Wikipedia:Peer review/Noye's Fludde/archive1

Noye's Fludde

This peer review discussion has been closed.
Britten's enduring, endearing opera (sort of) was written with children and amateur performers in mind, not for the professional theatre. Whoever has heard it won't forget the strains of "Eternal Father", rising from the ark at the height of the musical storm that represents the flood. Or the cheery bugle fanfares that accompany the animals, or the bells that mark the appearance of the rainbow. Or the strange instruments which Britten incorporated into his orchestra, to memorable effect. It's a feast of delights, to which Alfietucker and I hope this article does some justice. All comments welcome. Brianboulton (talk) 14:43, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Thank you to Tim and Wehwalt for your feedback - very much appreciated. Just to alert you and other reviewers that, in the process of trying to find some info in response to a point by Tim, I discovered some information in John Bridcut's Britten's Children about the handbells which I thought too good to miss out: I've now made it the final footnote of the article (no. 13). Alfietucker (talk) 22:47, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Comments from Tim riley

• Lead
  • I was going to suggest a link from "Kyrie eleison", but the link takes one to a strange page that may or may not be helpful. I just mention it, for your consideration.
    • I see your point about the strange page. My feeling, particularly as a translation is given in parenthesis in the main text, is that to link would be overkill. Brian? AT
      • Personally, I think the link would be mildly helpful in explaining what the Kyrie is – and don't forget that not all readers get to the main text! Brianboulton (talk) 13:09, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
• Performance requirements
  • "However, having failed to make this work" – we all have our own prose styles, but to my way of thinking "however" should be scrutinised suspiciously. I think that nine times in ten you're better without it. I think the present sentence would be stronger if you blitzed it.
    • I've had a go at rewriting the start of that sentence without "However" - subject to approval/disapproval by Brian and other reviewers. AT
  • Refs 40, 41 and 42 – if you bundled them it would mean less blue on the page to smack the reader in the eye
  • "The relative scarcity" – relative to what? Probably an unneeded adj.
    • Both points taken and acted upon. AT
• Premiere
  • "selected from widely-ranged auditions" – not sure what this means. Held round the country? Could be clearer
    • This is paraphrased from Colin Graham's "from wide-held auditions". My guess, given the appearance of Michael Crawford (albeit, he had appeared in previous Britten production in London), and the programme for the premiere performance, which identifies a number of child soloists as pupils at the Arts Educational School Ltd. London, is that auditions were held both in Suffolk and in London for any child performers able to be present. Would it be safe to say (without straying into WP:OR) something like "were selected from auditions held in Suffolk and in London", and reinforce the citation from Graham with one to the programme repro'd by the Britten-Pears Foundation? AT
      • Perhaps simply "extensive auditions" would be faithful to the source and easily comprehended. Tim riley talk 21:35, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
        • Done AT
  • "she withdrew her pupils" – a bit of a tease: who then provided the gossips?
    • Colin Graham again, and he doesn't say how they were replaced. FWIW, I read Imogen Holst's biography of Britten (aimed at young readers) many, many years ago, which included her version of the incident: but I seem to remember that, according to IH, the headmistress was somehow placated. Unfortunately I don't have that biography immediately to hand (I would need to dig around at my mother's in the hope of finding it, unless somebody can find it in a library?). AT
  • "(originally 150 players[n 8])" – I think the MoS bids us put refs after closing brackets
    • Done AT
• Later performances
  • "The Santa Fe Opera, and the New Orleans Opera" – inconsistency of capitalisation: I say to Hell with the PR people and lower case all definite articles in the titles of organisations.
    • Done AT
• Music
  • Refs 84 and 85 could also be bundled, reducing the blueness
    • I gave that a go, but then reverted: I think while bundling book references results in a easy to read/comprehend citation, the combination of a book reference with a web reference is a bit confusing to read, so perhaps better left as it is. Anyone feel strongly about this? AT
      • Agree with AT Brianboulton (talk) 13:09, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
  • "leitmotif" – if taken to be an adopted English word it didn't oughter be in itals; contrariwise, if an 'orrid furrin word, it needs a capital L.
    • Fair point, and I don't think we can quite assume that Leitmotif is an adopted English word: so have gone for a capital L. AT
      • A hundred apologies: I ought to have looked it up in the OED before shooting from the hip. The OED lists it as a good English word, and so it should be "leitmotiv" with neither capital L nor italics. So sorry! Tim riley talk 21:35, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
        • OK, done (no problem). AT
  • "accompanied by a D sharp pedal" – so far you have, to my mind, just avoided getting too technical for the ordinary music lover who might read this article, but I really think you need a wikilink or a footnote for "pedal".
    • Done - have wl to Pedal point. AT
  • "The storm scene which forms the centre of the opera… when the Dove returns" – I have just listened to a recording (Hickox) and this para seems to me quite perfect in capturing what Britten wrote. I am not only impressed but peevishly envious.
  • But "an affinity with Beethoven's Pastoral"? You hide behind Roseberry, as well you might, given Britten's view of Lobby Ludwig. But really, gentlemen, do you think Roseberry has a point? I'm blest if I do, but I'd like at least a decorous hint of the co-authors' views on this point.
    • I understand what Roseberry is getting at: he talks of "a dewy, pastoral F major", and certainly that's the key of the final movement of the Beethoven after the storm; in any case, one can hear the lighter instrumental textures and the music turning from minor to major. Still, I take your point, which will probably strike a fair number of people who know the mature Britten's avowed dislike of Beethoven. Perhaps a detailed footnote noting the parallels might help justify the comparison? AT
    • It's not so much hiding behind Roseberry, as noting what he said. Ben B's dislike of L van B is irrelevant here; adding a footnote drawing attention to this is neither necessary nor appropriate – that is not the isue here. Brianboulton (talk) 13:09, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
      • I wasn't suggesting a footnote about Britten's feelings about Beethoven; I was thinking maybe a footnote giving a brief justification for the parallel with the Pastoral - i.e. the change from stormy (with "dark"/low instrumentation) minor to F major (as with the Beethoven) with lighter-toned instrumentation. Would that be useful? AT
        • I decided to go ahead and clarify Roseberry's point - not with a footnote, but with a rewrite of the relevant sentence. Hope that works. Alfietucker (talk) 18:26, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
  • "pentatonic B flat chimes" – pentatonic could do with a blue link, I feel
    • In principle I would agree, only looking at Pentatonic scale I'm a bit concerned that readers needing illumination will be even more confused. Perhaps I should simply remove the word "pentatonic"? AT
      • Yeah, remove it. Brianboulton (talk) 13:09, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

