Talk:Philip Glass/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Use of Infobox musical artist

This type of infobox (musical artist, i.e. pop musician) is not recommended for composers. Should it be removed? --Kleinzach 02:09, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Fixed. --Kleinzach 01:11, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

No because as a recording artist there is also some information that is listed such as label that cannot be represented. So now it's not fixed but rather broken. Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:19, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

OK. I'll try to add it. --Kleinzach 01:43, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Unfortunately it's not possible to add it to the info box. It's one of the Fields that are specifically excluded: 'Labels – because even authors do not have their publishers listed in their infoboxes (only the books themselves do)." The labels are explained in the text, see Philip_Glass#Influences_and_connections. If you like we could add a special box.--Kleinzach 02:04, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Try to add the parameters to {{Infobox classical composer}}? It makes no sense to list what label Palestrina, Bach, Mozart, etc. are on. The only way to get that information back is to restore {{Infobox musical artist}}.

I just checked a few other contemporary composers and there does not appear to be a uniform standard. I specifically looked at Terry Riley (Infobox classical composer), Arvo Pärt, John Adams (composer), and Steve Reich (just a picture). See additional the entries at Category:21st-century classical composers.

What is so abhorrent about the Infobox musical artist? He is both a musical artist and a contemporary composer. Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:07, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

We can't change {{Infobox classical composer}} without a discussion. Infobox musical artist is for pop musicians. What's wrong with just doing a small box to fit under the info box? If Glass is a special case that's fine with me. --Kleinzach 02:34, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Philip Glass: Recording labels

• Virgin
• CBS Records
• Nonesuch/Elektra
• Sony Classical/SME Records
• Orange Mountain Music

I wasn't suggesting that we change the template. I was just wondering if you were planning to change it. It's not just labels that are missing. Genres, years active, and an incorrect use of notable instruments. However, Talk:Philip Glass/Archive 1#Infobox determined why we should go to the artist infobox. Perhaps we should go back to it until this is resolved. It seems that you waited to see if consensus had changed and when no one commented, you made the change. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:39, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

That's correct. I waited 9 days. Kleinzach 04:53, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

There was no discussion, only your request. I reverted until there is a discussion to achieve a new consensus rather than assuming that silence means consensus. Wikipedia:Silence means nothing Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:00, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

For the record, I'm not opposed to the composer infobox. I am also not opposed to the type of box on the other minimalists. I am opposed to someone imposing their will on an article without discussion. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:02, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Good. Please understand that in order for a discussion to take place at least two people have to turn up. --Kleinzach 08:39, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Showing up. I use {{Infobox person}} for all people, including composers. It has no |label= (yet?), I live with that. It has some field names that I don't like, such as "Notable work(s)" (why would anybody list not notable works? a simple "Work" would do.), I will try to change it but accept if it doesn't work. It's much easier to maintain one good template than many specialised ones, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:50, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

{{Infobox person}} is certainly much better than the pop musician one. --Kleinzach 08:57, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

The fear was expressed that it has too many paras, and questionable ones such as "known for" and "influenced", - Perhaps Classical could develop a recommendation showing only the wanted ones, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:13, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

That's exactly what they did. Kleinzach 07:37, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

I've changed the infobox to the 'person' type, as per Gerda's wishes. In my view 'occupation: composer' is redundant, and 'years active' is misleading. I am happy to add information such as labels (which I agree would be useful) in a special box like the one above. I trust this will be acceptable to everybody, including unknown editors who may turn up in another 9 days time. Kleinzach 07:43, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

His occupation as composer is no more redundant than listing his name, dates or anything else listed. Infoboxes are designed to summarize at a glance the key information. The composer infobox doesn't do that. It's no more acceptable than the previous change. You have just given grounds for any other editor who would rather have the infobox be the artist one to revert and then discuss here. Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:18, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

The best option in my view would be no infobox at all. That way productive energies could be redirected towards the article itself. Kleinzach 02:09, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Energies to the article? There has been very little editing of the article so that would be appreciated, but what more needs to be done to the article?

