Talk:Symphony No. 2 (Lyatoshynsky)/GA1

GA Review

Unsuccessful. CurryTime7-24 (talk) 00:31, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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

Reviewer: CurryTime7-24 (talk · contribs) 18:29, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

~~I will review this article in the next couple of days~~. —CurryTime7-24 (talk) 18:29, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I have a bit of time after all...

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	Generally speaking, the prose is readable, but there are some passages which need further clarification. For example, what does Kuchar's description of the "generally insulting atmosphere throughout the symphony" mean? Did he intend to say that it's "insulting" to the listeners, performers, authorities, or all three? What makes it "insulting"?
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).
	2c. it contains no original research.
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	This article currently does not provide the information I would expect to find in a GA about a symphony. Who were the intended first performers? Who ended up actually premiering the symphony in 1964? Exactly when and where did this occur? What does "Lyatoshynsky attempted on a number of occasions to resurrect the symphony" mean exactly? Does this mean that he made efforts to perform movements or the entire symphony, whether privately or in four-hands reduction, before the 1964 premiere? If so, who were the performers involved and why did this not work out? When did the symphony's revision begin and how does this compare with the original? Has the original version ever been performed? Is it published, does it exist in manuscript only, or is it lost?
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	The relevance of the 1948 Anti-Formalist Resolution on Music to this article is unclear. It implies that the symphony had come under direct criticism by the Union of Soviet Composers. But it was a branch organization, the Union of Soviet Composers of Ukraine, which attacked Lyatoshinsky. I seem to recall theirs being a general criticism of the composer, but was the Second Symphony specifically mentioned? If so, why did they criticize it?
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.	Inclusion of contextual imagery, which this article currently lacks, could be helpful. These could include images of relevant musicians, academics, performance venues, etc.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
	7. Overall assessment.	I'm certain that Lyatoshinsky 2 has a fascinating history, but little of it is present in this article. Again, I'd expect to find more in a GA, particularly with respect to the symphony's origins and reception history. Further exploration could yield better sources. For example, the Marco Polo liner notes are the most cited source in this article—six times altogether. Liner notes are solid, but because of the necessary restrictions of the medium they are also rarely the kinds of sources that can provide exhaustive detail on music. For that, one needs to find biographies, monographs, theses, etc. If possible, nominator may need to draw upon sources in Ukrainian and Russian. The cited sources in the Boris Lyatoshinsky article should be consulted. Giving nominator 7 days to respond and improve article according to the review. —CurryTime7-24 (talk) 19:32, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Review comments

Thanks for the review, CurryTime7-24, I'll tackle the issues you raised over the next few days. In response to some of your points:

It may not be possible to explain everything about this symphony. For instance, the premiere was probably reported in the Soviet press, but so far I have not yet found any reports. Even the date is not given by sources that would automatically provide such information about compositions by composers from the West.
I tend to avoid using theses, but there is a useful one (provided in the Further reading section), which will now be utilised.
You mention symphonies at GA, but only one has to my knowledge been produced (Symphony No. 5 (Nielsen)); if you are aware of others, please let me know. as I would find them useful.

Regards, Amitchell125 (talk) 22:17, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the reply. In answer to your points:

The extent to which this article can be assessed may be limited by whatever information about this symphony is available. If there really isn't more information extant, this article may have to stay at its current rating pending further research.
Please consider using theses whenever you can. The information they contain can be of invaluable aid. Also, in case you haven't done so, please consider using resources available at WP:LIBRARY.
Some of the symphonies that have been rated GA include Symphony No. 4 (Mahler) and Symphony No. 8 (Mahler) (both have since become FA). Not a symphony, but consider looking at the GA article for Prokofiev's On Guard for Peace, which was composed a decade after Lyatoshinsky 2, and had a similarly troubled genesis and reception history. —CurryTime7-24 (talk) 03:39, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Replies to above comments

What does Kuchar's description of the "generally insulting atmosphere throughout the symphony" mean? Did he intend to say that it's "insulting" to the listeners, performers, authorities, or all three? What makes it "insulting"?

I have amended the sentence to make it clear that it was the Soviet censors who found the piece insulting. Amitchell125 (talk) 07:59, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Who were the intended first performers?

Done. Amitchell125 (talk) 17:35, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Who ended up actually premiering the symphony in 1964?

I've found conflicting evidence about the date of the first performance, as a letter to Lyatoshynsky refers to a performance in the 1940s. I double check this information before adding it. Amitchell125 (talk) 09:43, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly when and where did this occur?

