found your recent edit better than the previous one, but still lacking precision, and as far as your original remark, as style it is was definitely less lively. Note that lively exists in being "enticing" too, and that is the same as saying seducing the reader in wanting to know more. So, in short, we're discussing about a fake argument of yours. --Francis Schonken 08:42, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

The 'trick' got my interest. It annoyed me that it wasn't disclosed, though. So yes, either don't mention it, or go into specifics. You're all missing the point as to why it is important to mention those specefics, though - not because it has any baring on his music per se, but because it gives such elegant insight into Satie's personality, into what kind of choices he was apt to make. Having failed a career in music, he made what looks like an absurd leap into the deep. But how could he not have realised the military was no place for him? Also, he must have realised that by applying 'the trick' he might well die from bronchitis or pneumonia, which was not uncommon in those days. Such life choices should not be omitted, for ultimately they describe (and possibly even explain) both the man and his work... - Michiel Nijk, june 27th 2006

[edit] Out-of-place passage

“Something that will have become clear by now is that he did not so much reject Romanticism (and its exponents like Wagner) as a whole (he has become more moderate in a way), as that he rejected certain aspects of it: musically the thing he rejected most consequently, from his very first composition to his very last, was the idea of development, certainly in the more strict definition of this term: the intertwining of different themes in a development section of a sonata form: naturally this makes his contrapuntal (and other works) very short: e.g. his Fugues do not extend further than the exposition of the theme(s). Generally he would say that he didn't think it permitted that a composer would take more time from his public than strictly necessary, certainly avoiding to be boring in any way.”

  • Not out-of-place: resumes what biographers like Gillmore have elaborated heavily. Hey, these biographical notes are supposed to say something about Satie-the-musician I suppose? Satie rejecting "development" ("Musical development", click the link!) is described as the only constant feature of his music. His relation with romanticism is much more complex, as (from certain points of view) his music & life have some romantic characteristics too, certainly the pre-schola cantorum music (and even his subscription to the schola maybe was partly a romantic whim). --Francis Schonken 14:36, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Well, my personal view is that what had been up 'til then a straightforward biographical account, with references to his work, suddenly turned into something very different for a paragraph or so, before returning to biography. In English, at any rate, the effect is jarring (especially as the comment doesn't obviously relate to what's just been said). Once I've rewritten it to smooth and correct the English, could we start a new section that deals with the critical discussion of him and music? Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 15:27, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
The two paragraphs were meant to link with the "schola cantorum" paragraph: d'Indy was a romantic composer, to say the least, and the baffledness of his friends over Satie going to the schola, was largely because they experienced it as a kind of treason of the anti-romantic feelings they supposedly shared. Nonetheless I tried to avoid the word romantic where I could, because it's such a mixed-bag word - I tried to use the more specific "wagnerism", "medievalism", "esoterie", etc. instead, to distinghuish the "flavours" of romanticism going around in fin de siècle Paris. --Francis Schonken 18:01, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

“Also Melodrama, in its historical meaning of the then popular genre of "spoken words to a background of music", was something Satie appears to have succeeded quite well to stay clear of (although his 1913 Piège de Méduse could be seen as an absurdistic spoof of that genre).”

  • Melodrama had a double meaning around the turn-of-the-century, and it was a thentime important art form (in both meanings) barely imaginable a century later. I had updated the Melodrama article to make it fit with this paragraph in the Satie article (again, if not acquainted with the terms as they are used in the article: click the links, please, that's how Wikipedia works)
No, again you assume that it's the vocabulary that's the problem, but it wasn't as my explanation (below) made clear). It could form part of the critical section (see above). Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 15:27, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

This needs rewriting, but it was also out of place, being in the biographical/historical section. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 14:34, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

  • Very thankful for rewriting, I know my English is often handicapped - I hope my clarifications here are a bit supportive for such reworkings. Note that the article has no separate "descriptive" music section, which is, as I read not so long ago, perfectly in line with one of possibilities offered by the "Composer WikiProject" guidelines. My personal opinion is also that this is the best proceeding for Satie, while his music is very different in the separate episodes of his life, and ties up with these periods. But, please, avoid butchering. --Francis Schonken 14:36, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for your responses. I'm making a start on the rewriting; see what you think. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 15:27, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Still thinking about your suggestions regarding the structure of the article. Might work. Might not. I'll try not to disturb while you're busy (as I maybe did). I'm very attached to the concept of the idées reçues section though, and would not supplant it by a general "criticism" section. --Francis Schonken 18:01, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Publicist?

