Talk:Roger Woodward

Shine

Please! Why does this article avoid talking about at least one elephant in the room!? Namely, the movie "Shine" and Roger's role in the story?

Previous comment on 01:48, 7 July 2008 by User:72.152.197.78. Attributed by shaidar cuebiyar ( talk | contribs ) 00:45, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

There is not relationship between the pianist and the movie "Shine" Lpro93 (talk) 21:53, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

Well, there is. His character did appear in the movie. It wasn't a large part, but he was portrayed by two actors: Stephen Sheehan as the younger Roger, and John Martin as the older Roger. [1]. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 00:43, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Roger Woodward. 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/20080612095107/http://artworksmusic.com/bio/rogerbio.html to http://artworksmusic.com/bio/rogerbio.html

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) 01:23, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Missing a lot of material ...

... about his studies in Poland under Drzewiecki, his relationship with Solidarity and the Polish regime of the time, his advocacy of contemporary music of people like Xenakis, Takemitsu, Feldman, Cage, Ligeti etc etc. This is shamefully inadequate for such a leading performer. I seem to remember much of it used to be here but it seems to have been chopped out. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 00:46, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

Creating Discography

Would it be acceptable to create a separate Discography page for Roger Woodward to transfer the lists of recordings and DVDs from the main Wikipedia page? Thank you. SueMmc (talk) 22:31, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

The article needs considerable improvement

Due to its many stylistic and other problems, I have started copyediting this article according to Wikipedia's Manual of Style principles and guidelines. Firstly, information and commentary about his artistic abilities and reputation definitely doesn't belong in the opening section. This is why I have created its own appropriate section where this can be mentioned. The section still contains, however, some wording which goes against the principles of 1. personal commentary 2. point of view 3. avoiding "peacock" wording as per WP:PEACOCK. The article is also far too detailed and wordy and needs considerable reduction of both. Afterwriting (talk) 03:25, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

This is clearly vandalism. And the reasons are more than clear, probably some external reasons. We are looking into that, surely we will get...the end.

Pretty interesting that this edition comes from someone claiming being an Aus.

Please if major edition is needed, do it but not vandalizing the article, erasing a very important part of recent Music History.

WP:VANDALIZE Please do at least a basic research or click on the notes and references. What you call "1. personal commentary 2. point of view 3. avoiding "peacock" " are in fact what composers like Xenakis, Barraque, Bussotti among others said and write about him and the performances of their own works. Also, it includes the "comments" of major music critics, and musicologists. A detailed article doesn't mean that is against the Wikipedia's Manual of Style principles and guidelines, the musician is considered of vital importance for Australia's music history and for Western Music history in general. Playing a key figure during the XX century as a performer, commissioning works, organizing major festivals of new music and being involved in many charitable causes, including the Solidarity movement, being this last one a cause of political persecution and ban. Lpro93 (talk) 18:47, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

It is clearly obvious that you are not interested in allowing any other editors to improve this article despite it being riddled with multiple stylistic mistakes. You seem to only be interested in violating the principles of WP:OWN. Let me make this quite clear to you: All of my edits are based on Wikipedia's Manual of Style which is how all articles are required to be written. If I make an obvious stylistic mistake then I accept it. Your editing, however, contains multiple instances of not being stylistically correct according to the Manual of Style and you refuse to recognise and accept this. This article doesn't belong to you and your ridiculous and completely false accusation of "vandalism" is uncivil and very offensive. If you continue to make such comments then you will be reported. And if you continue to introduce stylistic and other editing problems into the article then they they will be corrected as required. Let me make it also absolutely clear to you that the only significant editing I have done so far is to move information to more appropriate sections and also correct obvious stylistic mistakes such as incorrect capitalisations. My editing has greatly improved the article but your response to this is offensively accusing me of vandalism and having some hidden agenda. Your comments are completely false and unacceptable. Afterwriting (talk) 09:08, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

1.Thank you for your contribution to Roger Woodward’s Wikipedia entry and for reaching out so personally. As well intended as your selective editing presents itself, it leaves much to be desired at best, and at worst, borders on vandalism.

.

2. It diminishes Roger Woodward’s achievements, his international standing and career:

 

3. Your introductory paragraph infers that his career was based around developing an international festival, charities and activism in the Solidarność Trades Union Movement when 

Woodward is internationally known for the past fifty years by multiple critical sources as a seminal figure in the XX century modern classical music world and avant-garde Movement. Proof of that is cited in prominent reviews and articles by: Xenakis, Takemitsu, Boulez, Barraqué, Feldman, et al. He received internationally recognized prizes, awards and honours  because of his performance of traditional classical repertoire, international commissions as a distinguished composer and his concerts as a conductor and master classes as a teacher.  

