Wikipedia:Peer review/Choral symphony/archive2

Choral symphony

Previous peer review

• A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style; it can be found on the automated peer review page for June 2009.

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because, after its previous peer review, it has gone through a substantial copyedit and a thorough reorganization. It therefore would benefit from additional feedback and subsequent refinement before proceeding to FAC.

Thanks, Jonyungk (talk) 07:03, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Brianboulton comments:

• Article structure: In an earlier peer review I said that insufficient attention had been paid to more modern composers of choral symphonies. You have obviously remedied this in this revised extended version, but I am a bit puzzled by the structure of the article.

After the "Key features" section, on which I have commented below, there follows a series of descriptive sections, but there is no sense of chronological development. Some indication of chronolgy is provided by the lead: Beethoven, then Berlioz and Mendelssohn, then later Mahler, Stravinsky, Vaughan Williams, Britten etc., then late 20th century figures such as Glass and Henze. I expected the article to be structured in a way that reflected this. But in the substantial text the first composers we encounter in any detail are Bantock, Roy Harris, Vaughan Williams (briefly) and Malcolm Williamson, all 20th century figures. We are suddenly discussing symphonies for unaccompanied voices, surely a minor part of the choral symphony genre - why is this the first subgenre that we encounter? And is there a rationale for the order of the following subsections? I am generally most impressed by the text, but I would like to have your comments about structure before continuing the review - though I have a couple of general observations on the Key features section.

The article was not arranged chronologically but by theme, with examples from different choral symphonies used to show how their composers used these themes in their work. I was assured this would be a sound method of organization back in GA review and again when the article was copyedited. In the previous peer review, it was suggested that there were three main areas covered by the article—what is a choral symphony, the relation of words and music, and programmatic intent—and that the article might be better served is the article were reorganized along these three areas. "Symphonies for unaccompanied chorus" was suggested to become a subsection of "Key Features" because that section defined what a choral symphony actually was, which was the intent of "Key features." Likewise, four areas were covered under "Relation of words and music"&mdaash;"Musical treatment of text", "Music and words as equals", "Words determining symphonic form" and "Words expanding symphonic form". "Words changing programmatic intent" became a subsection of "Programmatic intent". Was this a mistake? What can or should be done to clarify the intent or structure further? Should the article be continued along the lines it is currently following, or should be overhauled along different lines yet again? I am glad you are impressed by the text, but if the organization of this article is faulty, what is the point of having something well-written but ultimately confusing? Jonyungk (talk) 04:24, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry if my comments implied there was a more serious problem with the structure than is in fact the case. To use a structure based on themes rather than chronology is perfectly OK if this is clear to the reader. The problem I have is the current positioning of the "Symphonies for unaccompanied chorus" section. To me it seems obvious that an unacompanied chorus is an exceptional, not a key or general feature of the choral symphony; indeed, you start your "General features" section by defining the choral symphony as a work for "orchestra, choir and (often) solo voices". To follow this almost immediately with a section about symphonies without orchestral accompaniment (by relatively minor composers) is the main source of my confusion.

My suggestions:-

• Add the following words to the first sentence of the "General features" section: "...although a few have been written for unaccompanied voices."
• Transfer the "Symphonies for unaccompanied voice" subsection as a main section, to after the "Relation of words and music" section, immediately before "Programmatic intent".

These changes would, in my view, remove confusion and provide a more logical sequence of sections. The opening of the "Relation of words and music" section follows naturally from the General features section and acts as a good introduction to what follows. Would you at any rate try my suggestion? If you are unhappy with it, then we can try something else; this is peer review, not FAC, so experimentation is fully in order. Brianboulton (talk) 12:59, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I've acted on both suggestions. How do things look now? Jonyungk (talk) 14:26, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

I personally think the change makes good sense – how do you feel? I will continue to review the remaining sections. Brianboulton (talk) 20:42, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree—the change makes good sense and the article reads better in the order the sections are currently in. Thanks for the suggestion—and for asking how I felt about it. I appreciate the consideration. Jonyungk (talk) 23:14, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

• Key features
  • Section title - who has decided that what follows are the "key", i.e. the most important features? Likewise the text begins: "There are several key features..." etc. To avoid accusations of editorial opinion and POV it might be as well to make the title "General features", and delete the word "key" in the introductory sentence.