When I wrote "publicist" for Satie I didn't have in mind anything near to "doing publicity campaigns", I meant publicist, as it is said e.g. about G.K. Chesterton on this page: This brilliant journalist, novelist, essayist, publicist and lyricist,... Chesterton didn't do publicity campaigns, not for himself, not for anybody else - he just was a writer, "opinionate" yes, "publicity" no.

He used the word "publicist" in the same meaning himself (see first paragraph of this "Father Brown" story). I don't know about "self-publicist" which is in the new version of the E. Satie article, but my guess is that it is not to the point, while "publicist" in a modern meaning seems to have refocussed to what is now in the publicist wikipedia article (which does not very much apply to Satie).

So I don't know which way to go forward best (I'd need to be native English to feel what is best):

  • Expand the publicist article with the "someone who publishes/has his writings published in periodicals and the like" meaning (which is an established meaning for the word according to my 1987 dictionary...) - note the 1913 Webster still has a third, very specific, meaning for "publicist", see http://onlinedictionary.datasegment.com/word/publicist;

and/or

  • Find another word to characterise Satie in his capacity of "writer who had his writings published": he wrote some articles for periodicals (some for periodicals published by the bars he visited in his young years, but up to Vanity Fair magazine by the end of his life, for which he wrote an article on Stravinsky; in between he had written for some established esoterical magazines and some experimental avant-garde periodicals); Occasionally he would be the publisher of his own writings, e.g. the Cartulaire de l'Eglise Métropolitaine d'Art de Jésus Conducteur. If "(self-)publicist" is not suited to characterise all those "publishing" activities in one word, which word(s) would be better?

Could someone help on this one?