I'm not entirely sure what the problem with the musical artist infobox is. While it has parameters that could be used that would be inappropriate, they were not in use before you removed it and do you really think I would let that happen based on the grief I've offered here? Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:07, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

I like to use {{Infobox person}} because it is well maintained, - it's desirable to have not many different small ones, not a specific problem with this single one of them. If parameters from {{Infobox musical artist}} are missing in {{Infobox person}}, we should try to get them added (it's protected). Please reinstall his profession, it's not redundant. Like it or not, some readers will read only the infobox, they should be served. (Also WE can prepare Wikidata well, rather than wait for others to do it, perhaps not so well.) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:12, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Musical artist is also well maintained, extremely so, but really, how much maintenance is required on a template? Have you ever looked at the talk pages of these templates? Is this coming down to personal preference for use here? I would rather look at what's best for the article? Is the active "maintenance" of a particular template really the key factor or is its suitability the issue?

WP:IBX#Purpose of an infobox reads in part: "to summarize key facts in the article in which it appears... Of necessity, some infoboxes contain more than just a few fields; however, wherever possible, present information in short form, and exclude any unnecessary content." That is the purpose when designing an infobox, but in this case I would ask what are the key facts of Glass' life? I would argue that as an active performer and recording artist, his label is a key fact. That's not an issue for Gunaud, Greig or even Louis Glass and so a one-size-fits-all template does not exist in the case of all composers, particularly not living composers, and certainly not in the case of a living composer who has achieved some measure of popularity with non-classical music listeners. Many of the other parameters in the musical artist template are not key (associated_acts= and others) and so we do not need to include them. We can even add comments <!-- like this --> to explain why we have chosen not to add the parameter and request that discussion ensue before adding them.

The current objections to the use of that one infobox can be resolved by removing the parameter's entry here, not only the value but the entire parameter. It's less likely that an editor will add it back, but if the objectionable parameters are reintroduced, we simply point to this discussion to explain why it was removed. With vigilance, the contents of the selected infobox in this article can be maintained. Musical artist is much more suitable than person for this article at least. Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:07, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Spouse field in the info box

IMO the spouse field in the infobox presents unimportant information. Glass's private life is covered perfectly well in the article. I see no reason to treat his wives as the most significant of his achievements. Can we delete this stuff as (relative) trivia? Thanks. --Kleinzach 02:19, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

It's a valid parameter in the template that was recently chosen. Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:39, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Maybe so, but in this context? How important is Glass's ability to find a large number of partners? --Kleinzach 11:34, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Glass isn't Henry VIII. The number of his wives has no relevance to his notability. This is a violation of undue weight and should be removed. --Folantin (talk) 13:40, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

But his label is relevant to his notability. I don't care if the information is left or it's removed. Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:29, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Infobox: Years active field

The infobox gives "Years active; 1956 to present". Glass was 19 in 1956. I was curious about what Glass actually did when he was 19 to become "active" so I searched the article. Surprisingly the article doesn't mention any event at all in 1956! I suggest we delete this field as another example of the accumulation of spurious information in infoboxes. Kleinzach 00:55, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

I suggest you determine what he did in 1956 before deleting it. He may have done some student compositions that were entered into a competition. Tag it as requiring a reference and move on. Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:46, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

But it's not in the article. --Kleinzach 06:07, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

If the article were the only location for information on Glass I would agree with you. Since you know that not to be the case, there are many other options. You have a few choices at this point.

1. Tag the material
2. Find where the date was added and attempt to contact the editor who made the edit to determine why the date was added. This does not preclude the previous suggestion.
3. Do the necessary research to determine when the subject actually became active and correct the date with content in the article. Again, this does not preclude the first suggestion.