See above comment. AM

What does "Lyatoshynsky attempted on a number of occasions to resurrect the symphony" mean exactly? Does this mean that he made efforts to perform movements or the entire symphony, whether privately or in four-hands reduction, before the 1964 premiere? If so, who were the performers involved and why did this not work out?

See above comment. AM

When did the symphony's revision begin and how does this compare with the original?

Text amended to to reflect that only minor alteration's were made when the work was revised in 1940, before it was performed later that decade. Amitchell125 (talk) 15:03, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Has the original version ever been performed? Is it published, does it exist in manuscript only, or is it lost?

The original version was only performed during rehearsals in the 1930s, before the premiere was cancelled. Amitchell125 (talk) 15:03, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The relevance of the 1948 Anti-Formalist Resolution on Music to this article is unclear. It implies that the symphony had come under direct criticism by the Union of Soviet Composers. But it was a branch organization, the Union of Soviet Composers of Ukraine, which attacked Lyatoshinsky. I seem to recall theirs being a general criticism of the composer, but was the Second Symphony specifically mentioned? If so, why did they criticize it?

Text now clarified. Amitchell125 (talk) 15:10, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Include images of relevant musicians, academics, performance venues, etc.

A couple of images added, but nothing that is especially useful has yet to be found. Amitchell125 (talk) 15:59, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The cited sources in the Boris Lyatoshinsky article should be consulted.

Sources checked, there are a few points added. Amitchell125 (talk) 06:41, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your reply. That being said, the additions to this article since my review have been very modest. For example, an image has been added depicting a dacha where Lyatoshinsky composed this symphony. However, no mention of this dacha—or any location of composition—is mentioned in the article body itself.

Issue over the image sorted. Amitchell125 (talk) 17:43, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The matter of what exactly is meant by Lyatoshinsky having "attempted on a number of occasions to resurrect the [Second Symphony]" is still not clarified. Please explain exactly what these attempts were and when these happened. Although not even close to being GA, please take a look at the article for Symphony No. 4 (Shostakovich). The symphony was originally planned for a premiere in the 1930s, then withdrawn until the 1960s. The article—however imperfectly and incompletely—explains to the reader when Shostakovich composed his symphony, the political atmosphere around it at the time, why it was withdrawn, how he attempted to gauge whether a belated premiere was possible in 1946, when it was finally premiered, how the score was reconstructed, and that it was presented without any revisions. Lyatoshinsky 2 had a similarly unhappy origin which is a crucial part of its history, yet most of the details surrounding that are missing here.

The article was of some use, thanks for pointing it out. Amitchell125 (talk) 14:29, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your edit concerning what Kuchar meant by "generally insulting atmosphere throughout the symphony" seems a bit like WP:SYNTH. Kuchar himself, unfortunately, does not really clarify what he means by the remark. It is possible he may have meant "insulting" to Soviet censors, but in context this is unclear:

The Second Symphony ... is the first example of a Ukrainian-Soviet symphonic drama of conflict, with underlying contrast of pictures and moods by means of linear polyphony in the development of symphonic material. Here, however, is an example of a masterpiece doomed for long to remain unheard through historical circumstance. This history of early critical opinion and the consequences of the symphony reflect the general situation in that period of Ukrainian culture, when each new work was judged by its effectiveness in the promulgation of the canons of Soviet Realism. Censors were not satisfied with Lyatoshinsky's success in portraying a complex and eccentric reality and a generally insulting atmosphere throughout the symphony, a work turbulent, nervous, filled with deep pain and flashes of protest, yet, equally clearly, showing the composer's love of life and his ideal of artistic and ethical responsibility to his own people.

Read in context, it is possible that Kuchar meant "insulting" in reference to censors, but this is not stated explicitly. Taken with his preceding remark that the symphony portrays "a complex and eccentric reality", it is also possible that he meant that it depicts the "generally insulting atmosphere" of Soviet Russian culture versus Ukrainian during the 1930s. Whatever the case, his statement is ambiguously worded. It is best to quote the passage verbatim, rather than using a select portion of it to support a possible OR statement in wikivoice.

Sorted. Amitchell125 (talk) 18:41, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

In passing, I'll repeat my concern with using these liner notes as the article's main source.

There is only exactly one paragraph devoted to Lyatoshinsky 2 in there (most of which is quoted above)—hardly a source from which one can base a GA article from. —CurryTime7-24 (talk) 00:20, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

More sources now used, and more in the pipeline. Amitchell125 (talk) 18:41, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@CurryTime7-24: Thanks for the above, I agree with almost all of your comments, and will act on them. As for the modest changes to the article, however, I am in fact putting in a few hours a day on this article in my search for information (generally in languages I do not speak) about a symphony that has always been "under the radar". Please refer to my contributions page for an idea of how I am getting on. As far as the article's images are concerned, there is little I can use that is not purely decorative, so the article may perhaps have to look a little text-heavy. Amitchell125 (talk) 08:20, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Lack of images is fine. That's why I rated these "neutral". If they can be added, great; if not, no biggie. However, placing information in a caption that isn't included in the article body doesn't work.

