Talk:Symphony No. 1 (Rachmaninoff)

In the "Scoring" section, horns are listed twice. I suspect the second reference was supposed to be trombones; can someone confirm this and correct as appropriate? - Engineer Bob 05:20, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Fixed to to trombones. Justin Tokke 14:56, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

The reference to Bb clarinets and trumpets is also erroneous, at least in part.

Looking at the score of the 4th movement these instruments are in A. Gwgoldb (talk) 16:26, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

External links and NPOV

Shouldn't we have a few ex-links, to some recordings, maybe? Also, the part about the symphony being a flop doesn't seem to be completely neutral; should it be changed perhaps to "failure"? —  $PЯINGεrαgђ  17:11, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

The failure really took place in the premiere (I red about it in "memorials abot R.") but the cause was Glazunov's phlegmatic temperament wich is terrible for such emotional sympfony (Glazunov wasn't drunk). For links to recordings see ukrainian version --A4 08:04, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

?

I had always read that Rachmaninov tore up the manuscript of the symphony. Has this been proved not the case? —  $PЯINGεrαgђ  15:31 7 May, 2008 (UTC)

Yes. Sophia Satin, among others, acknowledged that Rachmaninoff did not tear up the manuscript and, in fact, thought at least at one point abot revising the score. The manuscript was lost after the October Revolution. Jonyungk (talk) 02:30, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Improvement of the article to achieve FA status

I have a few suggestions to improve the article:

• Unify citations, using for example <ref name="Har198">Harison, p. 198</ref> in repetaed ones. NEW —Preceding unsigned comment added by OboeCrack (talk • contribs) 19:23, 25 November 2008 (UTC)  Done
• Important:It should give more information about the movements, a brief description and some images to describe it, if possible.  Done in the Spanish wikipedia. Just translate.
• Try to find audio files of this work.  Done See External links section.
• The introduction should grow, like in the spanish version, which I have translated.  Done

See Symphony No. 3 (Górecki), which is a featured article, to add more ideas to this list. OboeCrack (talk) 15:33, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

All these are very good suggestions. Any chance on seeing a translated version of the extended lead from the spanish version on this discussion page? Thanks! Jonyungk (talk) 15:45, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Translation (aproximate), there are some grammar mistakes, but even understanding mistakes of the content (my English is rubbish!):

Let's see what we can do about that. I'll tinker with this section and add some material on this talk page before importing it to the article page. :) Jonyungk (talk) 01:23, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Sergei Rachmaninoff wrote his Symphony No. 1 in D minor, Op. 13 in Ivanovka, a estate near Tambov, Russia, between January and October 1895. This work was the composer's second attempt in the symphonic genre; in his last year at the Moscow Conservatory (1891), he produced a symphonic movement publilshed posthumously as Youth Symphony in D minor.

The work was premiered in St. Petersburg March 28, 1897 and was not performed again in the composer's lifetime. The premiere was an absolute failure, due to various reasons: the conductor, Alexander Glazunov, conducted poorly; he made cuts in the score and changes in orchestation; and even some who attended the concert said he appeared to be "drunk". In addition, as being a work written in a new and modern idiom, the symphony was disliked especially by the those of the Belayev circle; they considered it ofensive due to its progressive use of the symphonic form and its not following the preferred academic style of the St. Petersburg circle led by Nikolai Rimsky-Korsakov—a style that young composers had to follow if they hoped to have any sort of career.

Rachmaninoff, who believed that his work would become a unqualified success, was unprepared for the hostile criticism which followed the premiere. He suffered a psychological collapse and was unable to compose until 1899, when his family and friends convinced him to undergo hypnotherapy with Dr. Nikolai Dahl. The result of this successful treatment was the popular Second Piano Concerto, premiered in 1900. Nevertheless, despite its hostile reception, Rachmaninoff did not destroy or disavow the score of the First Symphony; at one point, he even considered revising it. However, he left the score in Russia when he went into exile in 1917; it was subsequently lost. In 1944, the instrumental parts of the symphony were discovered. The full score was reconstructed, and the second performance took place at the Moscow Conservatory on October 17, 1945, conducted by Aleksandr Gauk.