Thanks Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:41, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

I think you misunderstand how infoboxes are meant to work: they ought to summarise the essential points of a biography. Everything in an infobox must be supported by the article, where, as usual, some facts or assertions may require citation of reliable sources. As Kleinzach points out, there's no mention of what PG did in 1956. He won an award in 1959; as it is unclear for what, I agree with the removal of that field. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 12:49, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Defining 'years active' will be much harder for a composer than, say, a sportsman like a tennis player, so I wonder if it's really an appropriate field anyway. I've now taken it out. Kleinzach 13:12, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

I am not familiar enough with Glass, but compare Planyavsky: the parameter can have several entries, a period as an player, a (different) period as a composer, a (different) period as a professor, for example --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:17, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Planyavsky's dates are job appointments. Kleinzach 13:25, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Not sure that I understand what you mean. (There was composer also, but removed, although I don't see why; it is safe to say that it began with his - Glass or Planyavsky, doesn't matter - first listed composition, and ended with his last so far, if you hesitate to say "to present".)

Michael Bednarek, I do know how infoboxes are meant to work. And it's working now that I added a CN to the information. And before you try to discuss contributors again, I suggest a quick reading of WP:NPA.

He's not just a composer, he's also a performer and it's not at all more difficult to reference than a "sportsman". YOU HAVE TO ACTUALLY LOOK FOR MATERIAL TO SUPPORT EVERY STATEMENT.

If you're not familiar with Glass, become familiar with the subject by reading about him. I have restored the dates and tagged the start date. Now find material to support it. Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:11, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

My my opinion on your understanding of how infoboxes are meant to work is based on my reading of Help:Infoboxes and MOS:INFOBOX in contrast to your contributions here and your edits to the article. Both those pages strongly recommend that infoboxes a) summarise key facts relevant to the subject; b) present only material which is repeated and cited elsewhere in the article. Your action of adding material to the infobox and simultaneously marking it with {{Citation needed}} defies common sense. Asking other editors to provide sources for your edit defies WP:BURDEN. I also believe you misunderstand what WP:NPA means. I have not "discussed contributors" or personally atacked anyone, least of all "again", as you allege; please read WP:NPA#WHATIS. I suggest you revert your edit. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 09:18, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Congratulations! The question is not whether this is or isn't a key even in the performer's life, it's whether it's referenced. Now do the work and find who added it and when and then determine when Glass started performing and provide a reference.

That the opening states NPA perfectly. READ IT! Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:41, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

WP:BURDEN explains "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and is satisfied by providing a reliable source that directly supports the material." Walter Görlitz, please either properly reference the material you put on the article, or remove it. Kleinzach 14:51, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Yes it is, which is why I removed the contentious material. Anything else you'd like to discuss? It's a shame that this article is being gutted. Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:54, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Notable instruments: Farfisa organ

The infobox 'Notable instruments' field now gives Farfisa organ. Should this be removed as trivia? The article only has a one line mention of the Farfisa. It's true that Glass's ensemble had three of these instruments, which were apparently used for special effects (presumably not all played by Glass himself!), but they also had other instruments.

Having said that, this article is about Glass, not the ensemble. Moreover the info box, if it is going to be at all useful, has to summarise the most important things in the article, not obscure facts. --Kleinzach 02:32, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

No. It's referenced. Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:47, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Not everything referenced deserves to be mentioned in the infobox. His occasional use of the Farfisa organ doesn't make it his notable instrument. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 08:34, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

I have removed it, but doing so simply emphasizes that neither of the editors who are complaining understand what the parameter in the infobox is to be used for. It also had "piano" before, and that was incorrect. It is now empty, but his use of the farfisa is sufficiently notable that the article on the instrument mentions him. Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:35, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Infobox musical artist instead of Infobox person

Unfortunately Walter Görlitz has now used Infobox musical artist for the article, instead of Infobox person [1]. Infobox musical artist is designed for pop, not serious musicians. For many years now there's been a consensus that it shouldn’t be used for CM articles, as explained in Infobox musical artist/doc — specifically saying 'non-classical'.

