Jump to content

Talk:The Rite of Spring/Archive 4

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4

Arb case

The article was mentioned in a discussion of the "Infoboxes" arb case, Arb case/The Rite of Spring, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:16, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Rite of Spring premiere riot never happened

Here is a link debunking the myth that there was a riot at the premiere of The Rite of Spring. http://scopesmonkeychoir.com/2011/06/the-rite-of-spring-premiere-was-not-a-riot/ … Someone who knows how should overhaul the article. This article was rated highly for quality?Anonnymos (talk) 09:22, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. If you read the article, the word "riot" is used only once in the text (and that in the lead as "near-riot"): When first performed, at the Théâtre des Champs-Élysées on 29 May 1913, the avant-garde nature of the music and choreography caused a sensation and a near-riot in the audience. Given the detailed treatment in the Premiere section, do you have any specific suggestions for improvement? Also, does the source you link to above meet WP:RS (looks to me like a blog)? Ruhrfisch ><>°° 11:49, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
Even the critics in the Parisian newspapers, people who would have seen quite a bit of rowdy behaviour in theatres, acknowledged that the rumble and turmoil among parts of the audience sometimes practically drowned out the music. There's very little doubt that it was an exceptionally noisy and well, uncouth premiere. But it's also likely that the choreography did much to trigger the reaction - as the article points out. 83.254.151.33 (talk) 01:48, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
I did not find this passage clearly demonstrated what would at best be called a debate over whether the music caused the ruckus or the dancing. So I eliminated the un-footnoted "there is general agreement" and included a counter-balancing quote from historian Richard Taruskin.Star-lists (talk) 20:42, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Luciano Berio's Sinfonia

There's a segment of The Rite (the Dance of the Earth) which is featured in Luciano Berio's Sinfonia. Should it be mentioned in this article? --Wildbill hitchcock (talk) 16:52, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

There's The Rite of Spring#Influence and adaptations in this article where Berio's work could be mentioned. On the other hand, there are so many quotations in the Sinfonia, some might see it as kind of trivial to mention it in every quoted piece. On balance, I think it should be mentioned here. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 06:55, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Atonal? Sez hoo?

What's that category doing there? -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 18:16, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

User:Hyacinth on 2 November 2013 and then User:Jerome Kohl on 21 December 2013 where he explains that atonality ≠ 12-tone. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 05:47, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
My action was in response to the claim by User:Carillonista that "Stravinsky did not start composing atonal music until after the death of Schoenberg", clearly confusing atonality with twelve-tone technique. Allen Forte's book analyses the Rite in atonal terms; if there is a source that claims it is tonal, what is that source, and what key is the Rite in?—Jerome Kohl (talk) 07:04, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
A piece does not need to begin and end in a single key to be "tonal" (see Mahler or even Chopin for examples). Several of the individual sections of the first half of Le sacre are pretty tonally grounded, and the second half gravitates toward D as a tonal center. Admittedly this last observation is OR (I am a conductor and music professor), but I wouldn't say that Forte's analysis, compelling though I am sure it is, has been universally accepted. 134.173.80.211 (talk) 00:07, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
According to some definitions, pieces do indeed need to end in the same key with which they began in order to be tonal. I will agree that this is a bit foolish, and would push your time-frame back to include Handel, who wrote one chorus, I think in Hercules, that ends a fourth higher than it began (and let's not get started on whether John Philip Sousa marches are tonal or not). Forte's analysis of course is not universally accepted, but neither is it the only one that makes no attempt to treat the work as if it were in "a key"—even on a purely sectional basis. In practice, there is a huge middle-ground between pieces that are undeniably tonal and that very much smaller number of works that are without question atonal. The real problem is that Wikipedia (as also many writers about music, upon which Wikipedia depends as "reliable sources") divide the musical world into just two camps: tonal, and atonal, and the latter tends to include every piece the writer is uncertain about. Some writers speak of "neotonality", especially with regard to Stravinsky and even with specific reference to the Rite, but do we have a [[Category:Neotonal compositions]]? I think not. What we really need (and finding sources to support this is going to really be a challenge) is an in-between category (perhaps, [[Category:Compositions of uncertain tonality]]) or, better still, a selection of several in-between categories, such as [[Category:10%-tonal compositions]], [[Category:20%-tonal compositions]] (I think perhaps Wagner might fall about here), . . . [[Category:80%-tonal compositions]], etc. For the present case, what is needed is a reliable source that states categorically that the Rite of Spring is atonal. Or not.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 01:55, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
I'm loving the character of this discussion. Please carry on. -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 02:04, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Lead sentence

