Talk:Andrés Segovia

Neutrality of the article (critical views and evaluations are missing)

During some attempts at improving the article, all critical views and evaluations of Segovia have been removed ([1]). These views are cited reality, however have been removed from the article's current presentation ([2]); leaving it onesided and biased. This is a huge violation of one of the most important cornerstones of wikipedia: That of neutral point of view. The wikipedia policy can be found at the NPOV page and states: "An article and its sub-articles should clearly describe, represent, and characterize all the disputes within a topic, but should not endorse any particular point of view. It should explain who believes what, and why, and which points of view are most common." . The numerous cited evaluations which were removed, are still available in a previous version of the article: [3]; and need to be swiftly incorporated into the current article, if neutrality is to be upheld. Segovia was (talk) 17:24, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

How about pointing out a few such sources? --Ronz (talk) 17:48, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Have a look here: [4]. (This was part of an informative section, in a previous version of the article: [5].) The sources are pretty substantial: New York Times, Guitar Magazines, Classical Music Review Publications, well-known personalities such as John Williams, Matanya Ophee, etc. Segovia was (talk) 17:56, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Looks like a tiny minority viewpoint as described in WP:UNDUE. Does it deserve any mention at all? --Ronz (talk) 18:16, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm shocked that you even question whether it deserves mention at all. Of course it deserves mentioning! If we were talking about something such as the flat earth - something which can rationally and scientifically be proven to be incorrect - then one could leave this factually untrue belief, from the main article about planet earth. But since this is an article about art, and since art-criticism is an integral part of art; we owe it to the readers, to present all views involved (none of which can be factually proven to be incorrect).
You may have a point, however, that some points presented, are probably shared more by a minority (but one which is larger than many might suspect!), so this is where improvement is possible, once the views have been restored: The article can make it clear that it might be somewhat more of a minority view. But leaving the information away completely (as is currently the case), would deprive the reader of information which is of interest to conservatory students, music teachers, or anyone who has more than just a cursory interest in a topic... Segovia was (talk) 18:37, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

No it wasn't critical evaluation. It read as spam. If you think an encyclopedia should be all about a mass collection of quotes you are wrong. The article was in a right mess, people thanked me for cleaning it up. Dr. Blofeld - 15:36, 18 July 2010 (UTC) 08:20, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

(How many people thanked you?) I think content should be more important than layout. You have reduced an insightful article (giving numerous perspectives) into a rather bland presentation. Let's wait for more editors to respond to the issue, on this talk page; before you try and shrug it off so undelicately. Segovia was (talk) 08:39, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

I would want to know why exactly you added this tag. What is POV-led in the article NOW? You cannot add such tags without specifying what exactly is problematic, and you are actually edit warring. I see absolutely no POV on the article, and I think the article is now in much better shape. Shahid • ^Talk2me 11:55, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Exactly. The article contains no POV. The only thing you could question is the claim he was one of the finest of the 20th century which is supported by three reliable sources. I strongly suggest you read WP:NPOV and exactly what it means. The article is well sourced and neutral, I, Shahid, or any admin can see this. You do not need 300 unecncylopedic quotes to be neutral. If you want to assert more criticism of his teaching style I can eleaborate on it a little but i have said that people criticised him and jOhn Williams thought he wans't a good teacher. But it is done in a way which doesn't warble on and on like your article did.

The article discusses his career and repertoire encyclopedically without any claims saying how great he was. These sentences: His teaching style is a source of controversy among some of today's players, who consider it to be dogmatically authoritarian.[12][13][14] John Williams for instance criticized his scope as a teacher and spoke of the atmosphere of fear in his classes. I have no idea why you think this article is not neutral. It is certainly not blowing his trumpet or being strongly critical. Dr. Blofeld - 15:36, 18 July 2010 (UTC) 12:12, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

I have no problem with average (non-expert) wiki-articles, of which the current article version is an example ([6]). However, the content of the current version of the article, in no way improves upon the content of this previous version [7]; rather the current presentation has deteriorated the content, by stripping away numerous expert-opinions and opinions of interest to people who want some background on the topic and its disputes, etc.
So while you do mention some criticism of teaching, you fail to mention:

• Modern criticism of his performances; including rubato issues ([8], [9]), and the critical modern focus on his performances of early music
• Section of his editorial legacy
• Details about his personal life
• Political Views
• extensive external links, including details on how to access "Deep_Web" content, such as pdf articles from "ABC Sevilla and ABC Madrid" or "Hemeroteca Digital - Biblioteca Nacional de España", etc.