• Publication
  • "then wrote to Britten urging" – I am quite willing to be told I'm wrong, but I don't think "then" is a conjunction, and I'd be happier if you put "and" in front of it.
    • Done AT
  • "under the pseudonym Ludwig Landgraf" – to borrow from the infant texting generation, ROTFL. What a discreet pen name! But I digress. Ignore this.
• Notes
  • Note 6 – double quotes, perhaps, rather than single?
  • Note 9 – news to me that Britten married Joy Boughton. Just teasing, but it is theoretically ambiguous. The answer to this may be a two-word phrase ending in "off", but I just mention it.
  • Note 12 – a non-frivolous point this time: I don't much care for your "Yet". It's a bit WP:EDITORIAL. The sentence would work just as well without it. And I'm not mad about the "rather" later in the note, for the same reasons.
    • Footnotes all dealt with. AT

And that is my lot. This is a wonderful piece of work. I don't know how you divvied up the labour, but however you did it, you can't see the join. (All right, let me guess that Sir Brian did the history and Alfredo did the music. Do I win my five bob bet with myself?) I see that Gerda has looked in today, and this article has something of the same shining enthusiasm that jumps off the screen from her JSB articles, which is saying something! Bravi, gents both! Reviewing an article as fine as this is what makes working on Wikipedia so rewarding. Tim riley talk 19:50, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Tim, thank you so much for your thorough and really helpful feedback. I'm afraid you don't quite win the bet, since effectively the initial drafts were new biographical stuff by me good self, and the sections on the original Chester plays and the music were by Brian: but we then both worked quite extensively on "each other's" sections. Even so, Brian really deserves all your praise for the paragraph on the depiction of the storm.