The words 'non-classical' are no longer on the template because Walter Görlitz removed them himself about a year ago [2]. Kleinzach 16:18, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

It's not at all unfortunate. It's the correct infobox for a performer of music, not just pop music, all music. Sorry that you don't understand the subject well enough to know that he not only composes but also performs. Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:16, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

I and other editors who favour this correct infobox have no problems representing now-dead composers who do not perform publicly or record their music with whatever infobox is appropriate, but anyone who thinks that a living performer of music who also composes and records music should be in the same class as those who no longer perform that music is mistaken. It seems the real problem is that some people don't understand that music is music and Shoenberg was one of them. (I can explain that more fully if desired)

The edit to the Infobox musical artist linked above was after discussion and consensus because it was being used on several now-dead composers. I seem to recall this sort of debate as part of the argument why we shouldn't restrict the infobox to certain classes of living musicians. If you would like to take up the argument at the infobox, feel free to. This is not the correct location for the discussion. Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:26, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Classical/mainline/art music editors don't want this popular music infobox for composers because it is not fit for (CM) purpose, including inappropriate fields which accumulate trivia. That's why there is a dedicated composers box. I understand your main interest is in Christian Pop, not this kind of material. When you refer to Shoenberg, do you mean Arnold Schoenberg? --Kleinzach 01:24, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

The problem is that he is not just a composer, he is also a recording artist and performer. I'm sorry. I'll see if I can get him out of his contracts to record and perform. Until then, unless you can show he is not longer doing either of those, it makes sense to represent him as what he is. That is the job of the infobox. While I understand what some Classical/mainline/art music editors feel about this infobox, they are not commenting on this subject. We are.

My main interests are none of your business and I suggest you comment on content, not on the contributors. You have been warned about this before.

Yes, Arnold Schoenberg. Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:34, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

There is no problem; Glass is notable for his compositions and if the article must have an infobox, it should reflect that. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 08:34, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

There is no problem. Glass is also notable for his recordings and his performances. If the article must have an infobox, it should also reflect that. Walter Görlitz (talk) 13:41, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Glass primarily a performer?

According to Walter Görlitz's latest revision [3], the lead now refers to Glass primarily/firstly as a performer. This was presumably to justify the use of the Infobox musical artist rather than the dedicated Infobox composer (or generally used infobox person which was previously on the article). Of course the article itself makes it clear that Glass is more notable as a composer than a performer. The text should be corrected and the box either changed to a more appropriate type, or removed completely, as it has become a focus for disrupting work on this article. Kleinzach 01:00, 29 March 2013 (UTC),

Not what I wrote. Please try again. He's not primarily a performer. Are you saying he doesn't perform? Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:28, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

See here. 'Philip Morris Glass[1] (born January 31, 1937) is an American composer." changed to "Philip Morris Glass (born January 31, 1937) is an American performer and composer of contemporary classical music. " So in the new version Glass is primarily a performer. This is not true and should be changed. --Kleinzach 01:48, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

I'd be glad to change it. To what would you like me to change it? "is an American composer and performer"? I'd be happy to comply with a change. I suspect that if you were to look at his income, he would earn more money from the royalties on his own recordings than he does for the performance of his works. However, without a reliable source for either we're both just guessing, which is why I'm happy to change it. But since you find fault in almost every edit I make here, I'd like to know what wording you prefer. The fact that he is a performer as well as composer is an omission that has been overlooked for far too long and if this current emphasis is applied for a brief while longer, will not harm the overall impression of Glass or the article. Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:05, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Good, please restore the original text. Like all composers, Glass is a musician and he performs — but only his own works. He doesn't perform other people's music. Please change the infobox back to the appropriate type. --Kleinzach 02:35, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

While I understand your point, it's not acceptable. Sorry. Please try again. He is a as much a performer and recording artist.