The bold edit I made here a little while ago was reverted, with the edit summary “bolding marks incoming redirects - also I personally believe that the other names are more precise” so I have (belatedly!) opened a discussion.
First, “bolding marks incoming redirects” : I know it is custom and practice to bold redirect subjects, but I would question whether it is mandatory. The purpose of bolding is to enable the person following the redirect to find the subject they were looking for; that's hardly an issue if that subject is there in the first sentence. Also, there are about two dozen redirects to this page; are we supposed to list and bold them all? OTOH, the other reason for bolding in the first sentence is to list alternate names for the article subject; Is that actually the intent with doing this? As far as I know this work has only been referred to in English (ever since its first performance there) as “The Rite of Spring”: Is there any evidence that Le Sacre du Printemps is a common alternative name for this work in the English-speaking world? The French name is obviously the name it was originally performed under, but that isn't he same thing. And where does that leave the Russian name? It also raises the question why it is referred to under the French name in other articles at all, to require a redirect: Pretentiousness? And it certainly shouldn't be appearing in text under the Russian name in Cyrillic in other articles.
Second, “also I personally believe that the other names are more precise”: Really? More precise? Le Sacre du printemps and Vesna svyashchennaya (or even «Весна священная»!) are more precise names in English for this work? How so? The word “rite” perfectly describes a pagan ritual, which is the subject of the work; if the alternate meanings of sacre (consecration, coronation) are significant interpretations of the subject matter the article doesn't mention it. "The Rite of Spring" is precise, pithy (14 letters in 4 syllables) and poetic; the only names to match are maybe the Scandinavian ones (Våroffer, Kevätuhri) which (I believe) translate as “spring sacrifice” (and makes me wonder if that is where the subject myth originates from). And personal beliefs are not the best reason for doing stuff here, really. Moonraker12 (talk) 09:32, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

I would not revert the same thing a second time. - Who said mandatory? Customary is enough for me, I love to highlight original titles (and Sacre was the title for the first, quite important, performance, - on top of being the name most frequently used in Germany, where Frühlingsopfer or Frühlingsweihe is seen only rarely, and then almost pointed, to insist on a translation.) - For an amicable discussion of the name, look at the archived FAC nomination, no need to repeat. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:17, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
MOS:BOLDTITLE is the relevant guideline. It may be mentioned elswhere, too, but it's certainly a widely followed custom. The French title is important and may be more frequently used than Moonraker12 assumes, but I agree that both presentations of the Russian title are unnecessary; they should be removed. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 13:05, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for replying. Yes, Michael, MOS:BOLDTITLE does cover it. But the example that seems relevant here is at “Proper names and titles”, viz: “The Good the Bad and the Ugly” (in bold) with “Il buono, etc” bracketted and in italics, but un-bolded. Of the other examples, “Las Meninas” (bold and in italics, with the English bracketted in bold) would only apply here if “Le Sacre du Printemps” was the article title; and the top third example “Mumbai, also known as Bombay” (both unbracketted, un-italicked and in bold) only if “Le Sacre...” was an alternate name in English. You said it was more frequently used than I assume; is it in fact a significant alternate title in English, that we should use that format instead? Moonraker12 (talk) 22:45, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
Le Sacre du printemps is a REDIRECT (with some links) and it's a widely used title in English usage, so I think it should be bolded – and both Russian titles should be omitted. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 02:56, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Parameters

If we are going to include an infobox, we should aim to keep it streamlined. Anyone have thoughts on specific parameters that should or should not be included? Nikkimaria (talk) 01:40, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Yes indeed. The article is about the musical work as a whole, not about any specific interpretation of it. Nijinsky was the choreographer for the first performance, but many others have choreographed it since. Placing his name in the infobox, and above that of the composer (!!!), is misleading, and I have removed it. I would also say that there was no consensus for the addition of this box, added in January without discussion – though there's been enough of that in the past. But can anyone really say that the article's presentation is improved by reducing Roerich's beautiful design to postage stamp size? Brianboulton (talk) 19:35, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
I made the image larger if that is a concern, there is a parameter for it. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:00, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

