Template:Did you know nominations/Piano Sonata No. 2 (Shostakovich)

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Desertarun (talk) 08:22, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

Piano Sonata No. 2 (Shostakovich)

(

• Back to T:TDYK
• Article history

)

• ... that although he initially dismissed his own Piano Sonata No. 2 as a "trifle," Dmitri Shostakovich would later consider it his most important piano composition? (Source: "At the composer's express wish after discussing several projects Inger Wikström performs here his Sonata No. 2. This work, which he premiered on November 11, 1943[sic] while the war was still raging, he values most among his piano compositions." Liner notes for Swedish Society Discofil SCD 1031, page 3)
  • ALT1:... that despite being considered one of the great exponents of Dmitri Shostakovich's Piano Sonata No. 2, Emil Gilels found the music unsatisfying? Source: "Even Emil Gilels, who later became one of the Sonata's greatest exponents, felt at the time that it "testifie[d] more to Shostakovich's wonderful technique than to the depth of thought which was characteristic of his last symphonies." (A Shostakovich Companion, page 143)
  • ALT2:... that Dmitri Shostakovich's Piano Sonata No. 2 was described by one commentator as being "something disquieting—something faintly obsessive"? Source: "John Gruen notes that 'there is nothing forbidding in Shostakovich’s Second Sonata—nothing obscure or technically impenetrable about its design or content. And yet, something disquieting—something faintly obsessive—emerges from its deceptively simple structure.'" (Shostakovich's Music for Piano Solo: Interpretation and Performance, page 81)
  • ALT3:... that although Dmitri Shostakovich initially dismissed his own Piano Sonata No. 2 as a "trifle, something impromptu," he would later consider it his most important piano composition? (Source: "At the composer's express wish after discussing several projects Inger Wikström performs here his Sonata No. 2. This work, which he premiered on November 11, 1943[sic] while the war was still raging, he values most among his piano compositions." Liner notes for Swedish Society Discofil SCD 1031, page 3)

5x expanded by CurryTime7-24 (talk). Self-nominated at 20:41, 2 June 2021 (UTC).

Willing to review later today. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:56, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Substantial article, on good sources, offline sources accepted AGF, no copyvio obvious. I like the original hook best, as closest to the composer who cares about one specific disquieted critic ;) - I'd like "impromptu" also quoted. - If you want to pursue Gilels, turn it around, - "exponent" is too vague when we don't know yet that it's music to come. I'd pipe S. to his surname, he seems famous enough. I'd support an image of him, - better recognised than a given name. Some questions for the article, not needed for approval, but to be considered:

• pipe "sonatas for solo piano" to "piano sonata", - the article is not for readers who don't know what a piano is ;)
• I'd like a year of composition/completion early on, otherwise 1933 hangs in the air. I'd like an infobox, that's the easiest way ;)
• I'd prefer a summary in the lead (no. of movements, dedication, first performance ...), not one critic's evalution which I doubt is even lead material. It should appear in the body even if it remains in the lead.
• Once introduced as No. 2, you don't have to repeat that string with all capitals so often. "the sonata", or "his second sonata" will do. Perhaps repeat once in every section - if at all. This is generic, not something like a name.
• Use "would" only when needed.
• The last sentence of Music belongs in Reception.
• The Neuhaus quote seems to suffer from translation, but I couldn't read the original if there ...
• "great impression" is not specific, - I could do without the whole sentence if he had no more to say.
• "premiered" vs. "debuted"?
• "After they both ..." - too much follows before we get to know who "they are".
• The last para ("trifle") is a fine conclusion, but - as obviously not in chronology - would profit from a year given, for the conversation, and perhaps also for the other. (Actually, it's not even a real contradiction if he thought about his other piano works as even more "trifle". But I doubt that for the 24 preludes and fugues.)
• Make the references work. (How about sfn throughout?) This last point is needed for my approval. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:48, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Gerda Arendt, thank you very kindly for your thoughtful appraisal and your remarks. Let me fiddle around with the article in order to improve it according to your wishes; hopefully it should meet with your approval in the next couple of days! To answer three points where further clarification would be appreciated:

• As for the lede, the one I wrote for Prokofiev's Sixth was similarly constructed and was approved for DYK. My logic is that since the article will already discuss the first performance, does it really need to also be included in the lede. But the dating of the score and dedication to Nikolayev can definitely be fitted in; they slipped my mind earlier.
• I have not read the Neuhaus in the original. Unfortunately, what you see in the article is a verbatim transcription of how his remarks appear in Fay's bio.
• Glikman doesn't say too much about the work, but I think his input is important as he was a lifelong intimate friend of Shostakovich's and also imparts to the reader the wide range of reactions to Op. 62 from his closest friends and colleagues.
• In my conversations with Inger Wikström, she has personally recounted her encounter with Shostakovich and has told me when this meeting occurred. However, there is nowhere in print, at least that I'm aware of, which attests to that date. It isn't mentioned in her disc's liner notes.

Again, thanks for taking the time to read this article over! :) --CurryTime7-24 (talk) 18:35, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

fine! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:31, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Gerda Arendt, I've revised the article and DYK as per your recommendations. Please let me know what you think! Thanks in advance! --CurryTime7-24 (talk) 04:56, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

Thank you so much! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:41, 14 June 2021 (UTC)