I hope Brian doesn't mind if I do the first "sweep through" of the article following your comments, or else return with thoughts of my own. Alfietucker (talk) 20:06, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, Tim, for your comments and insights, to which I have added my soupçon of wisdom, while leaving Mr Tucker to take the heat. Brianboulton (talk) 13:09, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Comments by Wehwalt

Lede

• "the mini-opera for children involving child performers," I think possibly this could be better phrased, but I don't have an ideal solution myself.
  • I've replaced "children" with "young audiences" - is that better? AT
• "He had also used text from the Chester play cycle for his 1952 Canticle II, based on the story of Abraham and Isaac." is it the Canticle or the cycle that is based on the story of Abraham and Isaac. And perhaps a pipe to Binding of Isaac.
  • Agree that Binding of Isaac is much more to the point than individual links to Abraham and Isaac - have replaced accordingly. Also slight rewording to fix possible ambiguity. AT

Background

• You may find some disagreement that the fall of Lucifer is truly biblical in nature. It seems more interpretive than narrative.
  • Would rewriting the sentence as "They covered the full range of Christian narratives, from the fall of Lucifer to the Last Judgement." fix that problem? AT
    • • Isaiah 14:12: How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer..." – so biblical, though I agree, not part of the general narrative. Leave this one to me. Brianboulton (talk) 09:38, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Yes, and I'm familiar with it, but my point was that version is hardly on stone tablets and other traditions don't hold with it, see for example here. Plainly Rashi took a different view of it. However, obviously BB was playing with that as playbook, so please consider this outside carping. I'm simply stating why I viewed it as "interpretive".--Wehwalt (talk) 13:03, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

• "that has survived into the 20th century. " as we have moved on from same, should "has survived" be "survived" (I assume we're using said century as that was when BB was writing).
  • Absolutely - have now cut "has". AT
    • I've restored "has" and made it 21st century Brianboulton (talk)
      • (Quite correct, though isn't it more pertinent to Britten and his opera that the plays had survived into the 20th century? Only a small point, I know. AT)
• "After the 16th century Reformation the Church grew less tolerant of mystery plays. A performance in Chester in 1575 is the last recorded from the city until the 20th century." hm, minor point but should "After" be "By the end of"? 1575 is a fair ways before the end of the century.
  • I'm not sure I understand your point: as you say, 1575 is some time before the end of the century, so "By the end of" would surely be rather like putting the cart before the horse. As I read the sentence, it refers to the Church's increasing lack of tolerance towards the mystery plays after the English Reformation (I have now added a comma which, I hope, makes this clearer). Let me know if I've misunderstood. AT

I guess I'm wondering if the intolerance occurred after the 16th century, why is a performance 25 years before the century ended the last on record?

• I've adopted Wehwalt's suggested wording which seems OK to me Brianboulton (talk) 09:43, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

• "Nothing came of this project immediately; " this sentence might be usefully split, given the heavy demands on the semicolon key in it.
  • Have now replaced a semi-colon with a full stop. AT
• You are not consistent in your capitalisation of "flood"
  • (Fixed by Brian)

Synopsis

• " He sends out a Dove, who" just making sure you intend "who". (though it is consistent with a similar usage later)
  • I've no objection to "who", particularly as the role is played by a child dancer. AT

Roles

• The role of Noah's wife is described as "Mrs. Noye" in the Roles and Recordings tables and as "Mrs Noye" in the text. This also applies to the other goodwives in the Roles section. I understand the latter is more customary in the UK.
  • Indeed, "Mrs" is more usually presented without an end point in the UK. The exceptions in the article follow what's in the score, though there's precedent for not following the format Britten uses (e.g. upper and lower caps in A Boy was Born - see A Boy Was Born); so it could be argued that we should iron this out in favour of the usual British practice. Your thoughts, Brian? AT

• • Eliminate the stops, for consistency and in accordance with general Eng usage (it may have been the Eng practice to use full stops 60 years ago). Anyway, I've done this. Brianboulton (talk) 13:39, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Creation