As a recording artist he has recording contracts and readers want to know on which labels he's recorded. If it were not for his recordings, his music would be obscure and he would not have received the majority of his commissions and would not be as popular as he is today. He would be a taxi driver who writes music on the side not a recording artist whose music is published. I'll take it step further, which sells more, his recordings or the sheet music of those recordings? I can tell you that it is nearly impossible to find his compositions in print anywhere but very easy to find his recordings. Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:53, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

The point about labels has already been discussed on this talk page. I suggested putting a box in the article to cover this. Regarding Glass as a composer, this is amply covered by the article. --Kleinzach 10:18, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestion. It's unnecessary. Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:24, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Glass is notable for his compositions; the article's lead and its infobox, if the article must have one, should reflect that. Similarly, it's entirely non-notable on which labels he recorded. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 08:34, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Glass is also notable for his recordings. You can't play one off against the other. It is entirely notable on which labels he has recorded. Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:47, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Glass, like many composers before him, performs occasionally his own works, but he is notable for their composition, not for performing and recording them. Any assertion beyond that needs to be supported by reliable sources or at least a Wikipedia article, e.g. Philip Glass discography (Category:Philip Glass albums proves the opposite). The section on record labels in this infobox is misleading as his recordings are available on other labels as well. There are only very few performers whose names can be tied to a single or a small number of labels and thus are notably connected to those labels. Orange Mountain Music and Glass is obviously such a case, but a) it's already mentioned in the article; b) without an article, mentioning it in the infobox is not helpful. His own other labels are even more obscure, and the listed mainstream labels are a non-exhaustive random list. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 09:09, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

So Bob Dylan is a composer? Shall I list more singer-songwriters? I can add a section for every label if you would like, but you cannot deny that he is a performer of music. Just because little emphasis has been made on his recordings doesn't mean he hasn't recorded. Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:04, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

I wouldn't categorise His Bobness as a composer, but what has that got to do with anything? The point is that people may be engaged in various activities, but they are usually notable only for some, or one. If Glass hadn't composed anything, he wouldn't be in this, or any other, encyclopedia. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 12:47, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

I wouldn't call him a composer either. He's a song writer. He is also a performer. As stated below, Glass' music would not be known today if it had not been for his performances of his compositions with his ensemble. Period. You appear to know nothing about the subject's early compositions. He is not only a composer but also a performer. If you would like to state that, then feel free. But only an idiot would argue that he is not a performer. Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:00, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

But just so we stick to WP:RSes:

• http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0001275/bio: "His compositions were so avant-garde that he had to form the Philip Glass Ensemble to give them a venue for performance."
• http://www.philipglass.com/bio.php: "He presents lectures, workshops, and solo keyboard performances around the world, and continues to appear regularly with the Philip Glass Ensemble."

-- Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:31, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Glass performed his own music with his own ensemble for largely financial reasons as he explained in an interview. Incidentally he did a lot of film work (see four paras in the article!) for which he would have been notable, even if he had never composed or performed anything else. --Kleinzach 05:40, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

I provided references to support my case. You claim there was an interview. I know which of these directions is supported by Wikipedia, WP:AGF included. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:21, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Further, what does his motive for being a performer matter? Are you suggesting that he's a composer for a reason other than the money or are you suggesting something else? Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:55, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Nobody doubts that Glass recorded; the question is: for what is he notable? The answer to that is: for his compositions. That's also the answer to the section heading "#Infobox musical artist instead of Infobox person. It's worth re-reading that discussion mentioned up there which followed Walter's repeated removal of "non-classical" from the template {{Infobox musical artist}}. The removal was defended because the template provided a parameter |background=classical_ensemble and was thus suitable for those. I don't think anyone suggests that Glass is an ensemble. Further, the uncontested, indeed agreed upon, proposal for the template documentation's lead paragraph was "For classical musicians, authors may want to consider the recommendation of the Classical Music WikiProject to not use an infobox." For some reason, this agreed version was never implemented. In light of all that, are we now agreed that, if anything, {{Infobox person}} is more appropriate? -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 12:04, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Yes it's notable. It's not worth re-reading because we're not talking about dead composers who never had the opportunity to record. Get it into your head, Glass is a living individual who is known for his recordings. Walter Görlitz (talk) 13:21, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

I certainly think that either {{Infobox person}} or {{Infobox composer}} is more appropriate here than {{Infobox musical artist}}. Kleinzach 15:50, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

You may think what you will, but you must offered proof. Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:27, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

How do we represent that Glass is a composer, performer and recording artist?