So regarding the POV tag, it might have been better to use this tag instead: Template:Multiple_issues. Nevertheless, let me reemphasize that I have no problem with average wiki-articles, such as it currently is; even if for my taste it is lacking. Let me conclude with saying that I have a deep respect for Segovia, the artist; and that any criticism of Segovia as presented in some of the sources, is not shared by myself. The reason for this, is that one must understand that this criticism is not fact; rather one must understand where it comes from, and why it exists; what motives and historical steps led up to it; etc. Suffice it to say: The issue was not even fully clarified in the previous extensive version of the article; and any clarification would go in a direction were sources become bitterly rare and scarce; since one would be moving into terrain, which questions currently-accepted motives and approaches. Segovia was (talk) 13:04, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

No you are confusing POV/neutrality with lack of breadth of issue coverage. Its certianly not the same thing. The article was/is missing some important aspects of his work which will be written in due course, but nots not the same as it containing original research, POV and peacock words. Have a go at rewriting these issues then but please do not restore it to one zillion different quotes. This is (supposedly) an encyclopedia. An effective summary can be achieved with prose and the occasional quotes. I strongly suggest you write a condensed version of what you want to be included at User:Segovia was/Andrés Segovia. Once you've finished we can see how it can be intergrated into the article, I will read it and ensure you retain focus. But I'm telling you now. If it reads like it did before, going off the beaten track and quoting everybody who ever said anything about Segovia is will not be included. Yes information is important but it is an encylopedia in which the biggest objective is to be concise and focused which the old article seriously was lacking in. Dr. Blofeld - 15:36, 18 July 2010 (UTC) 14:16, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Political views were irrelevant unless he was actually active in politics. Stick to guitar. I've added a personal life section Dr. Blofeld - 15:36, 18 July 2010 (UTC) 16:16, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Actually, the more and more I view the old article the more and more I think that it lacked neutrality and is now far more neutral. Most of the article was full of critical quotes about every aspect of his work. If anything the old article was too critical and seemingly biased against him. The extent of what you wrote about it was far too much too. You basically took 400 words to get the point across which ccould be done in 15. Dr. Blofeld - 15:36, 18 July 2010 (UTC) 14:51, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

PS: My active editing of this article, has for the time being ceased with the words "Let me conclude with ..."; written above. I might make small edits from time to time, or give you some suggestions (such as below); but I don't have the interest anymore, to do anything big with this article - for the time being; perhaps because I feel that many issues have been covered in the articles' old version, and that the old version was superior, and that you have taken the old version apart completely, reducing it to something that is not worth my time/effort and interest. But if you want my brief opinion on things, you're welcome to ask. Segovia was (talk) 16:41, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Criticism section

The "Criticism" section is a WP:STRUCTURE and WP:UNDUE violation. The material should be incorporated into the article, and "should not give minority views as much or as detailed a description as more widely held views." --Ronz (talk) 16:04, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree, how else do you stop this user ranting on about the "issues"? Dr. Blofeld - 15:36, 18 July 2010 (UTC) 16:15, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

(Excuse me? Try talking about other users with a respective tone.) The criticism section which you User talk:Dr. Blofeld added ([10] sourcing the information from the old version here [11]), and then decided to remove again ([12]), could have been balanced with the information in the section on Segovia's legacy, from the old version; or from opinions which question the criticism itself; e.g. the opinion which questions "the critical views on the freedoms used by Segovia, that regard Segovia as being somehow 'anachronistic and lack[ing] authenticity' ", and suggests instead, that Segovia was using expressive devices, that the music actually cries out for. Segovia was (talk) 16:24, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

This doesn't address my concerns with WP:STRUCTURE nor WP:UNDUE. --Ronz (talk) 01:14, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

First of all, the section in question has been removed [13] a few hours ago (before your comment above), removing both your concerns. However my original concerns about WP:NPOV now remains, i.e. not all published views about Segovia are being addressed - since the critical view concerning his performances are missing. Furthermore, above I gave you a link to good information about the legacy of Segovia, something which can balance criticism, and thus avoid giving undue wait to criticism. I can envision a section entitled something like "Segovia's performances, reception and legacy", which combines modern criticism with positive traits; and can paint a quite neutral picture - with neutrality of both structure and weighting of views. Segovia was (talk) 07:49, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