Done. Jonyungk (talk) 04:32, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

• • You say: "This usually means a choral symphony employs a four-movement scheme of a fast opening movement, slow movement, scherzo and finale.[1] Like an instrumental symphony, a choral symphony could also conceivably be in three or five movements, but these tend to be exceptions rather than the rule." I'm not sure that the above statements are warranted, at least not in its present form. Off-hand, most of the choral symphonies that come immediately to my mind (Mahler's Second and Eighth, Berlioz's Romeo et Juliette, Stravinsky's Symphony of Psalms, Vaughan Williams's Sinfonia Antartica, Havergal Brian's Gothic Symphony) do not follow the traditional four-movement format. Aren't there too many of these to be classed as "exceptions"? I think the wording should be a little less dogmatic on this point?

Agreed. I'll work on an alternative wording.

• • Last sentence should not begin "Finally..." It is the last point you wish to raise, but not perhaps the final word on the subject.

Yes.

• • Why is "Symphonies for unaccompanied chorus" a subsection of "Key features"?

See above re structure of article.

I will post more comments after your response to the structure issue. Brianboulton (talk) 23:04, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

More comments: here are some comments/thoughts on the next three sections. Sorry if the review is a bit piecemeal, but I am juggling a few balls in the air at the moment.

• Musical treatment of text
  • "In the third movement in particular, because the text is loosely descriptive, lines of text could follow the demands of the music in being detached, cobbled together and repeated." The meaning is obscure - can it be clarified?

What about this: "In the third movement in particular, the text is loosely descriptive and can be "pushed about by the music", with some lines repeated, some not consecutive in the written text immediately following one another in the music, and some left out entirely." Jonyungk (talk) 19:23, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

• • Second paragraph: first sentence ends with the words "as well". Are these necessary? As well as what?

Done. "As well" is removed. Jonyungk (talk) 19:30, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

• • Re Philip Glass: As "Toltec" is part of a title (A Toltec Symphony) the word should not be linked. While on the subject of Glass's work, would it be worth mentioning a much earlier wordless choral symphony – Vaughan Williams's Sinfonia Antartica (1948)? This is the earliest example I can find of a wordless chorus. Do any of your sources mention it?

I'll check Ottoway and see what he says about this, as it should be mentioned. Jonyungk (talk) 21:40, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Ottaway makes a brief mention, which I have included. Jonyungk (talk) 14:24, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

• • I find the use of quotations in the second part of the third paragraph a bit overdone, especially as you have quotes within the quote and it is not always immediately clear who is saying what. Perhaps some of this information could be paraphrased rather than directly quoted.

Perhaps. I have been very concerned about copyvios, so I have had a tendency to overuse quote rather than incorporate them. Jonyungk (talk) 21:40, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

• Music and words as equals
  • "To facilitate doing so he chose to use "a choral and instrumental ensemble in which the two elements should be on an equal footing, neither of them outweighing the other." Two problems: first, "To facilitate doing so" is a bit clumsy. "To facilitate this..." would be better. But... it's not obvious to me why choosing this arrangement of choral and instrumental ensemble would facilitate the employment of counterpoint.

I've tried explaining this to some degree in the text. Jonyungk (talk) 14:24, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

• • Your comment about the origin of the subtitle "Symphony of a Thousand" requires a citation. Also, on the subject of Mahler's Eighth, the impression could be given that this was Mahler's first or only attempt in the choral symphony genre. His Second Symphony ("Resurrection") and Third are choral symphonies, though in the latter the choir is limited to women's and children's voices. These earlier works from the 1890s are entirely different in form and structure from his Eighth; is there anything to be said about why he so radically revised the form for this later work?

Mainly it was because of his decision to set the last scene of "Faust" as Part 2 of the work; until then it was going to be a purely instrumental work. The Second became a choral symphony only after the first three movements had been written, but it should be included in "Words expanding symphonic form." Same with the Third. Jonyungk (talk) 21:40, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

I've re-added mentions of the Mahler Second and Third in sections where it seemed appropriate. Jonyungk (talk) 14:24, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

• • Clarify the symphony to which Vaughan Williams's programme note relates

Done. Jonyungk (talk) 14:24, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

• Words determining symphonic form
  • The quote beginning "At the Store..." is too short for blockquote format, and should be absorbed into the text

Shoiuld it be absorbed as a quote or rewritten into text. I'm concerned about a possible copyvio if the text follows the info curve of the quote too closely. Jonyungk (talk) 21:40, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

It can stay a quote, but should be treated in the same way you have have dealt with other quotes. MOS suggests blockquotes should be reserved for longer quotes - around 4+ lines of text. Brianboulton (talk) 11:55, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Done. Jonyungk (talk) 14:24, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

• • Whose definition of ternary form is this: "(often notated A-B-A, with the first and third parts (A) being musically identical, or very nearly so, while the second part (B) contrasts sharply with it)"? Does it need a citation?