 

4. You removed the linking of the Solidarność Trades Union Movement and the Gloria Artis medal (gold class). Why would you wish to edit in such a way as to exclude such information?

 

5. You added a new and unnecessary section entitled “Artistic reputation" although no musician of Woodward’s  standing has such a heading.

 

6. The information you removed from the opening paragraph and placed under your own new heading properly belongs in the introductory paragraph as it does for other musicians of Woodward’s stature. You decided instead, however, to replace the correct introductory material by non-musical matters. You did not, however, insist on the same standard for some of Woodward’s colleagues: Argerich, Pollini, Barenboim, Boulez, Richter, Hirschhorn, Wiłkomirska, Cage, Feldman, Takemitsu, Xenakis et al.

 

7. In your editing of Woodward’s opening paragraph you used the term “internationally” instead of “abroad”- as occurs, for example, in exactly the same place for the Australian violinist Richard T. In other ways, you also seem to be modelling Woodward’s Wikipedia entry on that of Richard T’s. With respect and as admirable as it might be, is it worth considering that there are many entrants who do not have their Wikipedia entry modelled on that of the very distinguished artist Richard T?

 

8. Conservatorium, in this case, should always be spelt with the capital letter C, because it is the name of the institution; not an institution.  

 

9. In the awards section you removed “Republic of ” Poland and “Republic of “ France. Why? Such  awards were conferred by governments who describe themselves in this way.

 

10. Your abundance of editorial preferences could well merit the wider attention of dedicated editing specialists. Such an extended forum however, might be more appropriate to Academia as well as the Internet and/or continuing exchange. We all share Wikipedia’s alert attention to the preservation of high standards. Once again, thank you for your observations.

 

 

 

  Lpro93 (talk) 22:49, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

Please, would you be so kind to reply?. Thank you

1.Thank you for your contribution to Roger Woodward’s Wikipedia entry and for reaching out so personally. As well intended as your selective editing presents itself, it leaves much to be desired at best, and at worst, borders on vandalism.

2. It diminishes Roger Woodward’s achievements, his international standing and career:

3. Your introductory paragraph infers that his career was based around developing an international festival, charities and activism in the Solidarność Trades Union Movement when Woodward is internationally known for the past fifty years by multiple critical sources as a seminal figure in the XX century modern classical music world and avant-garde Movement. Proof of that is cited in prominent reviews and articles by: Xenakis, Takemitsu, Boulez, Barraqué, Feldman, et al. He received internationally recognized prizes, awards and honours because of his performance of traditional classical repertoire, international commissions as a distinguished composer and his concerts as a conductor and master classes as a teacher.

4. You removed the linking of the Solidarność Trades Union Movement and the Gloria Artis medal (gold class). Why would you wish to edit in such a way as to exclude such information?

5. You added a new and unnecessary section entitled “Artistic reputation" although no musician of Woodward’s standing has such a heading.

6. The information you removed from the opening paragraph and placed under your own new heading properly belongs in the introductory paragraph as it does for other musicians of Woodward’s stature. You decided instead, however, to replace the correct introductory material by non-musical matters. You did not, however, insist on the same standard for some of Woodward’s colleagues: Argerich, Pollini, Barenboim, Boulez, Richter, Hirschhorn, Wiłkomirska, Cage, Feldman, Takemitsu, Xenakis et al.

7. In your editing of Woodward’s opening paragraph you used the term “internationally” instead of “abroad”- as occurs, for example, in exactly the same place for the Australian violinist Richard T. In other ways, you also seem to be modelling Woodward’s Wikipedia entry on that of Richard T’s. With respect and as admirable as it might be, is it worth considering that there are many entrants who do not have their Wikipedia entry modelled on that of the very distinguished artist Richard T?

8. Conservatorium, in this case, should always be spelt with the capital letter C, because it is the name of the institution; not an institution.

9. In the awards section you removed “Republic of ” Poland and “Republic of “ France. Why? Such awards were conferred by governments who describe themselves in this way.

10. Your abundance of editorial preferences could well merit the wider attention of dedicated editing specialists. Such an extended forum however, might be more appropriate to Academia as well as the Internet and/or continuing exchange. We all share Wikipedia’s alert attention to the preservation of high standards. Once again, thank you for your observations.

Lpro93 (talk) 18:41, 31 August 2022 (UTC)