I see that BrianBolton removed mention of 'choreographer = Vaslav Nijinsky' from the infobox. I also see that it currently lists 'original ballet company - Ballets Russes'. Logically then, it ought to say, 'original choreographer = Vaslav Nijinsky'. The reason given for deleting mention of Nijinsky was that it is misleading. I dont know what might have been done with infoboxes for other ballets, but in general my impression is that a typical ballet has an original choreographer, but then and particularly for ballets originating from periods before means of notation had been standardised and well developed, these productions were amended as new producers thought best. Having spent some time researching this particular story, it is not clear to me to what extent Massine copied Nijinsky's original. In fact, it might be very helpful to a reader that the infobox make clear it was originally choreographed by Nijinsky, and then revised by Massine. Whether it was mildly revised, missing pieces reinvented or utterly different is not clear to me, but this information must exist since there is now a restored Nijinsky version. that it was possible to make such a restoration now must mean memories of the Nijinsky version were much sharper at the time Massine took over. I do not think the article covers the choreography at all well as regards describing the actual movements, in any version, and where it does mention choreography it is not clear whose is being discussed. Stravinsky has been exceptionally unhelpful in explaining who contributed what to the choreography. It occurs that this might have had something to do with copyright, credit, and placating temperamental artists (including Stravinsky himself). This article persistently seeks to forget that while this may now be famous as a concert piece, it was conceived as a ballet, indeed commissioned to be ballet music and thus the choreography must be mentioned. Sandpiper (talk) 23:02, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Well now, I thought about what I just wrote and the other known events regarding the other collaborators in this ballet, and their complicated relationships. And indeed, a quick google of 'Igor Stravinsky gay' reveals that this may have been yet another contribution to the mix, and love-hate relationships which characterised the entire story. Without reading nine million more pages about this complicated devotee of reinventing his own history, I'm quite sure Nijinsky in his role as muscled object of adoration had a lot more to do with this entire project than Stravinsky cares to say, either as dancer or choreographer. I suspect that far from giving a misleading impression to list Nijinsky as choreographer, this will give a very accurate impression that he had a significant part in the creation of the piece, even if a little nebulous exactly what it was. It was written for Nijinsky, everything was which the Ballets Russes created. Sandpiper (talk) 23:38, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

The misleading aspect arises because whoever designed the ballet infobox template arranged that the choreographer's name precedes that of the composer in the infobox listing. Notwithstanding Nijinsky's obvious contribution to the original production, Stravinsky, not he, was the primary creator of this work of art. Any other impression is unthinkable. However, I have found a compromise, which links Nijinsky to the first performance as the original choreographer, and have amended the box accordingly. Brianboulton (talk) 20:15, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
It's only "unthinkable" if you are thinking of the piece as concert music. As a ballet, the choreographer gets pride of place. That's just the way it works.Trumpetrep (talk) 22:47, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
No, it doesn't. It may be how you see it. A ballet may be choreographed hundreds of times, successfully ot unsuccessfully; the constant element is the music, whether in the theatre or the concert hall. Brianboulton (talk) 23:52, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

You can stomp your foot all you want, and insist that you are right, but it doesn't make it so. In the ballet world, the choreographer of a piece shares top billing. The tenor of your comments reveals how unfamiliar you are with this fact. Suggesting that it's unthinkable to consider someone other than Stravinsky was the primary creator is to ignore basic facts. I suppose no one can stop you, since you seem to be the one holding the reins here, but that's unfortunate, because you are wrong.Trumpetrep (talk) 03:14, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Support that in ballet the choreographer is of importance, see Onegin (Cranko), for example, where the current performance in London still follows his choreography. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:32, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
Yes, the choreographer is important, but the importance varies in terms of the work as a whole. I agree with Brian that, in this case, placing the choreographer above the composer in the box is misleading to the general reader and that the current solution, while less than optimal is the best one under the circumstances. This is not quite the same situation as Onegin and Ondine. I think the main problem here is the inflexibility of the infobox which only allows the choreographer to be placed first, even if the ballet has had several highly notable subsequent choreographies with the musical work remaining constant and the composer's name as the creator/"owner" being far more prominent. Do a Google search on the exact phrases "Stravinsky's Rite of Spring" (79,000) and "Nijinsky's Rite of Spring" (1600) and you'll see what I mean. A possibly analogous case to RoS is Prokofiev's Romeo and Juliet. I say possibly because Ivo Psota (the original choreographer) has never been as closely associated with the work as Nijinsky was with RoS. However, R&J's librettist was arguably more important to the work's creation than its first choreographer, and Kenneth MacMillan's later R&J choreography is far more prominent than Psota's. It's a pity that the infobox cannot have an alternative parameter "Original choreographer" for cases like this. Voceditenore (talk) 08:31, 28 April 2015 (UTC).
Good points. How about raising the question at the infobox talk? Or think about using and possibly adapting {{infobox musical composition}}, as further up, using the premiere parameters? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:49, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
Another way of dealing with this problem might be to take the balletomane point of view, and create separate articles for each choreography. Those articles could ignore Stravinsky's music entirely, and concentrate solely on the creations of the choreographer. If necessary, this article could then be renamed something like "The Rite of Spring (Stravinsky)". (This supposes, of course, that Stravinsky's name has no better claim to priority for the title than Nijinsky's, Massine's, MacMillan's, Béjart's, Graham's, or Horton's.)—Jerome Kohl (talk) 16:58, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Recent changes reverted

