Talk:Julian Bream

Terminology

thanks for reverting the barbarism "lutist". as a former editor with the lute society of america, i attest that the correct term used by players, musicians and musicologists is LUTENIST. author graham wade opens his essay to the complete edition of the RCA recordings: "Julian Bream, guitarist and lutenist, ..." colin slim's edition of the complete lute music of francesco da milano refers to him a "lutenist", etc. the term "lutanist" is an illiterate stab at sound spelling. Drollere (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 21:48, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Discography problem

The discography needs to differentiate between UK and US releases: the duets with John williams were called "Together", Together Again" and "Live" in the UK. I believe "Julian and John" was the US version of the first one, but I don't know about the others. Paul Magnussen 17:16, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

in the UK the albums were "Together", "Together Again" and (also in USA) "Julian Bream and John Williams 'Live'". Drollere (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 21:56, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Julian Bream - Villa-Lobos, Twelve Etudes for Guitar, Suite populaire bresillienne-tn.jpg

Image:Julian Bream - Villa-Lobos, Twelve Etudes for Guitar, Suite populaire bresillienne-tn.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 05:57, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Madame Villa-Lobos and Julian Bream at the presentation of the Villa-Lobos Gold Medal, officially awarded to Mr Julian Bream in 1976-tn.jpg

Image:Madame Villa-Lobos and Julian Bream at the presentation of the Villa-Lobos Gold Medal, officially awarded to Mr Julian Bream in 1976-tn.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 04:02, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

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 22:59, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

4 September 2013 - Bream is *not* dead

Contrary to rumours flying around the internet, Bream is not dead, as is confirmed by his agent Hazard Chase Ltd. Alfietucker (talk) 09:53, 4 September 2013 (UTC) @Checkingfax and Corinne:

Can we quote Mark Twain here ("The reports of my death are greatly exaggerated") --Natalie.Desautels (talk) 02:23, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

Nationality

Previous references have Mr Bream's nationality as English. However, it is more correct to refer to him as British. 1 He is referred to as British at the following external websites (and) http://www.discogs.com/artist/Julian+Bream http://www.amazon.co.uk/Julian-Bream/e/B001LH8256 http://www.gramophone.co.uk/features/focus/julian-bream-interview http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/78531/Julian-Bream

2 He is classed under British Lutists within Wikipedia

3 He is the recipient of the Order of the British Empire — Preceding unsigned comment added by Robata (talk • contribs) 15:19, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

The New Grove Dictionary of Music and Musicians trumps all those external websites, and he is defined as English in the article devoted to him there. The fact he is mis-classed in Wikipedia (thanks for pointing this out) and has been decorated an OBE is neither here nor there. Alfietucker (talk) 15:33, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Really? A dictionary of music trumps The Encyclopedia Britannica? I would have considered the EB to be pretty on the ball myself. :) The wiki article on the New Grove Dictionary refers to several errors in the second edition. Could Mr Bream's nationality have been one of them I wonder? I would also highlight that the Dictionary is published by OU in the USA so it would list nationality in the style most common within the United States by referring to Mr Bream as 'English'. The two British-based websites I list do refer to Mr Bream as 'British'.

Why would he be classed under British Lutists by someone if they did not consider him to be British? It seems contradictory. Best wishes Robata (talk) 15:55, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

The fact Grove was published in the U.S. is neither here nor there, since it was edited in London. I am very familiar with the shortcomings of the Dictionary (since I am an academic working in classical music), but Bream's nationality is not one of them. Still, if you don't want to believe Grove, then you have to contend with the Oxford Dictionary of Music which describes him as "Eng. guitarist and lutenist." Wikipedia doesn't work on speculation but on authoritative sources. I submit that two dictionaries devoted to classical music are more authoritative than EB, which btw is indeed an American operation and which - the Wikipedia article helpfully tells us - has "gradually simplified articles, making them less scholarly for a mass market". Alfietucker (talk) 16:05, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

fanpov tag

@Checkingfax and Corinne: Checkingfax, How can we get rid of the {{fanpov|date=April 2014}} which no longer applies. (I know - we delete it? ) --Natalie.Desautels (talk) 02:27, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

Natalie.Desautels I'm not really sure. I think you can just delete it if you're sure it no longer applies. Checkingfax?  – Corinne (talk) 04:26, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

Hi, Natalie.Desautels (with cc to Corinne). Removing maintenance tags is done on the honor system, like most things on Wikipedia. They are placed on the honor system, and removed on the honor system. Their intent is to be helpful, and when they are no longer relevant it is time to remove them. Just like when you see a {{cn}} tag and you fix the issue, then you are supposed to remove the tag too. That is my story, and I am sticking to it. Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 18:02, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

@Corinne and Checkingfax: Thank you, Chekcingfax. Good. ...kindly remove it ...just kidding. I'll take care of this now; the fanpov tag was there for no rhyme or reason. Some time ago, someone put "arguably the greatest guitarist in the world" so possibly the tag originates from that time. (Actually, you could easily find sources to prove that assertion). --Natalie.Desautels (talk) 18:27, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

You could find sources that STATE that, not 'prove' it. Wiki needs to keep a neutral voice, while relating the common critical opinion of his talent with strong references.50.111.14.143 (talk) 01:02, 16 August 2020 (UTC)