I understand that you have other things going on outside of Wikipedia. We all do. So please don't feel pressured to have to do anything. But please also understand that getting an article to GA requires a lot of work and, sometimes, resources that require an editor to go the proverbial "extra mile" to access. That there may not be much material about a particular subject in English, for example, does not mean that there is a lack of it overall. —CurryTime7-24 (talk) 20:23, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Amitchell125: I've seen you expanded the article significantly. Busy today, will read it over tomorrow. Thank you for your work. —CurryTime7-24 (talk) 17:01, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@CurryTime7-24: Hi, your above comments and suggestions have now been addressed. Could we get this review completed in the next few days please? Regards, Amitchell125 (talk) 17:59, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Going over the article now. Looks substantially improved from the last time I saw it. Will report back in a few minutes. —CurryTime7-24 (talk) 18:58, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Updated review

Again, this article has been substantially improved since I last read it. However, there are still a number of shortcomings that need to be addressed:

After its rejection in the RSFSR, how did Lyatoshinsky obtain permission to conduct his symphony in 1941? What accounts for the lacuna between that performance and the next one in 1947? The latter is described as an attempt at rehabilitation. Did he not regard the 1941 performance as a similar effort? If the symphony was "first heard" in Kyiv in 1970, what about the 1941 performance? And what about the symphony's reception history after 1964, within the Ukrainian SSR as well as independent Ukraine?

After its rejection in the RSFSR, how did Lyatoshinsky obtain permission to conduct his symphony in 1941? What accounts for the lacuna between that performance and the next one in 1947?

The sources I have found are silent on this.

The latter is described as an attempt at rehabilitation. Did he not regard the 1941 performance as a similar effort?

Done Text amended to avoid the need to describe the performances in this way.

If the symphony was "first heard" in Kyiv in 1970, what about the 1941 performance?

Done Text removed.

And what about the symphony's reception history after 1964, within the Ukrainian SSR as well as independent Ukraine?

No information seems to be available about the 1964 concert.

Amitchell125 (talk) 21:02, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Has it influenced other composers?

Not sure, I'll check to see if I missed anything here.

Nothing found. I'm guessing that as Lyatoshynsky's work was banned after it was written, this affected the influence it had on other works. Amitchell125 (talk) 20:14, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

WP:SYNTH: Neither the citations from Dowling and Akopyan confirm the passage beginning with "The coda has a sequence similar to a passage in Shostakovich's Fourth Symphony". Both only note parallels between the two symphonies' reception. (I have the Russian original of the latter and can check on it to see whether it surveys Lyatoshinsky 2 in closer detail.)

Not done From Dowling: The coda starts with a sequence for marching timpani which is uncannily reminiscent of a similar passage in Shostakovich’s Fourth Symphony. I'm unclear what the problem is here. Amitchell125 (talk) 20:07, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Upon closer reading of Dowling, however, he does say the above. So I apologize for the confusion. I had read the first mention of Shostakovich 4 that preceded this; that only mentioned the parallels in these symphonies' receptions. That said, Akopyan does not mention this and its citation should be removed. I would also suggest specifying the passage in question and making clear that this is Dowling's observation, rather than stating it in wikivoice as objective fact. (For what it's worth, I personally don't hear the similarity. Even if there were, this would only be coincidental as these two composers lived and worked in two different Soviet republics. There is no evidence that Shostakovich was aware of Lyatoshinsky's music prior to 1940, when he traveled to the Ukrainian SSR for a musical plenum.) —CurryTime7-24 (talk) 21:53, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Patronymics are not necessary.

Done Amitchell125 (talk) 18:59, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The infobox's "performed" parameter is misleading as it seems to imply that Lyatoshinsky 2 has only been played three times. There are "premiere_date", "premiere_performers", "premiere_conductor", and "premiere_location" parameters you may want to use.

Done, thanks for the suggestion. Amitchell125 (talk) 19:48, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Bentya quotation appears to mistakenly cite Brown instead.

Done, but for Brown read Phillips. Amitchell125 (talk) 19:36, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Tempo markings are not italicized.

Done Amitchell125 (talk) 19:07, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There is no need for post-blockquote attributions as these can be stated in the preceding text without the present redundancies.

Done, other than one of them. Amitchell125 (talk) 19:58, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Blockquotes need to be cited.