I have undone a large chunk of text recently added to the Part II: The Sacrifice section. First, because it was very poorly sourced—one reference was a Wikipedia mirror and the other was a copy of class syllabus notes. Second, because it completely unbalanced the Music section by giving what seemed to me undue weight to one aspect of it. Third, because much of it reads like a college essay and possibly original research. Fourth, because the section had been made incoherent by interrupting the previous text and hijacking its reference. Some of the material may useful. But it needs to be looked at selectively and meticulously referenced. This is a Featured Article, and the addition in that state was detrimental. I suggest that the IP who added the material discuss their proposed changes here. Voceditenore (talk) 17:16, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

I agree. If there is a useful point to be added here, it needs to be made succinctly, not at the cost of distorting the entire music section, and it needs to be referenced to a reliable source. Brianboulton (talk) 18:57, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Name of first part

Hi, I'm an user of Galician wikipedia and we have translated this article to galician, but we have a question: the article states that Stravinsky told to Nikolai Findeyzen that the first part of the work would be called "The Kiss of the Earth", but in the article the title of first part is "Adoration of the Earth". Could somebody, please, explain that difference in the article? Thanks in advance, --Elisardojm (talk) 21:35, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

I understand that "Kiss of the Earth" (Поцелуй земли – kiss the ground) is a quote from Hill (2000) pp. 4–8; it can also be found in Van den Toorn (1987) chapter 2. However, it seems clear that at the premiere it was named L'Adoration de la terre. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 07:52, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
Then, we should add a note/text explaining that question at section Conception, shouldn't we? Bye, --Elisardojm (talk) 09:57, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
It may also be useful to note that the Russian title in the published score actually is Поцелуй земли, just as Stravinsky is reported to have told Findeyzen it would be called, and not Обожание земли, which would be a more literal rendering of the French "L'Adoration de la terre". The French titles of many of the sections (and indeed of the work itself) are often quite free, and so are the English versions. My Russian is not up to much, but it seems to me that Величание избранной is more exactly rendered by the French "Glorification de l'élue" than the English "Glorification of the chosen maiden". I can only imagine how this all might come out in Galician, and do not envy you your task!—Jerome Kohl (talk) 21:40, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
Thanks Michael and Jerome, we have added a little explain to the galician article. Bye!, Elisardojm (talk) 09:42, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on The Rite of Spring. 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, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 21:34, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

Recent edit warring

There has been a spate of undiscussed changes to the text recently, by an editor identified as 2600:1017:B12E:89EF:4DBC:B47:2698:18D0 who has been similarly active on other Russian-related music articles. This article is watchlisted; such edits, unless they are essentially trivial and uncontroversial, are likely to be reverted unless first discussed on the talkpage or are , . While we welcome any positive contributions to the article, edit-warring is not the way to achieve this. Please desist; bring your suggestions here first, and your rationale for the changes, so that they can be discussed. Brianboulton (talk) 09:05, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

  • Monitoring: There are three further minor edits by same editor, of no great consequence, no action taken. Anything substantial will be reverted in advance of discussion to which this editor seems strangely averse. Brianboulton (talk) 18:19, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
    • Editor continues on merry way -- I've requested page protection (for the first time in my all my years at WP!) so let's see if that goes anywhere. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:41, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