It's obvious that Glass is a composer, performer, recording artist and a personality. I was thinking that perhaps I had missed something in the terse arguments so I thought I would look at a few popular performers. I looked first at Yo-Yo Ma. When I first looked, it was using Infobox person. Then, within an hour an unrelated editor restored Infobox musical artist. That was interesting. After first looking at Ma, I thought I would look at Angela Hewitt and discovered no infobox at all. No help either. Next I looked at Wynton Marsalis who is both classical and jazz. Oddly, he too is credited as a composer (although I'm not sure that this is what is mostly known for). He too has Infobox musical artist. Vladimir Horowitz has no infobox and instead has multiple image. Kronos Quartet uses Infobox musical artist and labels are listed. I'm not certain now that the infobox should be changed since he is clearly both a composer, performer and recording artist. Unless someone can prove that he isn't the latter two, I see no logical reason to remove the Infobox musical artist as it's used in several other classical performers and unless another way of represent Glass can be found that is able to present that important information, it's criminal to remove it. Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:16, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

What I'm also suggesting is that if the majority of modern performers are presented in another way, it would not be unreasonable to standardize the infoboxes among classical performers. It would also not be unreasonable to create a new Infobox classical performer template and include only those parameters that the classical music project believes should exist in it and use that template here. Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:21, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

As explained by a number of editors above, Glass is primarily a composer, hence the composer infobox is the most appropriate for this article. --Kleinzach 13:38, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

That has not been explained and it's a specious argument as has been stated many times before. Since he is a performer and would not be known as a composer had it not been for his performances and recordings that performance information must be displayed. Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:20, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Glass as performer/Revert?

Are any of the recent edits by Walter Görlitz worth keeping? As pointed out above, it is laughable that the lead emphasizes "performer", and it might be best to just revert back to the last stable version. Johnuniq (talk) 22:33, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

All of them are worth keeping. The last stable version was before Kleinzach started editing here. It's amazing how the trolls have come out recently. The Glass article was well-maintained before this cabal decided that he was not a performer of music and only a classical composer. I will work at keeping the valuable information in the article and expanding his recording information since he is a recording artist. Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:39, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

That version does not call Glass a performer in the opening sentence, something we have been arguing about here at length. Is there now consensus to strike that term? -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 12:47, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Yes please. Your comment above (If Glass hadn't composed anything, he wouldn't be in this, or any other, encyclopedia.) describes the situation exactly—Glass is a very important composer. I don't know what the backstory is (the infobox wars?), but the current wording is absurd, and the suggestion that it should stay until someone thinks of an accurate description mentioning "and performer" is not sustainable. Johnuniq (talk) 01:44, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

And so he is only a composer? Then explain his ensemble solo albums. I have no problems with moving it after composer, but Bob Dylan wouldn't be in any encyclopedia if he weren't a singer and a songwriter. Have others recorded his music? It's absurd to suggest that they haven't. So just because Glass is a composer of art music doesn't mean that he doesn't perform. There seems to be some sort of mental block with assuming that composing is more important than performance. And quite frankly, when he began composing, no one was interested in his music, nor were they capable of reading the new notation he invented. If he hadn't preformed it, it would be absurd to assume that he would be known today at all. He would be like so many other failed composers from the 1960s. He is a performer and that fact has been absent from the article for too long. So any editor who thinks that mentioning that he is a performer is not sustainable needs to learn a thing or two about the subject. Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:56, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