The symphony is currently seen as a dynamic represenative of the Russian symphonic tradition, with British composer Robert Simpson calling it "a powerful work in its own right, stemming from Borodin and Tchaikovsky, but convinced, individual, finely constructed, and achieving a genuinely tragic and heroic expression that stands far above the pathos of his later music." With the subsequent rehabilitation of Rachmaninoff's music in later years, the First Symphony has become part of the standard orchestral repertoire, heard at concerts, frequent broadcast and recorded several times.

Please, all the improvements made here will be mirrored in the spanish version. Let's do this! OboeCrack (talk) 18:21, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

New addition, see diff. OboeCrack (talk) 15:30, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

More additions, see diff., though I may have crossed the line in POV with the quote from Simpson. Jonyungk (talk) 18:32, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Transferred new lead section to article—please make further changes there. Thanks! Jonyungk (talk) 00:58, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Question

What does it mean "ft." in this citation: Harrison, ft. 5.? OboeCrack (talk) 20:09, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Footnote. Jonyungk (talk) 16:41, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Info about movements

Is there someone who has or could write in more detail about this symphony's movements, ber OboeCrack's suggestion? I have Piggott's guide to Rach's orchestral music but the information is in places too detailed and in others not detailed enough to adapt succinctly here. Harrison does not really give an analysis and since I am not a trained musician, I don't feel qualified to give my own analysis (besides, that could border or spill over into OR, not a good thing at all). Jonyungk (talk) 01:31, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Hi again! I've added to the spanish version the paragraph about the manuscript disappearance. I think that you should add a brief paragraph of each movement, like in this article: Symphony No. 3 (Górecki), as well as adding excerpts of the score. I have an idea: it's important the opening "cell" of the first mvt. Just give a few details. Thanks for improving! Keep doing well (at least until it gets FA status) OboeCrack (talk) 19:15, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Please see my comments above. Someone better versed in musical analysis than myself should write this section. If you feel qualified and want me to correct the English afterwards, then please go ahead and write it. Jonyungk (talk) 21:41, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Ok, I'll try it. Could you give me bibliography which includes info about the mvts? I only have acces to New Grove. OboeCrack (talk) 18:03, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

 Done!! see dif. I found the information in the Spanish version of Rene Tranchefort Guide to symphonic music. I also asked Alton to do a excerpt of the opening, what he did succesfully. Finally, I added some images. I think now it is complete, the Spanish version at least. Try to found that book, if not possible, I will "translate" it the best I can. OboeCrack (talk) 18:03, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

wife?

"Moreover, Rachmaninoff's wife and other witnesses later suggested that Glazunov may have been drunk on the podium." Did Rachmaninoff get married in 1897? I think it was later when he did. Maybe we could say the name, or the future wife at least. OboeCrack (talk) 15:35, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Ok, you mean by "later" a few decades later in some interviews, didn't you? OboeCrack (talk) 16:25, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Ok, now it is perfectly understandable! OboeCrack (talk) 22:05, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

2 Suggestions!

I have two suggestions, somebody has made about the Spanish article:

• Give a brief biography of the author. One or two paragraphs
• Place the technical aspects after the general overview. Put 2 in the place of 3 and viceversa.

Tell me what you think. OboeCrack (talk) 12:59, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Maybe sections can be ordered in many ways, for example number 3 has a lot of subsetions that can be placed on independent ones. OboeCrack (talk) 22:04, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

I also think that this phrase doesn't meet the NPOV: "This delay in Rachmaninoff's collapse has never been explained, nor may it ever be." OboeCrack (talk) 21:18, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

I gave some references, now! OboeCrack (talk) 22:04, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Copyvio

(Copied from the FAC page) I was curious about the tone adopted in the article, so I did some hunting on Google books and compared some of the phrases in the article to one of the books used. My suspicions turned out to be correct:

• "a sense of large-scale form at once acute and well-focused" direct lift from Harrison
• "In this respect they resemble what Béla Bartók would call "imaginary folk music," which appeared from Bartók's having so completely absorbed the spirit and vocabulary of Eastern European folk song and dance that he sometimes composed in this style without quoting any source material." A few synonymous inserted here and there, but reads almost exactly the same as Harrison.
• "Official recognition had come with the award of Moscow Conservatory's rarely conferred Great Gold Medal. He had found a publisher early in his career; those of his works he wished to set before the public were quickly printed and just as swiftly performed. He had won the approval and active encouragement of Pyotr Ilyich Tchaikovsky, the most internationally prominent figure in Russian musical life. Given all this, Rachmaninoff may have had every reason to believe that the premiere of the most important work he would have written to date would be a resounding success. Instead he would receive what would literally be the shock of his life." Entire paragraph lifted almost verbatim.
• These are just random examples. I shudder to think what I might find if I went through the entire article. BuddingJournalist 23:00, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks very much for the heads-up on all this. It might help to know what else in the article might be questionable so those sections could be rewritten accordingly. Jonyungk (talk) 23:59, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