--Francis Schonken 19:07, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Well, I was wrong to change it to 'self-publicist'. the trouble is, 'publicist' gives the wrong idea too. I'm afraid that there's no single world for all the things that you want to say; my feeling is that it would be better to explain them in the way you have here, rather than try to sum them up in one word or phrase.
My editing has been badly disrupted by the power-cut and its after-effects (as I'm sure it has everyone), but I'm hoping to get back on top of things by or at the weekend. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 23:08, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)
There's a lesson probably - when performing a major change maybe better to work on the talk page first (like I did several months ago, when performing the first major rewrite). What I did not change back yet, but still think of as a deterioration rather than an enhancement of the article:
  • I had written the bulk of the article (the life story) in present tense, which is more lively than past tense. Now everything is uniformely in past tense, which IMHO is a much duller experience for a reader.
  • Many of the bulleted lists were changed to continuous text. Bulletted lists are good practice for on-screen reading (see usability/web usability), continuous text is less good: Wikipedia is already challenging the general usability principles in this respect (...successfully I would say), but not to be exaggerated where it can be avoided.
--Francis Schonken 09:47, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  1. With regard to the first point, this may be a difference between good style in English and in some other European languages. We use the present tense to talk about the past in limited contexts, and certainly not in an encyclopædia article.
  2. Bulletted lists made the article look unfinished, telegraphic — more like notes than an article.
  3. On 'publicist': should I take your explanation and insert it, excising 'self-publicist'? Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 13:13, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Re. style properties: this is meta-discussion, which is appropriate in "wikipedia:" namespace (and/or on "meta"), and probably has been effectuated there more than once. I haven't really looked for a conclusive stance on the two topics mentioned above, I more or less go from "British English" vs. "US English" discussions I had been following for some time, the most conclusive on that one was something in the sense of: don't go changing the over-all style of an article, but try to keep it to the style from the one who started it... And another thing, being more "encyclopedic" in a "paper encyclopedia article" sense, is generally refuted as an argument in those kinds of discussions. See e.g. also the "Detailed summary" section of the Phaedo article - that article is listed for clean-up, probably because the text is so uninterruptedly long that nobody can bring him/herself to read it on-screen...
PS: French (which is not my native language either) still has this "third option" of the "passé defini" tense, which differs from the usual past tense (the "imparfait"), and appears the most used solution for this kind of encyclopedia articles.
Still a question: I use(d) quite often the construction "from [...time indication...] on", which probably is not so good as "from [...time indication]", which I thought was confusing, as I thought that might be misread as "during [...time indication]". Is it in English language unambiguous that this faulty interpretation would not occur? Note you that I also encounter the construction "from [...time indication...] onwards" - or is that too solemn again?
Re. publicist: there are no mentionings of this apparently ambiguous word in the Satie article any more. I kept short indications of Satie's "publishing" activities where appropriate. The article is slightly exceeding the advised maximum article length of 32 Kb, so the more in-depth treatment of Satie's publishing activities would maybe be difficult to add to the article itself. I've been thinking about if (and which) split of the Erik Satie article would be a good idea (or not). Maybe starting Erik Satie writings or Erik Satie as author might be a way forward - what do you think?
Still about "publicist": I think mentioning the antiquated meanings of publicist in the publicist article should be done anyway (and/or in wiktionary:publicist?). Feel like proceeding with that?
--Francis Schonken 14:08, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  1. The point about style doesn't concern the difference between two local variants, but between the style appropriate for, say, a novel and that appropriate for an article.
    As for the present/past tense I completely disagree, and even think you are mistaking about English language: see e.g. Lytton Strachey's "Eminent Victorians", some shorter biographies that would not "stylistically" clash with wikipedia: This Bloomsbury group biographer switches present and past tense for telling the lives of historical figures. I would have supposed native English speakers would have become used to that style (that maybe was "modern" a century ago). Again: if you think "using past tense only for biographies" would be a good wikipedia recommendation, please see to it an appropriate mentioning of that would be made in the Wikipedia:Manual of Style (and/or related pages). I think, however, chances of such guideline being accepted there by the wikipedia community to be very low. Unless you can give me a reference in that sense I'd however only treat such imaginary guideline as "Mel's POV", but not something that will affect my writing. --Francis Schonken 10:30, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    I'm a bit bemused; I checked the Bloomsbury group article, and it's wholly in the past tense. As for Lytton Strachey, he's not a good example; he was deliberately (and self-avowedly) breaking away from accepted style, in order to provide a much more personal account than is the case in normal biographies.
    As regards references for my contention, you might look at: [1], or at this: “Use the past tense. Those of you who have taken English 5 as your introduction to college writing will no doubt have been told that, when writing about literature, one should use the present tense. In History, the past tense is the tense of choice - it permits you to place a person or event at a particular point in a chronology”[2].
    As a philosopher, I'm accustomed to talking of the arguments and positions of historical figures in the present tense (e.g.: 'Descartes argues that having a choice – the Liberty of Indifference – is the lowest form of freedom'), but I've never seen it used in a biographical sketch. Sometimes, especially in a longer biographical work such as a book, an author might use the present tense to add an immediacy or urgency to the narrative, but such an effect would be vitiated by placing the whole book in the present. I honestly doubt that you'd find many native speakers who'd disagree with what I'm arguing here — it's really quite uncontroversial. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 11:46, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  2. The construction 'from time t on' is occasionally used, but only in certain contexts; the construction using 'onwards' is more generally correct, though unnecessary. In English, the 'on/wards' is implied by the 'from t' (it couldn't be taken to mean 'during...').
    Thanks! --Francis Schonken 10:30, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  3. I must say that the ambiguity of 'publicist' is notional — you're right to call the alternative meaning antiquated. I've never really looked at Wiktionary.
    Yes, I think more articles would benefit from "historical meaning(s)" sections, which can point to connotations that have become obsolete/antiquated (but one sometimes needs to understand for reading old stuff). I had the problem with gymnopaedia/gymnopédie (which eventually led to a split of the article, see above); user:WHEELER appears to be in similar problems w.r.t. republic, etc... --Francis Schonken 10:30, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  4. I like the idea of Erik Satie's writing (or something similar; probably not 'as author'). Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 16:43, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    There is already the "Erik Satie compositions" category, so I'd probably think Erik Satie writings more compatible, but Erik Satie's writing is probably OK too. --Francis Schonken 10:30, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] why

why is he listed as gay when he refered to himself as asexual?

Is he? - where?
PS: dear User:Grazon, use ~~~~ or signature button above edit window to sign comments! --Francis Schonken 05:43, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

He's listed as gay here

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_gay%2C_lesbian_or_bisexual_people

I swear some of the people who contribute to that list think everyone is gay.