The lead sentence is now: "Philip Morris Glass[1] (born January 31, 1937[2][3]) is an American composer and performer of contemporary classical music " [my emphasis]. Is this accurate? Does Glass perform "contemporary classical music" — or just his own music? --Kleinzach 11:08, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Labels field

The labels field has been mentioned a lot in this discussion. Michael Bednarek explains above:

“ The section on record labels in this infobox is misleading as his recordings are available on other labels as well. There are only very few performers whose names can be tied to a single or a small number of labels and thus are notably connected to those labels. Orange Mountain Music and Glass is obviously such a case, but a) it's already mentioned in the article; b) without an article, mentioning it in the infobox is not helpful. His own other labels are even more obscure, and the listed mainstream labels are a non-exhaustive random list. ”

Should we remove it now? --Kleinzach 05:46, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but this has got to stop. As I have pointed out several time and you're refusing to understand, he's a recording artist and it's perfectly acceptable to list his labels. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:17, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

I've provided several reason why the field |labels= ought to be omitted from the infobox. Simply stamping your feet and demanding "this has got to stop" is not an argument. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 12:04, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

I have now removed the field. Kleinzach 15:42, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

And just as easily, I restored it since I have followed Wikipedia guidelines and offered proof that he is a performer of music. You have offered no proof that he is not. Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:27, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Oh dear, once again Walter Görlitz resorts to edit warring instead of answering the specific points made by Michael Bednarek about labels, which have nothing to do with the (agreed) fact that Glass performs music! The last edit should be reverted. Let's get all our marbles together and look at the labels issue. (As I offered before, I am happy to make a dedicated box for record labels if proper information based on reliable sources can be obtained.) Kleinzach 07:55, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Oh no, Walter Görlitz reverts yet again [4]. That's the second time today. Wouldn't it be better to address the issues? --Kleinzach 12:19, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry if the reasons I have given and you have refused to discuss are annoying you. Your points are non-points. It's time for you to stop pushing your point and start answering mine. Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:19, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Please list the "reasons I have given and you have refused to discuss". Please explain why Michael Bednarek's arguments are "non-points". Kleinzach 02:26, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

I have repeatedly stated that he is a performer and that has not been acknowledged. The recent points make it appear that I am damaging the article when I'm simply filling it out, therefore their attempts at making me look bad when that's not the case. Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:23, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Let's take this slowly then. Michael Bednarek's last point is that "the listed mainstream labels are a non-exhaustive random list." What about that? If Michael's point is true then the list should obviously be removed from the box. --Kleinzach 06:06, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Apparently, I'm writing too quickly for you. He is a performer and that has not been acknowledged. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:23, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

This section is about the Labels field. (The fact Glass made recordings, some of them as a performer, has been implicitly accepted by all the editors commenting here.) --Kleinzach 06:53, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry you don't understand the actual issue. It has not been implicitly accepted. It has been explicitly downplayed. If you accept that the subject is a performer and recording artist, then it simply follows that the recording artist's labels should be presented, as is appropriate for recording artists. The fact that the article doesn't explain is not the fault of the infobox but rather the fault of editors who would rather expunge any evidence that subject is either a performer or recording artist as being demeaning to the profession of composer. If you object to the lack of material, add some. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:37, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Walter Görlitz: " . . . the fault of editors who would rather expunge any evidence that subject is either a performer or recording artist . . ." Who are you accusing of "expunging evidence"? Kleinzach 09:59, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

This is how you major in the minors. I am accusing those who are trying to expunging evidence of being either a performer or recording artist of trying to expunging evidence of being either a performer or recording artist. That would be those who are removing, or espousing the removal of, the artist infobox and all the additional information it is capable of displaying. You didn't seem to pick-up on the suggestion that the article needs to be expanded to discuss the information discussed in the infobox. Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:33, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Symphony No. 12

It seems at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Symphony No. 12 (Glass) that the article Symphony No. 12 (Glass) is heading for a merge to a section of the composer's article. To prepare for that eventuality, I'm copying that article here: — Preceding unsigned comment added by Michael Bednarek (talk • contribs) 07:07, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