• When you say others in "Others have since considered these "tricks" a compositional strength, not a weakness.", is Norris' opinion, or does he cite some authors? OboeCrack (talk) 11:52, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

I do not remember Norris mentioning specific authors, but I do not believe it is just his opinion, either. Jonyungk (talk) 14:31, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

• In the last section, "It was conducted by Alexander Gauk, and it was a grand success.". Does this phrase has any reference, or can we make it a bit more neutral?. OboeCrack (talk) 14:53, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Another copyvio:

• "With the subsequent rehabilitation of Rachmaninoff's music in later years, the First Symphony has become part of the standard orchestral repertoire, is frequently performed at concerts and broadcast, and has been recorded several times."

OboeCrack (talk) 21:20, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Noted and changed. Please feel free to do the same—it would probably be good to put the article through a thorough copyedit. Though this may have been better to do before submitting it to FAC, better late than never. Jonyungk (talk) 21:55, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

• I think all the copyvios are checked and corrected, as well as some copyedits are done. Let's present it to Good Artivcle Nominee! OboeCrack (talk) 02:55, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Ormandy photo

The photo of Eugene Ormandy that was recently removed was taken from Wikimedia Commons and to the best of my knowledge was already approved. Jonyungk (talk) 22:18, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

We can use this photo [1] or this one [2], if the photo of the Moscow Conservatoire is removed. OboeCrack (talk) 09:42, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Article structure

Jonyungk asked me to take a look at this article, while it was in FAC. I skimmed it then, but didn't have a chance to read in more detail until recently.

Something about the article's structure bugged me, and it took me a while to figure out what it was. This is just my opinion, feel free to ignore it... The article's content is pretty good, but, as the FA reviewers noted, it needs copyediting, which I can do some of (I've not had my writing tested against criterion 1a yet). However, I think the material is presented in the wrong order, which ought to be fixed before it goes through copyediting. I'd like to know what the work is before it is compared to other things (which is what the current first sentence of the body does). I suggest that the article begin with the "Background" and "Composition" sections, followed by the "Description". The musicology (the current first section), performance and manuscript history, and so on, can follow.

I'll be happy to copyedit the article as it is, but I think it will be a better article if restructured. Let me know if you want more feedback or help. Magic♪piano 15:12, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

I couldn't agree more. In fact, this is what I was trying to say, because of an advice given to me by another Spanish wikipedist. OboeCrack (talk) 22:53, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Now done some changes, what do you think? OboeCrack (talk) 02:55, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Images

What is the problem with the copyright of the scores images? They are in public domain, I think... OboeCrack (talk) 22:53, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

It was completed in 1895, but perhaps the reconstruction of 1944 changes its eligibility. Symphony No. 2 is still intact though. ALTON .ıl 02:10, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

So sad :( OboeCrack (talk) 02:55, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Copyright is in force until 70 years after the composer's death, not the year of composition. Therefore, all the works of Rachmaninoff are still under copyright in most countries (not in Canada).

However, there is no problem with scanning several measures from the score (or from the 2-piano reduction) for musical examples, which, IMHO, are sorely lacking. This would be acceptable as fair use. You can't upload the examples to the Commons, but you can save them in the Wikipedia itself.

You could also, I think, include sound snippets as fair use. There was a discussion of this a few months back regarding the article String Quartets, Op. 20 (Haydn), and I think the conclusion was that, because it is unreasonable to hire a symphony to record your sound samples, they should be admissable as fair use in the Wikipedia. If you decide to include sound samples, and you get dinged on this, I will look up the old discussion for you.

I think this is a great article. I read it with fascination. I have three criticisms, that you can take or leave as you wish:

• Unlike OboeCrack, I feel that the lead is now too long. It talks too much about the circumstances of its first performance, and not enough about the music. I would put the last paragraph ("The symphony is currently seen blablabla") second, and cut the story about Glazounov's drunkenness and Rachmaninoff's depression into one shortish paragraph.

