Talk:Choral symphony/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Starting a review

I will be reviewing this page. It may take some time for me to cover all points - real life and all that. I always look forward to reading one of User:Jonyungk's contribs.

Some initial points:

• The heading structure is not right. Almost everything comes under the heading "Overview" as a long series of subheads. Some work on the heirarchy of material in the article is needed.

Done. Jonyungk (talk) 18:27, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

• The way it starts (straight into a section called "True to symphonic form") is daunting and perhaps not appropriate for a lay person. I think it might be best if, under "Overview", a kind of textbook summary (including some citations) of the key features of a choral symphony are listed, namely: that it is (usually) a musical work for orchestra and choir; that it exhibits the symphonic form (with a one or two sentence encapsulation of what that means); and that the music and words stand as equals. One might also have a few sentences foreshadowing the detail that will come later about the evolution of the form over time. Only then should the article move into the detail (ie the section "true to symphonic form" and subsequent material).

An excellent idea, which has been incoroprated but may need some oplishing and smoothing out. Jonyungk (talk) 18:27, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

• The coining of the term by Berlioz is a key fact. The footnoted citation, however, confused me - as a layperson I do not understand what it is, and it does not appear to be in the reference list (in contrast to the other cited sources).

This cite has been amended and is now reflected in the Reference list. Jonyungk (talk) 18:27, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

• The sections on individual composers are something I will need to consider in detail when I read them through. However, I am not sure whether there should be a long section on each of certain composers in an article about the choral symphony in general. The material is on the other hand obviously intersting and germane - perhaps they should exist under a higher-level heading like "Individual composers and the development of the choral symphony"? If there are to be such sections, does it make sense for there not to be a section on Vaughan Williams, and on a more modern composer who has had a bearing on the development of the form (perhaps Schnittke or Glass - I'm no expert)?

I've had some questions myself as to whether the composer sections should be included. They started out with the intent of showing how the drammatic demands of the text started to compete with the symphonic concerns of the music; this was an extension of the 19th-century debate of program music versus absolute music. Maybe these sections should have somehow been combined into one as in other sections of the text, as to me it seems at times redundant and throws the whole article off-balance. Jonyungk (talk) 18:27, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Since writing the above, I combined the first couple of lines of the Beethoven section with the Berlioz into a new section and jettisoned Liszt and Mahler. The article seems better for it. My apologies for getting ahead of you on this one, as I was initially going to wait for your feedback. Now the question is whether to keep the new section at the end of the article or to move it, and if it is moved, to where. Jonyungk (talk) 03:13, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

At the risk of sounding like a bad April Fool's joke, only part of the Mahler section is gone now. The rest, including a secction on Shostakovich that had previously been deleted, has been incorporated into the article under new headings by theme rather than by composer, as the information is "interesting and germane," as you phrased it. Am open to suggestions, but the second half of the article seems better structured now. Jonyungk (talk) 17:08, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

• Related to the above - whatever one thinks of individual composer sections (and I think on balance they should be retained at least for this GA), I'm unconvinced by the Mahler one, which is written solely in the context of particular symphonies, rather than about Mahler's role directly. I hope that makes sense. It should follow the approach of the earlier composers.

Agreed. This section needs a re-think, provided the sections on individual composers is retained. I'm also concerned about the length issue, as this has gotten to be a very large article. Jonyungk (talk) 18:27, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Now that the second half of the article has been restructured, the Mahler section does not seem as vital in and of itself. Some of the information might be valuable incorporated in other sections, but the article seems more or less complete now. Still, I'm open to suggestions. Jonyungk (talk) 17:08, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

• What is needed amongst the images (though it is not going to hold up GA) is a photograph of a choral symphony being performed! A photo showing orchestra and choir together.

There are now two—one in the Overview and a second in the Mahler section. Jonyungk (talk) 18:27, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

There is one now, in the Overview section. Jonyungk (talk) 05:27, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

I liked the other one better - was there a copyright issue? hamiltonstone (talk) 05:34, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

No issue and no problem—it's there now. Jonyungk (talk) 12:55, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

• Some editors sooner or later are probably going to query the presence of the chronological list of choral symphonies - they will probably say it should be in its own article. Have a look at the Manual of Style on list incorporation etc, and I will let editors see what they think. I am content with it for now.