Move discussion

See Talk:Glassworks (composition)#Explanation, your input is appreciated. buidhe 22:33, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Lead

Since Philip Glass never employed a compositional technique that hadn't already been employed by Steve Reich or Terry Riley, and since Philip Glass knew personally and worked with Steve Reich and directly derived his style from that association, it seems to me rather odd to call him "one of the most influential composers of the late twentieth-century". Of course the lead doesn't say how many can be "one", which is pretty weasel-ly of it, but the implication is clearly that he's more significant than Reich and Riley, which is absurd considering how utterly derivative he is (and how consistently dishonest he is about how derivative he is). TheScotch (talk) 06:19, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

Did he die

Has he died yet as I want to have the date when he has died as many may look at this composer for homework research 2A02:C7F:14E0:3600:4983:17DC:12A7:372D (talk) 20:52, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

Rather a memento mori. TheScotch (talk) 01:58, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

Philip Glass Institute

To mention in this article: the new Philip Glass Institute at the New School. Sources: https://www.nytimes.com/2020/05/22/arts/music/philip-glass-music-in-eight-parts.html https://www.newschool.edu/philip-glass-institute/ 173.88.246.138 (talk) 01:40, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

Remove middle name "Morris" until WP:RS with no WP:CITOGENESIS is found

Hi. Ref former attempted deletion of putative middle name "Morris" by Richardguerin and his statement here, I think that there's enough reason to suspect that the middle name "Morris" was a joke -- see Philip Morris (cigarette), etc -- that has somehow made its way into wikipedia and should be removed (with a comment inserted to avoid re-addition without a clear RS). The addition was made here by AHMartin on 17 Apr 2009. Neither of the cites in the diff give that as middle name, and I can't find any useful GNews or Gbooks hits which show use of this middle name prior to this date, and there are minimal GHits, at least some of which are clearly wrong in their dates (Timetoast wasn't released publicly until 2008 so the 2001 date is junk, the web didn't exist in 1981). Even if it were in NNDB in Feb 2009, that's clearly unreliable. The Universal Music site may be fairly new, and the 2000 date is a misinterpretation of the identifier "20000107192". ^~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~ 13:47, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

... I think that there's enough reason to suspect that the middle name "Morris" was a joke -- see Philip Morris (cigarette), etc -- that has somehow made its way into wikipedia and should be removed (with a comment inserted to avoid re-addition without a clear RS). The addition was made here by AHMartin on 17 Apr 2009. ...

I assent to the removal. I wasn't making a joke, but I don't remember my rationale from 13 years ago, and can't find a source for it at this late date. (Which given the subject's testimony, is not surprising). AHMartin (talk) 15:18, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

Thanks - my guess is that you might have gotten it from NNDB, but understood that it's a little difficult to remember a decade back to a relatively minor edit.^~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~ 23:44, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

(In general I wouldn't be surprised if it was one of those cases where I resorted to Wikipedia to learn more about a celebrity, only to be faced by a seeming gap in the wiki page like full name or birth date which was supplied in the article that had sent me searching for more info in the first place. And then "helped" by inserting the missing factoid. Can't swear I was unwittingly trolled by a jokester, but it was definitely not malice on my part.

FWIW, I generally sanity-check such tidbits with a general search before adding them to Wikipedia. And I've seen enough garbage in automatically-compiled directories caused by things like digitized typos, and "spouse's first initial appears as principal's middle initial" that I am pretty skeptical about what I see on the Intarwebs). Thanks for your understanding. AHMartin (talk) 16:45, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

south park

in season one, episode nine of south park, a depiction of philip glass was on the show. does this belong in the article or does this qualify as trivia ? Ayyydoc (talk) 22:52, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

Was the appearance significant enough to receive coverage from an independent secondary source? Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 23:38, 4 April 2023 (UTC)