• The paragraph beginning "The symphony is not without its problems, however" needs direct attribution in text, not only in a footnote. It is presented as a fact, like "Columbus discovered America in 1492", but actually it is an evaluation, and one that someone is likely to contest. I would write, "Some analysts suggest that the symphony is not without its problems, however. Norris writes, 'blablabla'".

• As I noted above, musical examples are sorely lacking. If sound samples can't be included, at least include some snaps of the score.

Take these suggestions under consideration. I'll give it a few days, and then I will gladly do a GA review. Regards, --Ravpapa (talk) 17:57, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

I haven't seen this until now, sorry. I will take into account your comments, thanks! OboeCrack (talk) 13:36, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

To the GA reviewer

Please check the text of the article against its sources for lingering copyvios. I just quickly revisited and spotted "because it did not follow the preferred academic style of the St. Petersburg circle led by Nikolai Rimsky-Korsakov—a style that young Russian composers had to follow if they hoped to have any sort of career" in the lead. Compare this to the source; the latter clause is lifted almost verbatim. While the paragraph starting "Despite a lack of money..." is no longer a blatant copyvio of its source, its choice phrases and narrative flow follow exactly from its source. BuddingJournalist 23:29, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Budding has a point. Even when your intentions are excellent, when you paraphrase something that is so close to the original, even unintentionally, it looks like plagiarism.

I suggest that, in all those places where you have footnoted information, if the text is substantially similar to the source, simply use a direct quote. I did this for the first footnote in the lead. It is a simple matter, and gives credit where credit is due.

I quoted directly from sources pretty extensively in String Quartets, Op. 20 (Haydn). It think it only enriches the article. --Ravpapa (talk) 06:05, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Done some copyediting. OboeCrack (talk) 15:08, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Media

I have included some samples, please check them asap, as they are the first fair use sounds I use. OboeCrack (talk) 16:24, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

This article needs a lot of work

I'm doing what I can but this article really needs an extremely thorough copyedit as well as a careful and extensive content edit by someone knowledgable of the sources to make sure the copyvio issue is solved. I can do what I can, but given all this, do we really want to continue the GA process at this point or pull the article from the nomination list and take the time needed to regroup? Jonyungk (talk) 14:53, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

If you, as the main writter, consider so, please pull the artcle. Let's take a time to do this. OboeCrack (talk) 15:23, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

I've removed the template. I don't know if that is the good way, just tell me. OboeCrack (talk) 22:15, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

The article is no longer on the nominations list, so I think that did it. Jonyungk (talk) 23:44, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Copyediting

I have agreed to do a full copyedit on the article, and will try and complete this over the next couple of days. I will use an "inuse" template while I am working, to discourage drive-by amendments. I don't know enough about Rachmaninoff and his symphony to check out facts – it is prose pure and simple that is my concern. When I have finished I will report here any problems I have found. Brianboulton (talk) 19:05, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

(Later) I have copyedited the lead, Background, and Composition sections and have reached the Description section, The only citation in the Description section is to what I believe is a Spanish-language book – are you saying that there is not a single English language source on which you can draw for a description of this symphony? That seems improbable, to say the least. But my main query is, where did the text for this section come from? Is it based on a translation, and if so, where is this translation published? It is written in an altogether different style from the rest of the article, and in view of the past copyvio history of this article, I need some reassurance before I can continue with the copyedit. Brianboulton (talk) 22:31, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Jonyungk said me that his books were too detailed I tried to find a book with a brief but complete description of the symphony and I found this Spanish-tranlated French book. I translated it again to English from Spanish, so that's why it doen't sound wuite well. Jonyungk tried to check spelling and grammar, and that's all... This is the book in question, OboeCrack (talk) 22:21, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Your English translation of the Spanish translation from a book originally written in French is (a) original research and (b) incredibly indirect. I repeat: why not use English language sources for your description of this symphony? Please see WP:NONENG. Brianboulton (talk) 22:45, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, feel free to remove that information. I can't contribute to this article only in a few things, I'm not a native speaker, tough, I am learning fast. Ask Jonyungk to provide you some information, then you can copyedit those paragraphs. OboeCrack (talk) 23:51, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't have the time or the inclination to carry on in this manner. My participation in this is closed. Brianboulton (talk) 15:00, 6 April 2009 (UTC)