Talk:Percy Grainger

Short tutorial on misplaced modifiers

Of late the rare Wikipedia editor has been reverting corrections I have made of misplaced modifiers, without showing any understanding of what the error means and appealing to an authority called Fowler (absent from my bookshelf) who apparently condones it. This appeal strikes me as akin to expecting others to let their shirttail hang out over their trousers because some etiquette authority said it might be done. That permission doesn't oblige one to do it, if one sees a reason not to. Because sometimes, as in the example below, misplaced modifiers create confusion, and because they can always be gracefully averted, I find it sensible to do so.

What is the intended meaning of this sentence, taken from a manufacturer's manual:

Only install refrigerant lines outdoors in dry weather.

Any of five meanings could be drawn from it, depending on what the reader considers only to be modifying. If you can't see what these meanings are, the example will be lost on you.

You may say “It doesn’t matter! You could figure it out from the context!”

Sometimes you can...and if there is context. But why should anyone have to “figure out from the context” what a competent writer can easily express with unequivocal and graceful clarity, irrespective of context? Is the job of a writer and editor to make readers work harder than they would need to work if (s)he took the trouble to write clearly?

Please consider also that there may be readers whose first language is not English and whose understanding depends on literal translation. Literal translation of idioms, semantic or syntactic, doesn’t work well. If you don’t know any foreign languages and have never labored to translate idiomatic phrases like il n'a qu'une verbe, this proposition will be lost on you.

When we place a modifier directly before the term it's intended to modify and not before terms it isn't, the meaning is clear. In this case, the writer wished to say, and should have said, Install refrigerant lines outdoors only in dry weather.

A final note on edit wars: they take two to fight: an editor and a reverter. One who tucks in the shirttail and one who yanks it out again. Chenopodiaceous (talk) 00:08, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

Grainger’s students included Viola van Katwijk

This information was removed from the main article: Grainger’s students included American composer and pianist Viola Van Katwijk. (source: Anderson, Ruth (1976). Contemporary American composers : a biographical dictionary. Boston: G.K. Hall. p. 449. ISBN 0-8161-1117-0. OCLC 2035024.).

T. E. Meeks (talk) 23:08, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

He had a number of students. Why do you feel this one in particular should be called out? Nikkimaria (talk) 03:00, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

Grainger did not find Viola Van Katwijk important enough to mention in his autobiography, and she is not mentioned in the books about Grainger by Lewis Foreman, Malcolm Gillies, Wilfrid Mellers, John Bird and Eileen Dorum. If she doesn't merit a mention in those full-length books, how much more disproportionate it would be to single her out for a mention in our 7,000-word article. Tim riley talk 08:56, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

"Nineteen pianos with thirty pianists"?

Can anyone verify the claim that Grainger once "used nineteen pianos with thirty pianists" in a performance of "The Warriors"? The reference pdf (a Chandos notes booklet) seems only to be available on purchase. A 1982 recording/documentary (?) of Grainger's Biographer John Bird makes this claim not of Warriors, but of "Lord Peter's Stable Boy". It's unlikely that these exact numbers would have been assembled on two separate occasions, so unless this was in fact the same performance, something seems off. Noahfgodard (talk) 23:21, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

• Update: I was able to find the booklet through my university library, and it seems this was the same performance after all – the notes say 1929 and Bird says 1930, but both claim the concert took place in the Chicago opera house. Bird himself says "...I think...", so it's fair to say the discrepancy of years was a simple mistake on his part. In any case, I think we can disregard my above concern. Apologies! Noahfgodard (talk) 23:32, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

List of Works in infobox

Many articles link the List of Works article in the infobox. See Beethoven, Mozart, Shostakovitch, Stravinsky. Why should Grainger be different? I did revert a revertion, which is bad form, but the original revert says "Breach of MOS". Which MOS? How is it a breach? Are we to remove all those other lists? — Iadmc♫^talk  02:54, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

You know which breach. The disruptive editor at your talk page has told you which one. - SchroCat (talk) 12:53, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

I really don't. Gerda says I haven't breached MOS. And stop with the accusations like "disruptive editor". Would a list of his most notable works be OK? — Iadmc♫^talk  13:11, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

She would. There's no accusation, just a description, and an accurate one. Yes, that would be fine. - 14:20, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

Will do— Iadmc♫^talk  14:21, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

But who chooses what is "notable"? One person's selection is hardly encyclopaedic. Tim riley talk 15:24, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

It's insane to me how anyone in good faith could say such a thing and claim it's 'not an accusation'. I'd make an accusation of my own here, but that would be a personal attack. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 07:03, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for trying to stir the pot, but maybe letting sleeping dogs lie would have been a better pathway? - SchroCat (talk) 07:25, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

@SchroCat I still would like to know how adding a link to List of Works breaches a Manual of Style. Which one? Music? Infobox? General? A quote would be helpful. Thanks — Iadmc♫^talk  08:00, 13 June 2024 (UTC)