I think the Segovia article can be improved with a reception section (which gives not only the reception during his lifetime but also contemporary perspectives). The fact is that there is a lot of Segovia criticism, that a reader interested in the subject should know about. It does not mean that this criticism is truth, but it does represent many people's current perspective of Segovia, and does deserve to be handled in the article. One could mention some of the critical views, and present it as an interesting aspect of how musical tastes differ and have changed. See for example the second and second-last paragraph from this musicweb-article. So today's player's are more accurate and strict etc. But then one could also present criticism of this modern strictness tendency -> quote from the musicweb-article "One may listen to recordings of many of these artists and not be able to identify one player from another; musicality appears of secondary importance." So this again brings Segovia into a positive light. One could end with this quote which balances it all: "But more important than any label I can use to describe Segovia's "approach" is a certain general quality found in his playing which I think most music lovers would find almost irresistible: an intense identification with the music he is playing that breathes life and gives character to every note and phrase. Occasionally (or perhaps frequently, particularly with Bach) we may find the character inappropriate, due to changing taste and/or musicological evidence, but with Segovia the intention is always utterly sincere and deeply felt." ("The Art of Segovia (The H.M.V. Recordings; 1927-39)" by Gregory Dinger — ARSC JOURNAL Volume XIII, No. 3 (1981), p. 116-119.)
Regarding critical contemporary views: a lot of good information can be found in an old version of the article: see here. It really would be a shame if some of the good information therein is simply lost, since we therein find views of Matanya Ophee, John Williams, Yehudi Menuhin, etc. Another interesting view is that by Colin Cooper (editor of Classical Guitar Magazine), who wrote: Segovia left large footprints, but they lead in a direction that is no longer of much musical significance. What modern guitarist would want to play to an audience of 3000 without amplification? Who could offer today's audiences arrangements of Haydn minuets and Bach gavottes isolated from the works of which they form a structural part? And who would dare to play them in the style that Segovia did? Nevertheless, there is room for a large personality to leave his mark on the guitar world, as Liszt did with the piano, but I don't see one at the moment. (source). Ultimately, failing to present contemporary views of Segovia (which often happen to be critical) is a NPOV violation (Neutral point of view). Thus an effort should be made to present this information in a balanced, informative and interesting way. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Musical guitar prof (talk • contribs) 12:24, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. The article currently presents a highly onesided view of Segovia. Missing is the critical reception (esp. from a contemporary perspective). At the very least, the criticism is necessary to contrast and show how perspectives today have changed. But it's not a clearcut black and white issue: I personally have the opinion that guitarists (and most musicians today) play music too strictly. This has become the contemporary virtue, and accordingly Segovia is receiving criticism. On the other hand I don't think that everything Segovia did was good. Example: He recorded way past his prime, and did indeed give performances (esp. later in his career) which are questionable from a musical perspective.

Ultimately regarding the article, one can say: irrespective of whether or not you like Segovia, the views and perspectives around Segovia can enrich the article. These may not be exactly your own views, but wikipedia is not here to show only your own; but instead to give a reflection of what people think. There is no demand within wikipedia, that information presented, should adhere to a consensus of opinion. But the source of information presented, should be cleary marked; i.e. who has this or that view?

So I too see high value in the previous version of the article, and leave you with a view of Segovia, that I recently came across on a website:

Reginald Smith Brindle on Segovia (apparently the source is: November 1982 issue of Guitar Magazine. ...part of a series titled Performance Psychology):

• "The unexpected exaggeration of certain notes seemingly without musical reason, the delays and onward rushes, made the precise rhythmic designs difficult to guess at."
• "While I was copying these discs, I gradually learned what to expect, absorbing Segovia's style, and knowing what to put on paper, even if he played things differently. Almost subconsciously, I became aware of several factors which were distinctly against musical tradition, and with other instruments would be regarded as blatantly erroneous."
• "Segovia's strongly personal style makes him outstanding, with a stature head and shoulders higher than if he were merely 'correct'. Unfortunately it would seem that some of his eccentricities have been taken up by his admirers. They have become almost standard guitar practice, and some grotesque musical errors are being committed every day, without even being noticed, except possibly by non-guitarists."

Paul de magnus (talk) 06:20, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Early Life References - Source

All the details in the early life paragraph are taken from the interview given by Segovia for the 13-part radio series Segovia!. An edited excerpt is included in the book Secrets From The Masters (Published by GPI Books) and this is the source used.