Already done The quotes are all cited at the the end of the text that precedes them (as per the customary practice described in MOS:BQ). Amitchell125 (talk) 18:54, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

More of a stylistic quibble, but is it really necessary to point out nationality and occupation whenever somebody is mentioned in this article? "Ukrainian-American composer", "Russian musicologist", "Ukrainian composer", "Russian composer", etc. It gets to be repetitive and just seems like bloat. Some of it can be dropped. Does anybody need to be reminded Scriabin was Russian, for example? (Also, Zhitomirsky, for what it's worth, was born in what is today Ukraine.) Perhaps this information can be conveyed in a way that makes it less fatiguing to read? For example: "Yulia Bentya, who authored an essay on Lyatoshinsky's manuscripts, etc.". —CurryTime7-24 (talk) 20:51, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Partly done, as all the individuals in this article should be introduced. Amitchell125 (talk) 19:18, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

On hold?

Thanks for the above, CurryTime7-24. Have you completed listing the issues to be addressed? It is normal practice (but not mandatory) to place a GAN on hold (see WP:GAN/I#HOLD), and I would appreciate it if you could do this when your review comments are done. Regards, Amitchell125 (talk) 08:39, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This article is a little different from most other nominations I've done. Those started with the article at virtually GA quality, with only a few wrinkles needing to be ironed out. This one, on the other hand, started at a state well below that. Since my initial review, the article has transformed and improved significantly. However, this also resulted in some new problems being added along the way, on top of a few previously identified ones still not being fully addressed.

By putting my final verdict on hold, I had hoped that I could give you more time to bring the article to the proverbial finish line. Because as much as you have expanded this article, it still remains frustratingly short of GA.

Your frustration is palpable and understandable. I remain willing to wait and work with you, if you like, but I'm also ready to give my final verdict on this article if no further progress can be expected. —CurryTime7-24 (talk) 17:31, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Understood, could you please provide any additional issues for me to address, and place the article in hold? I'll then address them. I've reviewed over 200 articles at GAN, and many had a massive list of issues, which were then quickly addressed. Alternatively, please fail the article. Amitchell125 (talk) 18:42, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Final review

This was tough. The subject is of great interest, but this article needs some more work before it can be GA. Some major points that need to be addressed in a potential renomination are:

Elaborating exactly what the differences between the original and revised versions of Lyatoshinsky 2 are. (I know that Akopyan said these were "minor", but how so? What exactly are these minor revisions? The article speculates that the finale may have been revised, but where is the evidence proving or even implying that?)
Although the premiere of Lyatoshinsky 2 was cancelled at least in part because of unfavorable notice, it was allowed to be performed in 1941. The article needs to explain what circumstances changed in the symphony's favor during the intervening period. Similarly, the article states that the symphony was "allowed" to be performed in 1964. What happened to allow its performance then?
What accounts for the gap in performances between 1941 and 1947?
Two of the article's most cited sources are Kuchar's liner notes and Downling's program notes. Of the two, the latter goes into a little detail about the music, but the former devotes only a single paragraph to Lyatoshinsky 2. Neither source is adequate to be relied upon so extensively for a GA article about this subject, although they could be useful as support for better sources.
If possible, the material listed in "Further reading" ought to be used as sources for the article.
Although some of the sources regard Lyatoshinsky 2 as an important work in Ukrainian musical history, little of its impact is explained to the reader.
References to dates are inexact in this article. Is this because material that can confirm these with precision no longer exist?
According to Akopyan, performances of Lyatoshinsky 2 in 1947 and 1948 gave "the guardians of ideological purity another powerful pretext to accuse [the composer] of formalism". What was the critical reception of this symphony during this period and how did this lead to its censure in 1948? Was it performed outside the Ukrainian SSR? Compare with the "Reception" section for the article on Prokofiev's Sixth Symphony, a work that was also censured in 1948. (Consultation of Yekaterina Vlasova's monograph on the 1948 Anti-Formalist Campaign in Music, which mentions Lyatoshinsky a number of times, may also be helpful.)
What has Lyatoshinsky 2's reception been since 1964?
Sometimes the article misrepresents or synthesizes its cited sources. For example, speculation about the finale rewrite is cited from program notes by Kuchar and Dowling. However, Kuchar does not mention this at all; Dowling says that "One might wonder whether this movement was where most of the revisions occurred in 1940", but does not actually confirm that it "may have been altered" as per the article.

Despite these shortcomings, I'm confident that with further improvement and use of better sources, this article can build upon its current foundation and, in time, achieve GA. —CurryTime7-24 (talk) 00:31, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.