PS still getting used to signing.

grazon 21:17, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

Wel Satie's is off that list now, he wasn't on List of famous gay, lesbian or bisexual composers, so why should he be on that other, more general list...
I removed Schubert in a same sweep, he's not "confirmed", certainly not less doubtfull than Satie (and also not on the gay composer list). Neither had a plausible reference either.
Anyhow:
  • You can edit such list yourself: just click an edit button and improve what you get in the edit window. For such list I think that the general idea is that it is better to include a reference from a book where the info can be found.
  • And for the internal link to such wikipedia page: you can use double square brackets [[ ]], and you put the page name in between, like this: List of gay, lesbian or bisexual people, then you don't have to use the external link with http:// for referring to a wikipedia page.
Greetz, --Francis Schonken 22:14, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] introduction

I'm a bit concerned about the 'Satie also ...' section in such a prominent place in the intro. Any thoughts on whether this deserves such a position? I feel it may well be better placed elsewhere. Haven't (yet) dived in to make the change as it looks like a lot of work has gone into this article, and it has been well thought through and subedited elsewhere ... AndrewMcQ 19:06, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

Well, I put it there. So I won't be able to give an outsider view, what is maybe what you're looking for. The original idea was: (a) many people come looking here for Satie "the composer of the gymnopédies", so that is a suitable lead section topic; (b) a lead section usually names the primary occupations of a person. Combining the two leads to Satie as "gymnopedist", that's what he actually named as his professional occupation shortly before writing the gymnopédies. The other "occupation" indications were added to the list to make it complete. In an earlier version of the article the topics were not presented in a list (but as continuous text), but I have no idea whether that was better.
I think I talked enough about me, please tell me, why would you think this approach problematic?
--Francis Schonken 07:13, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
Mainly a style issue. I think it looks messy in the introduction. Not sure what Wikipedia style guides say regarding the use of bulleted lists (will look it up when I get time). AndrewMcQ 21:44, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

First it tells who Satie is and then goes to great details about... some details. I don't think the fact that Satie called himself a gymnopedist is important or the reasons behind himself doing so. What about mentioning his importance in general or his famous pieces or...? And the details can be mentioned later.--Wormsie 13:20, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

What's wrong with

Satie also introduced himself as a "gymnopedist" (in 1887, shortly before writing his most famous compositions, the Gymnopédies).

?
Ah, probably you didn't notice "his most famous compositions" in that sentence.
Sorry, read what there is. --Francis Schonken 14:58, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Sorry if I offended you. I meant that the general things could be mentioned in the introduction, and details in the rest of the article, so that the introduction chapter would be clearer. The fact that Satie composed the Gymnopedies seems like an irrelevant detail as it is said in brackets, for example. More examples:

1) 'and referred to himself as a "phonometrograph" or "phonometrician"'

Two very long words after one another.

2) '(someone who measures and writes down sounds)'

Detailed explanation in brackets.

3) 'preferring this definition of his profession to "musician", after he had been called “a clumsy but subtle technician” in a book on contemporary French composers in 1911.'

We know who Satie is, we know his name and two of his compositions, and would perhaps want more general information, but suddenly we are presented a reference to a certain year, a certain book and a certain part of a sentence in that book.

4) 'Satie became one of the first musicians to perform a cameo appearance'

Is this really that relevant to his career? Not among the first things I'd want to know about Satie, and this detail is hardly mentioned in the article itself.

5) 'in a 1924 film by René Clair (see: a sample of the film (rm format) and the Entr'acte article).'

A link to a rm file, long sentence in brackets.

All the information could be in the article, but would be better somewhere else, I find. Or get rid of the bracket feast at least. So I agree with AndrewMcQ when he said that "I'm a bit concerned about the 'Satie also ...' section in such a prominent place in the intro. Any thoughts on whether this deserves such a position? I feel it may well be better placed elsewhere."--Wormsie 08:16, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, as the movie bit was mentioned later on in less detail than in the opening paragraph, I moved that particular bit there.--Wormsie 23:07, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Contents of Apartment after Death

I also recall hearing on a local radio station that in addition to sheet music, umbrellas, etc. they found three pianos with their legs sawed off and stacked on top of eachother as well as a hammock instead of a bed. can anybody coroborate? 24.34.179.111 01:17, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

I suppose this is fantasy. Afaik there was 1 piano (upright), covered in dust. And a bed. But descriptions vary. --Francis Schonken 07:00, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] A paragraph about names of Satie's compositions

I have copy-pasted this from Gnossienne:

"Gnossienne" is one of a very few occasions where a new word was coined by the composer distinctly intended to indicate a (new) "type" of composition. Satie had used and would use a lot of names for his compositions that never had been used to indicate a piece or type of music before: for example "ogive" had been the name of an architectural element until Satie used it as the name for a composition, the Ogives; similar for "vexations", "croquis et agaceries" and what not, but gnossienne was a word that simply didn't exist before Satie used it to indicate a composition.