I've reverted a little further back. This editor has been making similarly problematic edits to dozens of other articles. Please see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Classical music#Return of a problematic editor. --Deskford (talk) 14:59, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on The Rite of Spring. 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) 05:12, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Question

I have a question regarding a statement in this article: it says Stravinsky "reserved its [bitonality's] full effect for The Rite". This makes it sound as though his not developing the technique fully during Petrushka but instead deferring that to The Rite was pre-meditated, when I doubt that's the case. It seems more likely to me that the further development was a continuation of the creative process. In any event, I can't read the source to see whether it describes this process the way the article does. Could someone check that for me, or otherwise explain why the article currently reads the way it does? —Compassionate727 (T·C) 02:39, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

Attendees

I'm surprised that the article doesn't mention the illustrious attendees at the premiere (or the second performance). Although there are some quibbles about who attended which performance (1st or 2nd), the names of Alfredo Casella, Cocteau, Debussy, Maurice Delage, Delius, Misia Edwards, Léon-Paul Fargue, Valentine Gross, Picasso, Georges Pioch, Mélanie de Pourtalès, Proust, Puccini, Ravel, Florent Schmitt, Gertrude Stein are regularly bandied about. Many can be found in Gillian Moore's The Rite of Spring (2019), some of these have appeared in TV and film dramatisations of the event, I suspect Hill, Kelly, Walsh and others mention them, too. Why aren't these names mentioned in the article? Should they be? -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 13:52, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

No mention of the Beastie Boys?

The music video for Intergalactic by the Beastie Boys (link) seems to sample The Rite of Spring. This is based on the Fantasia version, 1940. Confirmation can be found on whosampledwho. Renard Migrant (talk) 14:31, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

Hmm. Yes, it's mentioned at the song article. The best 38 seconds of the entire song, I'd say. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:41, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

Synopsis

As a non-expert user of Wikipedia, under Synopsis I expect to find a short description of the story. From reading the previous talk, it appears that there is none here because Stravinsky himself later didn't want one. I don't have access to Taruskin's book. But as a general reader, I shouldn't need to go find some book, but find the basic info in Wikipedia itself. I finally found a version of the story told by Kenneth Archer on the 2nd bonus track on the DVD of the Mariinsky perfomance "Stravinsky and the Ballets Russes" of the re-creation of the original choreography. It really helped me understand it better, and I really think something like this should be in the Wikipedia article, even if it needs some disclaimers about Stravinsky later repudiating it. The table describing the "episodes" tells only part of this and is mysterious without the additional info. There are probably better sources, but I wrote it down as well as I could from the interview:

It covers one day and one night. First, the 300-year-old woman comes out. She knows the secrets of the Earth. She teaches the young people how to jump and warm the Earth. That’s the beginning of the ritual. At its high point, an old man, the Sage, is brought in. He kisses the Earth in the centre of the tribal square. He links the Earth with the energies of the Sun God. These energies come down and have to be danced out by the tribe to control them, and to dance them into the Earth to make the crops grow. The Sun God needs to be repaid for this each year. In Act 2, at night, the young women in the mountains are divining the future. One of them has to be chosen as the bride of the Sun God. They are walking in a circle, and one of them stumbles once, and then again – that is the sign that she has been chosen by the Sun God to be his bride. The ancestors come in and carry out the ritual of inspection. Eventually she has to dance the Sacrificial Dance, whereby she does to save the tribe and to save the Earth. At the end, she is lifted up by the Elders and presented to the Sun God and joins with him in a kind of mystical union.

Susan C Cooper (talk) 12:19, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

