Talk:Gabriel Fauré

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:
Other languages WikiProject Echo has identified Gabriel Fauré as a foreign language featured article. You may be able to improve this article with information from the Japanese language Wikipedia.

Contents

[edit] "prolific?"

I don't think we can say "Fauré was a prolific composer". Faure's output is really avarage in size. Looking at the full list of Faure's works in Grove, the complete works of Faure would make less than 20 cds. This is easily 25% less than Chopin who is not considered a prolific composer. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.37.236.172 (talk) 09:59, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] "foremost?"

What if we substituted for "He was the foremost French composer of his generation" the text "He rivalled Camille Saint-Saëns as the foremost French composer of their generation." Wouldn't that be more nuanced, though I too prefer Fauré?--Wetman 18:35, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

The phrase is clearly a judgement and therefore POV. I suggest its changed to "one of the formeost...". Unless a citation can be found for him being foremost. Bringing in another candidate is just complicating things. Lumos3 21:38, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
Judgement is not necessarily POV in a bad way. You have to make some kind of judgement about a person in order to succinctly explain their accomplishments. I think the phrase you're talking about was my fault, I extrapolated it from Grove and other things. Grove says "The most advanced composer of his generation in France" sooooo, we could quote that in the intro paragraph, or have it as it is and put Grove as the source, or something. I don't think we should bring up Saint-Saëns (do people really think he was more important than Fauré?), as it would become confusing, and ranking all French composers of the period isn't really what this article is for. Mak (talk) 22:49, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
I think it's necessary to at least cite Grove. I actually came to this discussion page because I was going to point out that I thought someone lifted and barely paraphrased the info from there. I'm sure I'm not the only one who would think it was plagiarism without a citation. Other than that, I agree that the statement is fine. Grove is a very well-respected source and it is true that it's impossible to avoid making any judgments when dealing with a

person's accomplishments. SecretMethod70 14:30, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Deafness

- When did he "become" deaf, according to the category associated to him? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Leonardo Teixeira de Oliveira (talk • contribs) 09:36, June 26, 2007

I've got the same question: it's not mentioned anywhere in the article, so could somebody please substantiate this and add a line to the article (hopefully with a source)? I'm leaving the category for the time being, but without confirmation it really shouldn't stay. Cgingold 01:52, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
Leonardo, I guess your post is trying to make a distinction between some degree of hearing loss and deafness. “Deaf” does not necessarily mean that the person is stone deaf and can hear no sounds at all, which is quite rare. Our deafness article tells us that deafness is “the audiological experience of someone who is partially or wholly lacking hearing. In legal terms, deafness is defined by degree of hearing loss”. This says “he had grown profoundly deaf (and complained that musical sounds seemed to break apart in his ears)”. That is, he could still hear sounds but his hearing was so impaired that it was of little use to him. There are plenty of other Google references to his deafness, and our article already covers his gradual hearing loss. I have no qualms about him being categorised as "deaf". -- JackofOz 02:16, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WikiProject class rating

This article was automatically assessed because at least one article was rated and this bot brought all the other ratings up to at least that level. BetacommandBot 03:28, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sicilienne

If this piece is "among Fauré's most familiar" (as stated on answers.com), perhaps something should be stated in the article about it? HokieRNB 19:06, 5 October 2007 (UTC)