• " Before he had finished the composition draft" Not sure you need the "had".
  • Agreed - removed. AT

Performance requirements

• "The relative scarcity of the instrument tuned at several of the pitches" I think something is missing here. Possibly instrument should be plural?
  • I've replaced "the instrument" with "handbells", which is clearer. AT
• I think that the description of the "Slung Mugs" should be better tied together. It wasn't apparent to me on first reading that what followed "Slung Mugs" was what Slung Mugs were. I assumed it was just part of BB's travails in putting on the opera.
  • I've made an attempt to reword this to make it clearer. AT

Music

• "passacaglia" is not linked on first use. Although the first use is in a quote, it may make more sense to have it linked there, given the unfamiliarity of the term to many readers.
  • Fixed AT
• Roseberry is mostly referred to in the present tense, but at least once you use the past tense for his views.
  • Where we are talking of critics commenting on the first performance in "Performance history and reception/Premiere", including Roseberry, it's all in the past tense since it's referring to an historic event; when Roseberry is quoted extensively talking about the work itself (as opposed to its performance) in "Music", that's all in the present tense since the subject is the music which hasn't changed since being performed and published. It makes sense to me, but is anyone else worried by this? AT
• "Mears and Stainbank" I believe that is the Whitechapel Bell Foundry. They made some defective bell or other in Philadelphia. Cracked clean through, I've seen it myself. Wrote an article about it, I did. (that's in case anyone's wondering what I'm rambling on about).
  • I say, I say, I say! What's wrapped in clingfilm and rings bells? The Lunchpack of Notre-Dame. I don't wish to know that – kindly leave the stage! Do you seriously assert, Wehwalt, that the symbol of your temporarily successful colonial rebellion was cast by the same foundry under whose Big Ben I worked in the Hansard office, two floors lower down the clock tower, forty years ago? I'm off to read your article this very moment. Tim riley talk 22:59, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

• What you said. And the foundry still blames the Yanks for its defective work. Possibly an improved design will come out by 2253? Don't your authorities recall defective models? It's a shame, but we'll display the shoddy workmanship as a reason for independence and better government until they acknowledge their fault. Palming such work on colonials--how shameless. (they used to sell smaller models on their website, possibly your consumer authorities have finally gotten on the ball (bell?) and enjoined that. As I recall, they sold it without the crack, though no doubt that would come in use rather quickly.)--Wehwalt (talk) 09:37, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

• ...the tintinnabulation that so musically swells from the bells, bells, bells, bells, bells, bells, bells, from the jingling and the tinkling of the bells". Or something like that. Brianboulton (talk) 13:18, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Excellently done.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:06, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Many thanks, Wehwalt, for your helpful and encouraging feedback. And I think you're spot on about the Whitechapel Bell Foundry (I'll link that now). I will call it a day when I've done Tim's comments, and either Brian or myself will resume later (probably tomorrow UK time). Alfietucker (talk) 21:56, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

My thanks, too. I think AT has picked up the necessary points, and I have commented sparsely. Brianboulton (talk) 13:23, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Not a problem and thank you both for an excellent article. On the "Mrs." bit, I simply suggest consistency.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:31, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Thank you again for your excellent feedback. So, would anyone object if I go through and zap all end points to "Mrs"? (Er, that sounds rather rude - sorry.) (I see Brian has beaten me to this - bravo!) Alfietucker (talk) 13:35, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

This 'n' that from Cassianto

Inception

• These would show Britten composing and rehearsing a work through to the final performance?
  • I've replaced "final" with "its" (rehearsing a work through to its performance). Thanks for catching that ambiguity (which probably derived from Ford's mentioning of a "final programme" resonating in this editor's head!). AT

Performance requirements

• "The recorders should led by an accomplished soloist able to flutter-tongue" -- eh? Are we missing a "be" in there somewhere?
  • Quite right - now amended. AT
• There are at least three occasions up until this point where we give "Colin Graham" his full name. Surely it should be given in its entirety on the first occasion, and then surname every time after that!
  • I see your point, but have been a touch conservative about this (bearing in mind that there's already a fair number of simply "Graham" after that point in the article). I've just removed one further instance of his first name in this section. Elsewhere - e.g. at the start of "Premiere" where he is listed with other people involved in the first production, all given their full names, such as Charles Mackerras and Ceri Richards - I have allowed him to retain his first name for now. I'll have another look with fresh eyes tomorrow. AT
    • If things will become confusing, then I suggest leave this for now. Cassianto^talk 18:21, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Premiere

• "The Chorus of Animals was provided by children from three local schools: Sir John Leman School, Beccles; the County Primary School, Bungay; and the Heath Primary School, Kesgrave." -- Is there a way of avoiding the four repetitions of "school"?