This article was mostly written by the late and painfully missed Brianboulton. A number of his friends and admirers have his FAs on their watchlists and try to maintain them as best we can. I find the comment, above, persuasive, and would be glad to know if anyone else watching this page has a view. Tim riley talk 15:46, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
I think it's a good idea, and skimming through the very detailed synopsis in Buckle's Nijinsky book (page 348-353 in the paperback edition) the above seems fine, although I am not sure about the use of the word 'act'.Cg2p0B0u8m (talk) 21:27, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
It may be a good idea to add a synopsis in a more traditional format, although the current table gives a reasonable description, and it's well sourced. Adding a text as proposed above would most likely jeopardise the article's FA status. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 01:50, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
BB was on record as being disillusioned with the FAC process (though I got handbagged for saying so elsewhere on WP) and I don't think he'd have minded all that much about the continuing FA status of this article. He would certainly have minded if we buggered the article up, but I don't think adding a synopsis of the original scenario would do that. BB, as the archived talk shows, thought that the music was the most important point (and I agree) and so if I have a shot at a suitable brief summary of the 1913 plot and post it here for comment it might be a way forward. Does that seem sensible? Tim riley talk 21:56, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
That would be good, although I don't understand why this will harm the featured status of the article...Cg2p0B0u8m (talk) 21:17, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
The proposed text falls short of general writing standards, let alone FA. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 02:59, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
I'm sorry, I understood that Tim riley was offering to write something at some point.Cg2p0B0u8m (talk) 20:02, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
Will do. I'll aim at posting something here for consideration, over the weekend if I can. Tim riley talk 08:54, 16 April 2020 (UTC) Or shortly! Tim riley talk 19:20, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
Suggestion:
Synopsis
The music has inspired numerous balletic interpretations subsequently, but in the scenario of the original the setting is an outdoor rural scene of unspecified time and place. The ballet is in two parts, “The Adoration of the Earth” and “The Sacrifice”. In the first, a group of young women dance “The Augurs of Spring”. This is followed by the “Ritual of Abductions” in which they are carried off by the young men. After the “Round Dance” there is a confrontation between groups in the “Ritual of the Two Rival Tribes”, resolved by the elders led by “the Oldest and Wisest One”. The first part ends with a general “Adoration of the Earth”, a frenzied dance for the whole company.
In the second part, a victim is chosen as sacrifice to the Earth. The female dancers perform the “Mystic Circle of the Young Women”, surrounding the Chosen One. In the next two sections the elders invoke ancestral spirits in shamanic rituals. In the final section, the “Sacrificial Dance”, the Chosen One dances herself to death before the assembled groups of young and old people.
The source: the foreword by Boris Mikhailovich Yarustovsky to the 2000 Dover edition of the full score. Comment ad lib by all means. Tim riley talk 06:52, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
I am happy with this, apart from the word 'balletic' (I think it may not stretch to versions by people such as Pina Bausch), but I can't think of any alternative.Cg2p0B0u8m (talk) 19:07, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
Well just "dance interpretations" would do, I think. I'll leave this draft here for a few days to give anyone who wants to comment time to do so. Tim riley talk 09:48, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
The more I look at this, the more I am certain that BB's original and existing section Synopsis and structure gives all the above and more, rather better than anything I can manage. In short, I don't think we ought to add anything. Tim riley talk 23:12, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

Main page rerun

This article is schedule to re run on April 6th for Stravinsky's 50th death anniversary. Gerda and I thought the Carmen rerun went well, so we thought this would be a solid choice as well; both to rerun another article of Brian, and also to diversify the main page TFAs. I've been cleaning up the sources (and will continue to do so) as they're a little messy; per WP:CITEVAR I will not be altering the actual referencing style (no sfn), merely aiming for addressing some minor inconsistencies in the current layout. As part of WP:URFA/2020, editors have been reviewing older FAs that are being rerun on the main page, as such I have some queriers for watchers of this page on the article content:

  1. Michael Bednarek's comment above on the the attendees seems like information worth including imo. What do others think?
  2. Are we sure the original title is not Le Sacre du printemps: tableaux de la Russie païenne en deux parties (The Rite of Spring: Pictures from Pagan Russia in Two Parts)? The Britannica article seems to suggest this
  3. Stravinsky was a young, virtually unknown composer when Diaghilev recruited him to create works for the Ballets Russes. The Rite was the third such project — this line is technically incorrect, Stravinsky's first colloboration with Diaghilev was to create new orchestrations of Les Sylphides (so The Rite was the "fourth"); do we want to simply change to "fourth" or rephrase to make it clearer that this was the third of such projects where Stravinsky was creating new music entirely?
  4. Surely something brief on The Rite's connection with Modernism should be said? Aza24 (talk) 06:59, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