A separate list page has been created. Jonyungk (talk) 18:27, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

More at a future date. hamiltonstone (talk) 03:15, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

A little more

• Regarding this sentence: "This movement, which owes much in its use of polyphony to Mahler's study of cantatas by Johann Sebastian Bach, is an extended sonata structure in E-flat.[15]" (under heading "music and words as equals"). As a lay person I could only just understand it - in fact, didn't really understand it because I could not recall what was meant by "sonata structure. Be that as it may, I was not sure it actually contained anything of relevance to the subject of the article - it does not seem to add to our understanding of a choral symphony - it is about Mahler, about his 8th symph, and about the history of the use of polyphony, but not about the choral symph. Either add to it to make a clearer link, or I suggest omit.
• A little further on, is this: "Similarly, the slow movement is in ternary form. Vaughan Williams employs two traditional sea songs in the scherzo, which is in the usual binary form, with trio. Only the final movement employs a free and unsymphonic form..." In this case, it is clearly relevant to the subject and should be included. However, it has become too technical for the reader to follow in a self-contained article. There has not been a previous mention of ternary or binary forms, so the reader does not know why this indicates adherence to a conventional symphonic form. This may need to be foreshadowed in the overview section where the conventional form is described, so that this comment about A Sea Symphony then makes self-contained sense.
• "Most notably, the physical exultation characteristic of Whitman's poetry produced a grandiloquence and musical poetry as unexpectedly direct as the words." I think this should have an in-line citation. hamiltonstone (talk) 02:36, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

...and more

• I have attached some {{fact}} tags in the "Words changing programmatic intent" section, where I think the claims in particular sentences (such as the re-writing of a work by a composer, dropping or re-ordering movement(s)) need to be supported by a ref - even if it is a repeat of a ref later in the para.
• There are a couple of sentences (and others like them here and there, but this is an example that I particularly noticed): "The tenor soloist then rises above the murmur of the chorus and starts to sing the last two lines of the text, emphasizing the power of salvation through the Eternal Feminine. The symphony ends in a glorious blaze of the choir and orchestra, backed up by held chords on the organ. With this direct association to the final scene of Goethe's drama we escape Faust's imaginings and hear another voice commenting on his striving and redemption" (same section as above). I wondered about this language as part of an encylopedia article. Could it be either framed as quoted words of a critic or analyst. Who says that the tenor emphasises "the power of salvation through the Eternal Feminine"? Are we all so guaranteed that we will consider the chords a "glorious blaze" that this is acceptable language for an encyclopedia, and to occur without citation? And who are "we" who are escaping Faust's imaginings? There is an issue here that goes a little beyond just a question of citations, to the language of the encyclopedia. It could be re-written, it could be changed to quote a particular critic. I hope this makes sense. hamiltonstone (talk) 01:36, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Mahler and others

• Jonyungk asked about the use of Mahler in the restructured article. I think the overall approach - of talking about the work of individual composers in the context of key features of the choral symphony - is sound. The last para of "musical treatment of text" does not quite work. I think the sentences "He does the same with Goethe's text. There he makes two substantial cuts, one of 37 lines and another of seven, presumably on purpose, along with other omissions, inversions and altered word forms" are too detailed and a bit cryptic to be appropriate. However the text before them does need slightly closer referencing. The most obvious point is when you indicate - using quote marks - what Mahler regarded as "the cardinal point of the text". What is the source for Mahler either saying or meaning this?
• The use of Rachmaninoff in the next seciton is likewise appropriate. Again, closer referencing is needed. The article states "With Sergei Rachmaninoff the four-part structure of Edgar Allan Poe's The Bells, as translated by Russian symbolist poet Konstantin Balmont, naturally suggested the four movements of a symphony with its progression from youth to marriage, maturity, and death". Says who?
• The second part of this para, concerning Britten, is in more pressing need of referencing.
• Same issue, next section: "Berlioz intended to follow a design much like Beethoven's Ninth Symphony for his Roméo et Juliette, only with four instrumental movements instead of three before the choral finale" needs a reference.
• Next section, similar issue: how do we know that Britten "wanted to project a series of controlled gestures in four distinct parts, the inner two corresponding to a scherzo and slow movement and with a single poem for the more extended, joyous finale."

I remain enormously impressed with the depth of knowledge and turn of phrase of the contributions here. They just needed to be moulded a little more closely to the encyclopedic form. Gotta go. This is going to be an analytically powerful article. hamiltonstone (talk) 10:46, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Nearly concluded

This is looking much better.

• It still leans toward using language at the bounds of what a lay reader will understand. I have just removed one of the more difficult examples (from the last section of the article):

  He found strophic forms and free sectionality more congenial to the dramatic purposes he had in mind. He achieved balance and coherence by a musico-dramatic framing similar to that he had used for his Grande Messe des morts (Requiem). He reprises the opening instrumental "swordplay" used to illustrate the warring Montagues and Capulets and maintains a clear formal balance beginning the opening strophes and Friar Lawrence's aria in the last scene.

  but if this can somehow be converted to something more readily understood, it could be re-instated. I think the section, however, works well without it. Though I have sung in choirs for quarter of a century, I had never heard the term "strophe", and after visiting the wikilink, though I was wiser, it was not sufficient wisdom to allow me to come up with a successful copyedit! Ditto "free sectionality", though I correctly inferred its meaning. I think a more demanding copyedit of the whole article will be called for to reach Feature Article status.
• I have re-ordered the footnotes and refs, per WP:CITESHORT.