• I've had a go – reduced 4 to 2. Brianboulton (talk) 08:28, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

A lot smoother. Cassianto^talk 18:21, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Later performances

• organizer →organiser
• "Looking for a suitable London church, Britten settled somewhat reluctantly on Southwark Cathedral." -- Why was he reluctant? What forced him to settle on this church if he wasn't entirely happy?
  • One for you, Alfie - I don't have this source. Brianboulton (talk) 08:28, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
    • This is based on a letter by Britten (to the Arts Council). Unfortunately he does not specify the reason (one can only guess - perhaps its location, then as now, in proximity of a very busy road and London Bridge Station?) for his being less than enthusiastic. Here is what is quoted in Letters from a Life Vol. V: "I am sorry too, in a way, that "Noye's Fludde" has to be done at Southwark [Cathedral]; although Gothic, it does not really compare with Orford. But there is scarcely a church in London which we did not consider, and from every other point of view Southwark seems to be the most suitable." Would it help to give that quotation as a footnote? Alfietucker (talk) 10:42, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
      • My view is that we have enough footnotes. I'd prefer to see a slight variation of the text, e.g. "Britten settled on Southwark Cathedral, somewhat reluctantly as he felt that it did not compare favourably with Orford". Or some such. Brianboulton (talk) 17:09, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
        • Good suggestion - I think that works well. Alfietucker (talk) 18:11, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
          • A super fix! -- Cassianto^talk 18:21, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
• "In the UK, Christopher Ede, producer of the landmark performances of the Chester mystery plays during the Festival of Britain, directed Britten's opera in Winchester Cathedral between 12–14 July 1960?
• staged between 21–23 December at the Roundhouse Theatre?

Publication

• Is there a reason why we repeat ref [103] in close succession?
  • No reason now - that was a hang-over from when the sentence ordered the info in a slightly different order. Now amended. AT

That's all I can see at the moment, but I will give it another read through later today. Looks great though! Cassianto^talk 01:35, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Many thanks for your helpful comments and sharp-eyed proofing! This insomniac UK writer is working through at least some of them now (I will leave a few to look at more carefully in the morrow, unless Brian gets there first). Looking forward to your further comments. Alfietucker (talk) 02:14, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks indeed! Brianboulton (talk) 08:30, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Comments by SchroCat

Just starting on this rather interesting article. I am struck by the title of the work Noye's Fludde, which is obviously the Medieval English for Noah's Flood, but I can't see anything that confirms this (apart from Noye/Noah bracketed but unsourced in the lead). For those readers who come without the aid of having read Chaucer, would it be worth explaining this early in the Background section what the name refers to, and that it's from the Old English?

More to follow soonest. - SchroCat (talk) 21:29, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

We await your further comments with pleasure. With regard to the above point, the opening paragraph of the lead explains that the opera is based on a medieval "mystery" play that "recounts the biblical story of Noah, the flood and the ark". I am not quite certain where Chaucer comes in, but I would have thought our explanation adequately covers what the opera's name refers to, and will leave few readers confused. Brianboulton (talk) 00:08, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Your call, Brian, but I think that as we're writing for a global audience who may not have any idea that medieval English (or the language of Chaucer, which is the closest that most people come to it) is different to modern English, it may be worth a very brief addition. Readers (the global equivalents to the man on the Clapham omnibus) may quickly grasp that Noye's Fludde signifies Noah's Flood, but not actually understand why or what the difference is. Your call either way.