I'll put anything else I find here soon, though the article is extremely thorough and professional overall, I seriously doubt I will come across anything but minor issues. Aza24 (talk) 06:28, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for this effort. Archives 1, 3 and 4 have the perennial question for the original title being used as the article title. I initiated one of those. I doubt that a formal requested move would end before the rerun, and an informal move would cause protests. What do others think. More context of his previous works for Diaghilev welcome! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:55, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
Gerda, I was rather referring to the use of the subtitle as part of the original title, thinking we might include the "tableaux de la Russie païenne en deux parties" (or the English equivalent) in the first sentence of the lead. I would be hesitant in bringing up the dispute between what the article itself should be named. Aza24 (talk) 09:39, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
Fine, sorry about the misunderstanding. I'd bring it in but not in the first sentence, - let's perhaps first get to the composer before the longish subtitle and its translation. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:05, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the ping and your recent work on the article. It would be marvellous if the article could mention the attendees at the first performances. It would certainly underline the work's influence and importance for the music of the 20th century, although I'm not volunteering. The full title ought to be mentioned somewhere; I'm surprised it currently doesn't. As for WP:CITEVAR: all it needs is consensus here to change it. With almost 40 works cited, using {{sfn}} would help readers to navigate them. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 12:37, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

BB later switched to sfn-style referencing (as I know to my cost from working with him on the Bernard Shaw article, where I found the sfn style horribly complicated and he had to rescue me) and I feel confident he wouldn't have objected to a change here if there is a consensus. Personally, I hate sfn/Harvard citations as they smack the reader in the eye with a sea of blue, but I know this is a minority opinion, and will of course back the consensus if someone is valiant enough to take on the conversion of the refs. Tim riley talk 18:25, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
Using sfn prevents ambiguous and wrong short citations. Take an obvious example from the article: Taruskin is cited with 1980 and 1996 publications, and once without a year. In "Sources", in addition to the 1980 and 1996 publications, there's a chapter by Taruskin in a 2013 book listed under "Neff" (which is never cited), and I suspect the undated citation refers to that chapter. We should not expect readers to sleuth through the sources in this way. As for "complicated": How is writing {{sfn|Taruskin|1996|p=874}} more complicated than <ref>Taruskin 1996, p. 874</ref>? (Aside: who's BB?) -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 02:57, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
That bit is easy, but the algebra at the end I find difficult, e.g., from another article, * {{cite news|title= Aeroplane Dive|author=<!--Staff writer(s); no by-line.-->|newspaper=Liverpool Echo|date= 6 September 1919|page=4|ref={{sfnRef|"Aeroplane Dive". ''Liverpool Echo''}}}} But though they seem needlessly complicated to me, I shan't quarrel with anyone who wants such things if there is a consensus Tim riley talk 22:41, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
As it happens, the sfn targets have already been set up in this article, unsurprisingly by BB, in July/August 2012. So that "algebra" is solved. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 03:19, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
(BB is Brianboulton who brought the article FA status) I prefer sfn as well—it more directly links to the source thereby results in quicker verifiability for the reader. The reason I brought it up was to just make clear my edits weren't going against CITEVAR—I'd be happy to help convert them if that's the consensus being formed. I'm a bit surprised by Tim's reluctance, I always thought the sea of blue issue was avoided by the sfn being in templates, as the reader has to hover over to see them. Aza24 (talk) 06:43, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
WP:URFA/2020 issues
  • MOS:DTAB the table in "Synopsis and structure" is lacking a caption.
  • MOS:LQ review needed, sample ... Stravinsky wrote, "[T]he possibility has gone for some time of seeing anything valuable in the field of dance and, still more important, of again seeing this offspring of mine".
  • I see excess of also and however, but defer to others.

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:48, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

English dialect

I see a bit of catalog/catalogue drift going on and G_d knows what has happened while I was not looking ... has there been a discussion/agreement/obvious dialect established or something? Did I miss the memo? I absolutely don't give a stuff either way which it is, but I do despise uninformed/insistent editing in either direction and the horrible drift and inconsistency it engenders, so, to help avoid this, is it taggable? cheers DBaK (talk) 23:11, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

DisillusionedBitterAndKnackered, I think your edit to "catalogue" is correct. Afaik, the main contributor to this article wrote in BrE, so whether it's actually stated anywhere or not, I would suspect the vast majority of the article is already in BrE. Aza24 (talk) 23:23, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
Thanks Aza24 for that. I am going to mark it as BrE and hope that people agree. My feeling – based in part on my own experiences coming to an article and being confused/frustrated by some lack of clarity in its dialect history – is that tagging can help to avoid time-wasting. I can't emphasize too strongly that I am not committed to the idea that this article must be in BrE, merely that it must be consistent, whatever it is in and that the tag can help with this. Best to all, DBaK (talk) 09:07, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