Sluffs (talk) 01:45, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Discography

Is there no discography, or have I missed it? — Preceding unsignedcomment added by 86.152.151.189 (talk) 08:46, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

I agree -- it's amazing that he recorded at least in the 1940s and after and there's not a single album listed. I came to his entry today to see what some were. AllMusic.com's no help, either -- it only has since the 1980s. I found this reference (http://www.classicalguitardelcamp.com/viewtopic.php?t=92667), but don't know how accurate it is. BlueIris2 (talk) 20:25, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Concerts in the 1980s

Does anyone know how many concert tours he did in the 80s before he died? The current version of the article doesn't mention this, & it might be interesting to add a sentence or two about it. I wasn't able to find any performance videos on YouTube dating to that period (some from the 1960s). I saw him perform in Pittsburgh, PA circa 1983 when he was about 90, & it was very impressive to hear someone of that age playing so amazingly such complex pieces.Funhistory (talk) 01:03, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 external links on Andrés Segovia. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20111023233555/http://markmarrington.com:80/2009/08/22/britishness-and-the-classical-guitar-after-1950-composers-performers-and-identity-in-the-contemporary-british-guitar-repertoire/ to http://markmarrington.com/2009/08/22/britishness-and-the-classical-guitar-after-1950-composers-performers-and-identity-in-the-contemporary-british-guitar-repertoire/
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20071018062021/http://egtaguitarforum.org:80/ExtraArticles/SegoviaTeaching.html to http://www.egtaguitarforum.org/ExtraArticles/SegoviaTeaching.html
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20070825045035/http://www.guitarteacher.com.au:80/johnwilliams.htm to http://www.guitarteacher.com.au/johnwilliams.htm
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20111004214137/http://hemerotecadigital.bne.es/datos1/numeros/internet/Madrid/Nuevo%20Mundo%20(Madrid)/1922/192205/19220505/19220505_00000.pdf to http://hemerotecadigital.bne.es/datos1/numeros/internet/Madrid/Nuevo%20Mundo%20(Madrid)/1922/192205/19220505/19220505_00000.pdf#search=%22andres%20segovia%22&page=24
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20050306063111/http://www.rprf.org:80/Rollography.html to http://www.rprf.org/Rollography.html
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20101128081122/http://finefretted.com/html/golden_era_cds_for_sale_g_e_74.html to http://www.finefretted.com/html/golden_era_cds_for_sale_g_e_74.html
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20100406144805/http://www3.ujaen.es/servpub/Noticias/invitacion-SEGOVIA.pdf to http://www3.ujaen.es/servpub/Noticias/invitacion-SEGOVIA.pdf
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20110716095330/http://www.internet.com.uy/aescande/DonAndres.html to http://www.internet.com.uy/aescande/DonAndres.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 17:44, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Andrés Segovia. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160304044528/http://www.segoviamuseo.com/marcoin.htm to http://www.segoviamuseo.com/marcoin.htm
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://hemerotecadigital.bne.es/datos1/numeros/internet/Madrid/Nuevo%20Mundo%20%28Madrid%29/1922/192205/19220505/19220505_00000.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:23, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

Students of Segovia's students tense?

I would like to point out that whilst the quoted Jim Tosone article from 2000 states, "many professional classical guitarists were either students of Segovia or students of Segovia's students".

I feel as a student of one of Segovia's students (and very much alive at 34 years old at the time of writing) and a professional guitarist since graduating a specialist music school where I was taught by a student of Segovia's, that the wording "were" to me and to other readers, could imply past tense and that that all these professional classical guitarists could have all passed away or that the tradition has ended. I've tried re-reading this several times and can't read it another way.

May I suggest re-wording this important phrase at the start of this article to reflect a vibrant and very much current lineage? For example, "many professional classical guitarists of the 20th and 21st centuries (have) studied with Segovia or with one of Segovia's students" and then a footnote can be given with the original quote from Tosone, allowing the reader to see the original and how it was edited for clarity. What do other readers and editors think? Mattredman98 (talk) 01:41, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

I agree with the general idea of what you say, but I would add that the whole initial paragraph should be rewritten. Right now there is too much WP:POV in it. Gorpik (talk) 10:42, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

Lack of coverage of contemporary criticism diminishes article

In the last half-century, there have been very many evaluations of the legacy of Segovia – one of the most influential figures of classical guitar – by musicians, academics, critics, etc., but even mention of their existence is nearly entirely absent from the current article. After 13 years since the previous discussions here, it seems more than due to reattempt a balanced coverage, because like it or not, those evaluations do indeed exist and are plenty notable. The above diff looks like a good starting point, but rather than an assorted list of quotes, hopefully it can take the form of a concentrated encyclopedic summary. Neither a die-hard nor a critic, by the way, not that it matters. Hftf (talk) 09:08, 21 December 2023 (UTC)