Jump to content

Talk:Sarah Chang

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Yehudi Menuhin quotation

[edit]

I added these two sentences:

She asked her parents for a violin at the age of 3 and auditioned for New York's Juilliard School at 5.
Yehudi Menuhin has called her "the most wonderful, the most perfect, the most ideal violinist I have ever heard".

for which my source is this BBCi Woman's Hour page. --Suitov 08:36, 30 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Really. He must have been going senile. Wallie (talk) 23:39, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Korean name

[edit]

There is no reason whatsoever for Korean character spelling of her name. She has never lived in Korea, was given the name Sarah Chang at birth. Translation into Korean would perhaps be appropriate on Korean Wikipedia, but there is no reason for it on English Wikipedia. Gene Nygaard (talk) 08:19, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As the article states, she was born with a Korean name. The reference given [1] claims her mother's (composition) teacher suggested an English name when visiting her in hospital. However, other biographies I've seen in the past claimed she only adopted an English name when she started to perform, and chose Sarah herself (will look for a reference for that). She apparently used to sign autographs in Korean when she was younger [2]. The usual convention on Wikipedia where someone has a name written in a different script is to include it as well as a Romanisation, so I think inclusion of her Korean name would be valid. JRawle (Talk) 13:39, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
To be fair, Gene Nygaard's comment was from January 2008, and the information about her birth name was not added until February 2009, over a year later. But I think it's worth restoring the Korean-name infobox that was deleted based on the January 2008 comment. TJRC (talk) 16:21, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Movies

[edit]

She appears in "Spanish Night from the Berlin Waldbuhne" (2001) DVD where she performs three pieces as violin soloist.

Reference: http://movies.nytimes.com/movie/296047/Spanish-Night-From-the-Berlin-Waldbuhne/overview —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.254.18.66 (talk) 16:24, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bruch Audition Piece

[edit]

I added "No. 1 in G Minor" to "playing the Bruch Violin Concerto" because readers not immediately familiar with the standard violin repertoire likely would not know to which of Bruch's violin concertos that referred.AliceTaniyama (talk) 23:49, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

userbox for Sarah Chang fans

[edit]
  • {{User:Ling.Nut/Sarahchangfan}} yields:

User:Ling.Nut/Sarahchangfan

"Early life" restoration

[edit]

In this edit, an anonymous editor vandalized the article by deleting the entire "Early life" section." User:Hyun08, in a good-faith edit, attempted to restore it, but replaced it with an earlier version, losing many edits that had been made, including cited material about Chang's age at the time her Debut CD was recorded. I've restored that section to how it appeared immediately prior to the vandalism: [3]. TJRC (talk) 15:32, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Edits by EMI

[edit]

Just a heads up, anonymous IP editor 195.225.81.1 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), which IP is registered to EMI Music, is making some non-trivial edits to this article, including adding a link to EMI Classics for every recording, and adding questionable external links to Twitter and Facebook. (I have not yet reverted those ELs, I don't have time at the moment to read through the WP:EL guidelines.) It's a clear WP:COI issue, and we should keep our eyes open for further edits from this source. TJRC (talk) 16:53, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Photo at outdoor concert

[edit]

The black and white photo of Sarah at the outdoor concert needs to be considered as a feature photo, it's a brilliant study. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.74.193.163 (talk) 05:34, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You think? It's a nice photo, but I don't think it meets the criteria at WP:Featured picture criteria. I'd say it clearly meets criteria nos. 3, 7 and (presumably) 8; arguably meets nos. 1 & 6; probably fails no. 3; and clearly fails no. 2. Criteria nos. 4 & 5 could probably go either way.
If you're serious about it, I'd test the waters at WP:Picture peer review first. TJRC (talk) 19:20, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hype and marketing

[edit]

Sarah is a good violinist, but lets keep this in perspective. To look at the commentry, you might think that she is the maestro, and that Heifetz, Morini, Milstein, Kreisler and co. are all novices. Wallie (talk) 23:37, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Virtuoso"

[edit]

There have been some discussion, but only via edit summaries, on whether the word "virtuoso" should be used to describe Chang. See [4], [5], [6]. Here's my take.

First, definitely not in the lede. However, in a section about criticism/reception (a la WP:CRITICISM), a well-sourced statement that critics consider her a virtuoso (and there are many) would not be out of line. The closest we have at the moment to such a section is the "Public image" section (which I think is probably misnamed). TJRC (talk) 20:07, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Whether she is a "virtuoso" or not, the term originally just meant a person who chooses to become a soloist (late 18th century). It is now overused and has some negative connotations. I think it should be banned from the music world altogether. ...just my opinion. If I wanted to attach "virtuoso" to my name, I could, but who would back me up? :-)
I did start a discussion of sorts on this topic with 72.211.137.231, who recently insisted that both Sarah Chang and Hilary Hahn deserved this moniker. --Skol fir (talk) 20:32, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
How can Chang be a virtuoso, when Kreisler is not? She is even playing Kreisler's music? Where does it end? I give Kreisler as an example, as he had hard life experience that Chang and co. have never even dreamt of. Let us say what these people have achieved, and let that speak for itself. Wallie (talk) 21:12, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I see no passage in this article saying that Kreisler is not a virtuoso. TJRC (talk) 21:40, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Wallie was obviously not pointing to this article... he meant that in a lede you are not supposed to enter the term "Virtuoso." Look at Fritz Kreisler. Maybe then you will understand what Wallie meant. It has to do with the fact that Kreisler was not given that description, as no one should (even Kreisler!). Get it now? --Skol fir (talk) 22:22, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, that's basically WP:WAX. I'd rather see a discussion on the merits than what is being said in another, unrelated, article on a different subject.
That being said, I agree, and said above, that the label "vituoso" should not be in the lede; and should not be applied at all except as attributed to external critics in an appropriate section on reception and criticism.
Whether Fritz Kreisler should be labeled a virtuoso is a matter for that article's talk page. TJRC (talk) 18:48, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it was ever discussed at the Fritz Kreisler page, so that is a moot point. Wallie probably meant to say that if even Kreisler is not labeled a virtuoso, what gives Chang or Hahn the right to get that distinction? I see your point that one should not use another article to argue the merits of a case at this article. If there is a consistent rule, it should be applied equally to all articles. I agree that calling Kreisler a "virtuoso" does not mean everyone else has to be (or vice versa). Everyone needs to be assessed on their own merits.