Most of it didn't belong to that article and I removed it. It would be great if some of this info could be merged to this article. Regards from Slovenia, --Missmarple 12:32, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

This sounds like a chance for you to be bold and edit this article to add this information!
Atlant 13:30, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
The reason I posted it here is that I'm not a native speaker of English and I don't feel like rewording a whole paragraph to fit these information in it. I would be grateful if somebody else made the changes, but until then, the paragraph is safe here :) --Missmarple 15:35, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
Just FYI: You appear to "speak" English as well as I do, especially when my speech is filtered through my fingers as typing! But I understand your reticence, having done a very little bit of editing in the French Wikipedia myself. Thanks for replying!
Atlant 15:50, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Satie and cabaret music

In the article it is mentioned that Satie was "opposed" to cabaret music. I was wondering what is the source for this claim. If anything, cabaret music was often highly influenced by the avant-garde, of which Satie himself was supposedly a part of —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.70.33.254 (talk) 22:02, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Sorry for taking some time to reply, I was looking through my books where the assertion came from.
First note, you say "In the article it is mentioned that Satie was "opposed" to cabaret music." - that's not exactly what is in the article. The article has: "In his later years Satie would reject all his cabaret music as vile and against his nature". I added the bolding of a word here, which indicates an important difference with your rephrasing of the quote.
Anyway, the claim can be referenced to a letter Satie wrote to his brother Conrad on 17 January 1911, containing (using my own and partially Gillmor's translation):

You know I have composed café-concert music.
I've abandoned that kind of music long ago.
The genre didn't suit me. It is more stupid and dirty than anything.
(then Satie continues to describe the Scola Cantorum period)

Ornella Volta's 1989 Satie Seen Through His Letters contains a large excerpt of this letter at the end of the chapter on Satie's schools (I'm using a 1992 translation of that book, not in English). Alan Gillmor summarizes the letter, translating an excerpt in his Erik Satie, Chronology, page xxix.
I added a reference based on this information in the Satie article. --Francis Schonken (talk) 17:51, 8 December 2007 (UTC)


Also, the Oxford monograph on Satie "Satie the bohemian: from cabaret to concert hall", arguably one of the most authoritative books about the composer, argues that cabaret music had a huge influence on his later works. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.70.33.254 (talk) 16:07, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Nobody says Satie wasn't deeply influenced by cabaret music even after he had stopped composing this genre of music as such. The Wikipedia article mentions he revived some of the fun of it with his 1920 Belle excentrique, which effectively reuses one of his cabaret melodies, the Légende Californienne he wrote during his cabaret period. Satie didn't care much for polyphonic writing either, yet he composed a "Choral inappétissant" deeply influenced by polyphonic writing.
Apart from writing the question on the talk page, like you did, and which is fine, there is still another trick here at Wikipedia to ask for a citation for something you don't know where it comes from, you can add {{fact}} (the word "fact" surrounded by double curly braces) after such claim in the article. See: Wikipedia:Verifiability#Burden of evidence. --Francis Schonken (talk) 17:51, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Another Example of a Modern Rendition of a Satie Composition

I've never bothered to edit a Wikipedia article before, but I thought I'd point out another example of a Satie piece that has been played by a modern musician. On Plaid's "Rest Proof Clockwork", track 8 ("Tearisci") uses a section of one of the three Danse de Travers pieces. You can listen to it yourself here [3] (don't worry, no copyright is broken by this link). I don't know if this is something that necessarily needs to be added to the article, but it's an interesting piece of trivia that might be added both here and in the article on the album itself. I figured I'd leave any actual Wiki editing to more experienced users. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.111.24.168 (talk) 09:16, 15 December 2007 (UTC)