Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Symphony No. 3 (Górecki)

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted 18:13, 25 August 2007.

---

Symphony No. 3 (Górecki)

Henryk Górecki's 3rd; maybe not his strongest work, but it's his second strongest, and it was the highest selling piece of contemporary classical music during the 100 years of the last century. Co-nom with Chubbles, and many thanks to Outriggr. Ceoil 23:50, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

• Comment - I believe the lead is supposed to be a succinct summary of the article in general. Instead you have a large chuck devoted to record sales which is not even addressed in the article. I recommend that you summarize your article in the lead, as it looks very interesting. Mattisse 00:51, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Lead is now less specific and reception more specific. Chubbles 01:16, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

• Comment - As I said on WP:CM, the "Instrumentation and score" is quite cluttered and dense. Information such as length, titles of movement and the list of instruments should be clear and instantly readable. Centy – – 10:00, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

I had resisted this at first as I thought it would lead to short stubby sub-sections. But your right, it is quite dense. Will see what I can do. Thanks for the advice, here and on WP:CM. Ceoil 16:42, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Done; the section is formated in a similar manner to Violin Concerto (Mendelssohn) as you suggested. Ceoil 23:38, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

• Support - Perhaps the only issue I can find is that the name is inconsistent throughout (Third Symphony; Symphony No. 3; Symphony No. 3 etc.). ALTON .ıl 02:12, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, the name is now consistent throughout the page. Ceoil 23:38, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Comments: The article is interesting, particularly when Górecki speaks for himself about the texts he used and in the detailed descriptions of each movement. Congratulations to the editors for bringing a musical subject to this standard. I would like to support, but I feel that the article could still be considerably improved.

• My main impression is that so far some opportunities are being missed. We are told little about Górecki himself or the context of his work. For example, we are told that the work was transitional, but there is no substantial description of the types of work that went before or afterwards. If this is his third symphony, we should at least be told something about his others. And we need more about this "Polish post-war Renaissance", which I didn't know about (the linked article doesn't use the word Renaissance, I note, and the term is not self-explanatory: is it standard?). Also, we need a little more about the effect of Communism on Górecki. If his early music was dissonant, did that cause problems for him with the authorities?

 Done added a general section about Górecki and the Polish scene of the 1950's-60's. May need some rearranging, though. Chubbles 23:05, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Excellent. That's a very concise account of the context and the way it developed. By the way, no need for horrid green ticks. I promise to check everything carefully.qp10qp 12:18, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

• No larger context for the symphony's success is given, apart from a suggestion that it was a CD phenomenon. It is not touched upon, for example, that the record's success was part of a vogue for pared-down, repetitive, trance-like "spiritual" modern-classical music that also led to high sales for other Soviet-bloc composers such as Arvo Pärt and Giya Kancheli. In Britain, John Tavener also started selling well with a similar sound. I would therefore have liked to read more about this phenomenon: what were its origins? The repetitive, simple music of composers like Steve Reich and Philip Glass, though different, had already broken the hold of serialism on classical music, but they didn't restore the "spiritual" element of the old classics, so perhaps there was a gap in the market. Or perhaps the public were yearning for contemporary classical music that was not inherently difficult. I was disappointed the article didn't look into these angles: it's as if the symphony just came out of the blue and was a freak success; but it was part of a moment in time. In Britain, for example, Classic FM was launched in 1992 and broadcast the first classical charts in Britain, which were massively influential on sales and brought classical music to a huge new audience who never dreamed of going to a concert.

Certainly this has been addressed as far as the musical style is concerned. A shame that the reasons behind the commercial phenomenon have not been entered into.qp10qp 17:08, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

• In places, I felt that the article used technical terms without explaining them. I've smoothed out a few; but it's policy to explain techical terms in situ, rather than depending on the links. (I admit that doing this elegantly is one of the trickiest challenges in writing a Wikipedia article.) Words like "serial" should be explained; also "minimalism", "Aeolian mode", "modal fifth". I've looked into "neo-modal", which I didn't know, and I don't believe that ugly expression means much that couldn't be explained in everyday language. A sentence or two to explain what modes are in general is needed somewhere, I think. Otherwise, references such as the following are impenetrable: The musicologist Adrian Thomas notes that the symphony lacks dissonance outside of modal inflections....