It just seems silly to call someone a virtuoso when the term is hackneyed to begin with. Maybe that is why the people who wrote the Fritz Kreisler article avoided it altogether. --Skol fir (talk) 20:24, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think that framing the question as whether Chang or Hahn have "the right" to the label mischaracterizes the issue. Wikipedia articles shouldn't be addressed to determining whether article subjects have certain "rights" to certain labels and attempting to fulfill them. We should be focusing on factually and neutrally discussing the article subjects.
Wikipedia editors are not in a position to determine whether a particular violinist is a "virtuoso." We are in a position to determine whether recognized critics have labeled her a virtuoso in criticism published in reliable sources, and our use of it should be limited to that. Our use of "virtuoso" is not inherently good or bad in and of itself. TJRC (talk) 21:08, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strongly agree. If a critic from a reliable source calls her a virtuoso, then we quote and cite that. If no one says it on a WP:RS, then we don't say it. Our role in this process is to convey reliably sourced information to the public; we do not evaluate reality and offer our judgments. 'Nuff said. • Ling.Nut (talk) 21:27, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Just to show how careful we have to be about sources, here is a headline from 25 February 2010, that says Violin Virtuoso Sarah Chang Talks Fashion with WOMAN.ca. That to me is not a reliable source, at least not on the topic of virtuosity on the violin! Besides, it would be "citing by headline", the first warning sign of sensationalism. --Skol fir (talk) 22:17, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with you here. That woman.ca article is not a musical criticism article; and there's nothing to indicate that its writer is a recognized music critic (and, besides, headlines often aren't written by the authors of the articles over which they appear; and as you point out, cite-by-headline is a poor practice). But if, say, Anthony Tommasini labels her a "virtuoso" (this is a hypothetical, I have no idea how Tommasini has written about Chang); or if a book about the subject of virtuosi deals substantively with Chang, reporting her as a virtuoso, indicating that as part of a well-balanced section of criticism and reception is not out of line.
Interestingly, the woman.ca article would be citable in a "personal life" type section for Chang's widely-reported propensity to be a clotheshorse. But let's not go there. TJRC (talk) 22:36, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
(add) Okay, when I wrote that, I swear I did not know of this review by Tommasini. TJRC (talk) 23:44, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That's a start. I agree that Tommasini qualifies as a reliable source, but before we formulate a statement about Chang's virtuosity on the violin, we probably need a second opinion, like getting a second doctor to diagnose an illness! We have to make sure she really came down with "virtuosity." Seriously, good find, TJRC. --Skol fir (talk) 02:08, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm still not pushing for its inclusion. I found it by being curious after posting my Tommasini comment; I googled for sarah chang +virtuoso site:nytimes.com. It was the fifth hit. (In restrospect, +"sarah chang" +tommasini +virtuoso site:nytimes.com would have been a smarter search.) I generally don't approve of specifically searching to find support for a POV statement like this. Although my motivation was curiosity, the result is the same. TJRC (talk) 20:49, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Here is another assessment of Chang's skills, from the Vancouver Symphony Orchestra website: "Violinist Sarah Chang is recognized the world over as one of classical music's most captivating and gifted performers. One of the most remarkable prodigies of any generation, she has matured into a young artist whose musical insight, technical virtuosity, and emotional range continue to astonish." Notice the person avoided calling her a "virtuoso." ...but he came close. (source = Sarah Chang - violin. July 2010. ) --Skol fir (talk) 01:48, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Even if it came right out and used the V-word, I would not like to use sites like this. It's the orchestra's own site promoting one of its concerts, at which Chang is the featured soloist; such sites tend to puff. I would stick with recognized critics. TJRC (talk) 02:00, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Some of the above quotes are verifiable and relevant info from RS that can be used in the article. Has anyone added it yet..?• Ling.Nut (talk) 04:12, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The last example I gave is not reliable as a source for the V-word, because it was written by a biased anonymous promoter of the VSO, likely to increase attendance at her future concert. This is not exactly what we are looking for. TJRC already pointed out the tendency of the marketing arm of a symphony to exaggerate and glorify for effect, not necessarily for substance. ("Smoke and mirrors.") --Skol fir (talk) 04:40, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Sarah Chang. 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:

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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 04:16, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Sarah_Chang&oldid=1206617562"