I took it from the Wiki article on ternary form, but if necessary, I can go to the New Grove or Oxford Dictionary of Music. Should this be cited?

Yes, cite to New Grove. Brianboulton (talk) 11:55, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

More will follow. Brianboulton (talk) 21:09, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Further comments

• Words expanding symphonic form: No particular comments

• Symphonies for unaccompanied chorus
  • "His Atalanta, "the most important [work] alike in technical experiment and in inspiration",[37] - you should attribute this opinion in the text.

Do you mean inside the quote mark? Not sure what you mean.

• • "a 20-part work" is a little ambiguous; does this mean a work with 20 separate vocal parts, or to a work consisting of 20 consecutive movements, or sections, of music? (Clarified later, but should be clear here)

Now clarified.

• • This may be a stupid question, but if with Atlanta Bantock made no attempt at symphonic forms, and did not call the work a "symphony", why is it appropriate to discuss it here?

Actually, Bantock did call the work a symphony. I've clarified this in the text.

• • "...for eight-part a capella choir" - something wrong with word order here, or a missing word?
  • Are the quotations in the latter part of the Roy Harris paragraph from Profitt? This should be made clear.
  • The last (Malcolm Williamson) paragraph is almost entirely verbatim quotation. Although attributed, this sort of thing is frowned on at FAC. You would be expected to use your own paraphrase for most of this, saving the quote marks for a few key words or phrases.
• Programmatic intent
  • Third sentence: "Likewise..." is a slightly weak opening here. It would read better as "More than a century later,..."

Done.

• • "compsed as occasional works" - ambiguous. I take it you mean "works for special occasions"

Yes.

• • The blockquote should be attributed in the text.

Not sure what you mean. Could you clarify?

• • Likewise the quotations relating to the Penderecki symphony. Watch for this as a general problem.
  • "Ordinary", in this sense, requires a link. I suggest you also link "Roman Catholic Mass".

Done.

I will attempt to finish this review tomorrow. Brianboulton (talk) 21:32, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Final review comments: This is the last part of my review which may or may not have a bearing on your Mahler comments below. The issue is, really, in a fairly densely-packed article, how much more detail should you try to cram in?

• Programmatic intent (continued)
  • "As mentioned earlier, Schnittke wrote his Second Symphony in six movements, following the Ordinary of the Mass of the Roman Catholic Church.[33] Within these movements, the symphony works programmatically on two levels simultaneously." This is quite ponderous wording. Why not reduce it: "Schnittke's six-movement Second Symphony, following the Ordinary of the Mass of the Roman Catholic Church,[33] works programmatically on two levels simultaneously."
  • "Schnittke does all this..." Delete the all for greater neutrality
  • General comment on this section: overall, it's a bit dense and hard to read. It may be worth reducing the content a little; even a 30 or 40% reduction in content would still illustarate programmatic intent quite adequately.
• Words changing programmatic intent
  • "Liszt's later inclusion of a choral..." - "choral" is an adjective not a noun. Should this be "choral element"?

Yes.

• • "son in law" needs hyphens: "son-in-law"

done.

• • I have slightly reduced the image size, so that your list of the Mahler 8th abortive movements is not compromised.
  • This is not the best phrasing: "What the sketches for these movements did not have were words, though the opening theme..." I would suggest: "The sketches for these movements did not have words, though the opening theme..."
  • Suggest "Hymn to Love" or "hymn to love", but not "hymn to Love"
  • "through the eternal womanhood" Suggest drop "the"

Done.

• • "blatantly agitprop" - these words need to be in quotes, and attributed.
  • Clumsy wording: "...Shostakovich reportedly intended with the Seventh to set a text from the Ninth Psalm on vengeance for innocent blood shed." Suggest: "Shostakovich reportedly intended to set a text for the Seventh from the Ninth Psalm, on the theme of vengeance for the shedding of innocent blood."

Done.

• • "He also may have been right..." Whose opinion is this? Needs to be attributed

This has been removed.

• A few general comments
  • The article is very comprehensive. There is, however, a possible readability problem arising from over-exemplification. As I said with regard to the "Programmatic intent" section, the argument would be complete even with a significant reduction in the number of examples. This is possibly true also of other sections.

Thank you for this observation. My concern had been that I was not being comprehensive enough. I have cut down the number of examples per your suggestion.

• • There is a tendency to use too many quotes, when paraphrases would do just as well. Also, when you do use quotes it is important that the text makes clear whose words these are; citing to their source is not enough. I have highlighted some instances of this, but it is rather a general fault.