SchroCat and Brian: would a parenthesis immediately after Noye's Fludde such as this - "(Medieval English spelling of Noah's Flood)" - work for you? (And yes, you can see where a lot of hyphens instead of en-dashes originate! Wish I knew how to get them on my PC laptop without laborious copying and pasting.) Alfietucker (talk) 08:03, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

That would certainly work for me!

For an en-dash on a PC, hold the Control key and type the minus sign on the numeric keypad on the right of the keyboard (not the one between the zero and equals); I only discovered this very recently and it's made life a lot easier! Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 08:12, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Great - I might go ahead with this. Sadly your tip on making en-dashes on a PC doesn't appear to work on my machine, but thank you anyway. Alfietucker (talk) 08:48, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Hold on: I'm not convinced about the parentheses, which would tend to overcomplicate the first line. I wonder if we are trying to solve a problem that doesn't really exist? My view is is that the title Noye's Fludde, followed immediately by an explanation that the opera is about Noah and the Flood, is sufficient; if other reviewers feel otherwise, then I'll be happy to comply (well, grumpy actually, but I'll comply). Brianboulton (talk) 08:52, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

OK, I'll hold off and see what others say about this. Alfietucker (talk) 09:08, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

It's not a problem either way, and if you think it's not needed, then I'm ahppy(ish) to go with that too! - SchroCat (talk) 10:07, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Let me complicate the issue: to my mind the mention of Noah (in his usual spelling) in the opening para suffices to make it plain to the casual reader who the flooded Noye is, but having a swift squinny at the libretto I see it stipulates that the name is pronounced in the modern way (which I don't think is actually mentioned in the present article) so what with that and SchroCat's concern, there may be a case for an explanatory footnote. I rather agree with BB that a parenthesis in the opening line is a bit too much. – Tim riley talk 10:27, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

I think a footnote is in order. I will confess that when Brian mentioned to me that he was working on this article, what it was about escaped me until I clicked and read. Britten does not always get his due on this side of the Atlantic.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:42, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

But from where did Britten obtain the spelling? Did he just invent it? The ME spelling for flood appears to have been flod. At the very least, a footnote is required. Aa77zz (talk) 10:57, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

@Aa77zz - as I understand it, standard spelling is a relatively recent invention, and certainly did not exist even in Shakespeare's time, let alone earlier in medieval times when the play Noye's Fludde was first written. Britten would have adopted the spelling as it appears in the Andrew W. Pollard edition he was working from.

As for a footnote, my feeling is that a short footnote explaining the medieval spelling would work for the first mention of Noye's Fludde. As for pronunciation, I think it would make more sense to have a note or footnote appear in the "Synopsis" section, among other reasons because the matter of pronunciation in the opera was clearly Britten's choice rather than something that originated from the text he was working from; plus, I think it would be offering too much information at once to have this in addition to an explanation about the spelling in the first footnote. Does that make sense, or does anyone have any other thoughts about this? Alfietucker (talk) 11:13, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Sounds just the job. Yes, the libretto specifically states that its text is from Pollard's Clarendon edition. Tim riley talk 11:18, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

I've now put in a footnote explaining the spelling of the title. What does everyone else think about a footnote within the "Synopsis" section explaining pronunciation? I'd suggest, perhaps following "addressed Noye," a footnote with something like: "Britten specifies that though the 16th century spelling of the original play has been retained, "modern pronunciation should be used throughout, except for the indicated sounding of the final e's: for example, shippë should be pronounced 'shippe(r)'; Noye should be pronounced in the familiar way as 'Noah'."[Source: Noye's Fludde pocket score, Boosey & Hawkes 1958] Alfietucker (talk) 11:43, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Way too much explanation; all that is necessary on pronunciation, I believe, is the few words I've added to the footnote. We state the fact, source it, and that's enough. Brianboulton (talk) 13:54, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

The second (1895) edition of Pollard's English Miracle Plays Moralities And Interludes has Noah's Flood rather than Noye's Fludde. I haven't checked whether Britten's spelling is mentioned in the long Introduction. Aa77zz (talk) 11:58, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

But reading the play I see Noye and fludde (as well as flude) (confirming AT point above). Aa77zz (talk) 12:04, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for the link, and for confirming that the opera title's spelling is sourced from the play as edited by Pollard (regardless of the modern English spelling he heads the play with). Alfietucker (talk) 12:14, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