Romanize/romanise - stupid question, see instant response

Apologies if this has already been discussed here or elsewhere. I wondered: if we are agreed that the article is in BrE, should the two appearances of romanize become romanise? Please please please do not lecture me on -ise/-ize spellings in BrE – I get it, I am an -ize fan, I used to typeset books for a publisher who were very, very Oxfordy. (If it were up to me I would shove everything possible into -ize but I can imagine how popular that would be. So it is perhaps fortunate that it is NOT up to me.) All this article's other -ise/-ize spellings are now in -ise unless they are direct quotations (the lovely Alex Ross in other words) so this makes me wonder if romanize should also move as it does appear to have the same alternative. On the other hand, I wonder, is there a reason why an exception has already been made here – is there some overriding usage in BrE to make us stick with the Z? As with my previous message I am enquiring in the interests of consistency and logic, not insane linguistic nationalism. I'd very much welcome others' thoughts: thank you. DBaK (talk) 09:44, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

No no no no, possibly yes a bit but mostly no. No-one keyed it in – it is from the lang-ru template! So it may or may not be a valid question but its solution cannot in any case be addressed here. Gah!!! DBaK (talk) 09:45, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
DBaK, you're beginning to sound like Jim Trott. Martinevans123 (talk) 09:49, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
That's the nicest thing you've ever said to me, Martinevans123!! :) DBaK (talk) 11:10, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

Just for the record, I have had a quick look around various template and project pages and concluded that it could be too much of an undertaking to address this apparent minor anomaly. It appears in many many places as romanize and in far fewer as romanise; I am not sure that a discussion/editing frenzy about this would be justified, so I am not planning to start one. Cheers DBaK (talk) 11:27, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

Romanize Marie wishes you all the best! Martinevans123 (talk) 11:30, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
You both look like you could use this :) Aza24 (talk) 15:48, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
My word! Bravo!! Knocks Glen Tetley into a cocked hat. Plot spoiler alert.... Noo-noo steals "Cercles mystérieux des adolescentes"! Martinevans123 (talk) 16:25, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
Oh good Lord. That is so brilliant! Thanks Aza24. And, Martinevans123, thanks for Romanized And Married – I enjoyed the article but am deeply suspicious of her having played a key role in bohemianism which I blame for distracting the lower middle classes from their proper pursuits and the eventual shortage of decent bank clerks at the Midland. Tsk. DBaK (talk) 09:09, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

Addition to Synopsis and structure section

I am uneasy about the recent addition (i.e. the new opening para of the section). Michael Bednarek has rightly called for chapter and verse, but I'm not sure the paragraph ought to be there at all. It assumes as gospel that Stravinsky's tale of dreaming the whole thing and then waking up and writing it down is true, but later, under "Conception", Stravinsky's conflicting accounts of the origins of the work are set out. The Roerich connexion is also set out there. As the added paragraph consists of a dubious assertion and duplicate information I suggest we remove it. Tim riley talk 10:40, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

I found the addition in question dubious and was tempted to remove it. After counting to 20, I decided to request a proper citation instead. As it stands, I agree that it doesn't add much to the article and should be removed until more context and a full citation is provided. It may well turn out to be either unnecessary or better covered further down under "Conception". -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 10:55, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
Thank you for that. I suggest we leave it a day or so for any further comments here, failing which I'll blitz it. Tim riley talk 11:10, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
Yes, I just read through Hill 4–8, and it doesn't sound like there's any certainty towards the theory proposed by the new addition. Would agree with removing. Aza24 (talk) 15:02, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
Now removed. Thanks, colleagues! Tim riley talk 18:14, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

L. Bernstein's recording

An editor has added a paragraph on Leonard Bernstein's recording, which I have for now commented out. (Second para of Recordings.) In my view it doesn't merit mention, but if colleagues think it ought to remain it can easily be made visible again. Tim riley talk 08:12, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

«"Wow!" Stravinsky is said to have raved upon hearing it"» from the original, rephrased to "having purportedly said" is not a convincing phrasing. Omitting this seems appropriate unless some more authoritative source can be found, but if found, it should be included. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 13:04, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

Broken music notation

The third notation (the one from "Ritual of Rival Tribes") is not producing the C#; I'm not sure why and I'm not familiar with how the music notation works. Could someone with experience in this fix the C#? Thanks! -MyCatIsAChonk (talk) 02:33, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:The_Rite_of_Spring/Archive_4&oldid=1214672810"