Thank you. I was concerned about avoiding copyvios, hence the use of quotes. Many of these sections have been either rewriten or eliminated.

• • Lastly, having read through the whole article, and being clear that it presents the subject in a thematic rather than a chronological manner, I still think it needs a short introductory "History" section immediately after the lead, tracing the chronology of the choral symphony from Beethoven, through Berlioz, Mendelssohn, the Romantics, Mahler and the 20th century to the present day. These need not be in any great detail (perhaps 400 words?), but would provide a context for what follows, and would in my view improve readability.

A History section has been included.

You have obviously invested a great deal of time in this article. I saw it in its much earlier stages and can vouch for how much has been done. I feel it is really worth the effort of making these final adjustments, to get a first class article as a result.

Brianboulton (talk) 17:14, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Question: There has been very little mention of the Mahler Second and Third Symphonies so far. The following was included in a previous version of the article and, while rough and sketchy, could be amended to fit in the "Programmatic intent" section of the article between the works written for sopecia; occasions and recent examples of programmatic intent in choral symphonies. I am concerned, however, that doing so might unbalance the article unduly. In any case, here is the copy in question:

Mahler

Not only was there no schism or discrepancy between programmatic and symphonic concerns when it came to Mahler's Second Symphony, but it became a programmatic impetus that allowed him to complete it. It had begun as a huge single-movement tone poem, Totenfeier (Funeral Rite), remaining one of the composer's most imposing symphonic structures, unorthodox in tonal organization but unambiguously and even classically articulated. It also left him stuck with the challenge of how to follow such a movement. While there was a time lag between its composition and that of the finale, with its setting of Klopstock's "Resurrection Ode", there is no discontinuity. On the contrary, the final movement complements the opening one.

In Mahler's Third Symphony, the progress of movements make sense only in a programmatic context, in this case one of evolution. The original titles of the movements were as follows:

1. Introduction: Pan awakes—Summer marches in
2. What the flowers in the meadow tell me
3. What the animals in the forest tell me
4. What man tells me
5. What the angels tell me
6. What love tells me

Both the first and final movements are huge, flanking what are essentially intermezzi. According to musicologist Peter Franklin, these intermezzi, which follow the symphony's program, "accommodate historically successive forms of the minuet and trio and the Beethovenian scherzo" before arriving at a vocal movement followed by a choral one. The vocal movement, a setting of the "Mitternachtslied" from Friedrich Nietzsche's Also sprach Zarathustra, "proclaims the work's mid-1890's modernity" in a tone of "restrained solemnity.... The subsequent, celebratory setting of 'Es sungen drei Engel einen susses Gesang,' with children imitating bell sounds, provides an effective foil for the extended orchestral Adagio" which follows. With the finale, originally titled "What Love Tells Me", (and in this case he was talking about agape or godly love,) some might think Mahler took a hint from Berlioz about instruments sometimes being more eloquent than voices.

As for Mahler's Eighth Symphony, the dramatic and intellectual plan for that work would affect both its content and its overall musical structure—affirming Goethe's symbolic vision of the redemptive power of human love, eros, while linking it in "Veni, Creator Spiritus" to both the creative spirit who inspires the artist and God the Creator who endows the artist with creativity. As Mahler wrote to his wife Alma,

The essence ... is really Goethe's idea that all love is generate, creative, and that there is a physical and spiritual generation which is the emanation of this "Eros." You have it in the last scene of Faust, presented symbolically. The wonderful discussion between Diotima and Socrates ... gives the core of Plato's thought, his whole outlook on the world... The comparison between [Socrates] and Christ is obvious and has arisen spontaneously in all ages ... In each case Eros as Creator of the world.

Jonyungk (talk) 06:15, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Comments on the History section

• This gives a much better structure to the article.
• I have copyedited the section quite heavily, to remove some verbosity and repetition, and to clarify some statements.
• I was defeated by the following sentence: "Liszt wrote two choral symphonies along his own lines, combining purely musical elements that made up the overall form of the symphony with the extra-musical ability inherent in the symphonic poem to inspire listeners to imagine scenes, images, or moods." I don't know what "along his own lines" implies, and the whole sentence is otherwise impossibly convoluted. Greater clarity essential.

What about this: "Liszt wrote two choral symphonies, in both cases following the same compositional practices and programmatic goals he had established in the symphonic poem in the multi-movement form of the symphony"?

Otherwise, excellent work. Brianboulton (talk) 19:03, 6 July 2009 (UTC)