OK, stand by for a non-helpful, but ever-so neutral answer: I agree with Schrocat that something needs to be explained in regards to the title. Some people would not be able to link the olde-worlde title with the more modern, and let's be honest, more familiar one. For example I asked my wife today what she thought the title was and she assumed it was an old Welsh musical instrument if you please! Having said that, I do kind of disagree with the alt being immediately after the title; I think Tim and Wehwalt are both correct in thinking that a footnote could solve the problem without too much drama, but see Brian's desire of wanting to restrict the footnotes to a minimum. Out of the two, I would be more inclined to go with the latter (which I now see has been done), although it needs to be short and sharp without too much explanation. Cassianto^talk 18:50, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

I'll be back tomorrow (or later today, given the hour) with any further comments I find, although it's slim pickings so far: a very well written piece that has already been given some excellent comments. – SchroCat (talk) 00:43, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

I've done my usual dots and dashes work, but I saw a couple of instances where there are no spaces either side of the ellipses: the first is in the Peter Evans quote at the start of the "Music" section, while the second is in note 8. Both are in quotes so I didn't change them, but can you check they exist in the original text, or whether you've forgotten to put the spaces in?

Now fixed with spaces put in. AT

Chester Mystery Plays

• " "miracle" plays were dramatised Bible stories": did you know the OED doesn't carry the word "dramtise", even as an alternative spelling? It does show dramatize (the examples they give of its use where ~ise is used are all 19th C). I leave it to you to decide which form to use, as ~ize, while being more correct, seems more alien to me.
  • Decided it was probably best to be correct, so changed to "-ize". AT
    • Sorry, no, this is something that I had checked in view of the same argument some years back. The latest Oxford Dictionary of English allows "dramatise" as an alternative, which I think is sufficient authority to retain the "s" and avoid that ugly spelling. Brianboulton (talk) 08:57, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Inception

• "amanuensis": A great (and correct) word, but do we need to be driving people away from the article in search of their nearest dictionary to check they understood it correctly? (musical assistant would serve, or a link to the Wiktionary: [[wikt:amanuensis|amanuensis]])
  • Have linked to Wiktionary. AT
    • I think "musical assistant is better, thereby avoiding all links. (I changed this, before I saw your note - edit conflict!!!)
• You give us "Associated Rediffusion (A-R)", helpfully providing the initials, but then only use those initials once, but giving the full name a further three times
  • I've now replaced all subsequent mentions with A-R, apart from one at the start of "Writing" since there are two whole sections between this and the earlier "Inception" where it is first mentioned. Hope that makes sense. AT

Premiere

• "The Manchester Guardian": capitalised and linked is closely followed by "the Daily Telegraph" uncapitalised and unlinked; "The Sunday Times" is linked, while "The Times" isn’t.
• Similarly, if you're going to link Opera magazine, then you should probably link Tempo.
  • All now linked. AT

Later performances

• "In 1971, the Aldeburgh": I'm not sure the comma is needed.
  • Now removed. AT

Done to the start of "Music": more to follow later of this extremely enjoyable piece. - SchroCat (talk) 07:49, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Thank you so much for your helpful feedback and also your kind comments - looking forward to the next instalment. Alfietucker (talk) 09:06, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Having been through the final sections—and, as always, been mystified by the musicology—I can see nothing else to point out to you. A very nicely put together article, certainly worthy of a trip to FAC, and I'd be obliged if you could drop me a note when you start that process? Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 10:07, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Mr Cat for your most useful comments, and for your tidying-up (ellipses etc) on which as I enter my dotage I am increasingly reliant. Maybe FAC early next week - we will keep you posted. Brianboulton (talk) 13:58, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Kindly take your turn behind your seniors for your dotage, young Boulton. Book now, after me. And as we have established beyond a peradventure that you are Sir Brian why do you suppose the Graf von SchroCat is a mere Mister? And that’s not to mention Alfredo, Conte di Tucchero. – Tim zu and von riley talk 19:53, 9 August 2014 (UTC)