Partially addressed, I think.qp10qp 17:08, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

• The symphony is written for solo soprano, four flutes—two of them doubling on piccolo... I find this a bit odd. It's the players that are doubling, not the flutes, surely. I didn't change it because I'm not sure what is meant. Piccolo players aren't always the same people as flute players: so did the score actually say anything about who was supposed to play the piccolos?

Addressed this myself.qp10qp 17:08, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

• spaced by one extra measure (every 25 bars). I couldn't grasp this. What is meant? And what is the difference between a measure and a bar here?

Hm. It means that a statement of the 24-bar melody is made, then it repeats, and the second entry comes in on the second bar of the repeat - thus a new entry every 25 bars. Bar = measure. I tried to reword this to be a bit more clearer, though it's still clunky. Hard to explain in words, but very important to the overall structure...Should we add a graphic or something? Chubbles 23:12, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

I think this is fine now, because you are not using "bar" and "measure" in the same sentence, and you now give a clear description that even I can understand.qp10qp 12:34, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

• Strings dominate the musical textures and the dynamics reach fortissimo in only a few measures. I changed this to "places", because I didn't feel "measures" helped the general readers. Is fortissimo indicated on the score? If so, I think that should be stated and the term translated, rather than use words like "dynamics" and "reached". (I do understand how difficult it is to describe musical effects, though.)

Addressed myself. I do think an encyclopedia needs to explain as it goes along. The following is a good example of how to do it, I feel: The work consists of three elegiac movements, each marked Lento to indicate their slow tempi. This gives the reader an idea of what lento and elegaiac might mean.qp10qp 17:08, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

• I feel it would be better to head the three movements in this form: First movement: Lento—Sostenuto tranquillo ma cantabile. Or perhaps put the tempi in a subheading. I am not sure about the decision to indicate times for each movement. Each performance would be of a different length, according to the conductor.

Happy with the solution here.qp10qp 17:08, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

• incarcerated. This link confused me, because it goes to The Holocaust. So are we supposed to deduce that this girl was Jewish and that she perished in the holocaust? But she wrote this message on the wall: "Oh Mamma do not cry—Immaculate Queen of Heaven support me always". Later the article says: The second movement is written for soprano, clarinets, horns, piano, and strings, and contains a libretto formed from the prayer to the Virgin Mary inscribed by Blazusiakówna on the cell wall in Zakopane. So she must be Christian, praying to "mamma" Mary. But Górecki is quoted as saying: "...she only thinks about her mother: because it is her mother who will experience true despair". On that basis, the "Immaculate Queen of Heaven" is the girl's mother, not the Virgin Mary. Some order needs to be imposed on all these conflicting possibilities, I feel.

This has not been addressed and is now the only serious fault in the article, in my opinion. It would not pass in a historical article.qp10qp 17:08, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

I went ahead and delinked incarcerated. Is there a term in general use that refers to the non-Jewish incarcerated by the Nazis? Chubbles 17:18, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

• Some critics have seen the symphony as a memorial to victims of the Nazis in Poland and during the Holocaust, particularly in light of Górecki's choice of texts. Why do critics think it is a memorial to victims of the holocaust? And do they mean just the Polish holocaust? The critics' views could perhaps be quoted here to make this clear, because it is not obvious to me from the description of the texts that they refer to the holocaust specifically.

The fact that one of them was taken from a Gestapo prison wall was a major factor in peoples' interpreting it in that way, coupled with the overwhelmingly sorrowful mood of the piece. If there's a way we should reword that to make that more clear, I'm all for it. Chubbles 23:05, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

We have to be careful. Because there's a feeling in Poland that emphasis on the holocaust, however essential, may obscure the fact that a vast number of non-Jews died or were imprisoned in Poland too. And Gorecki may share that view, which might be why he resists the holocaust interpretation. He may be lamenting the war dead, Jew and non-Jew alike. I don't think the fact that this was inscribed on a Gestapo cell necessarily connects this to the holocaust. The Gestapo were responsible for largescale arrests and interrogations of the civilian population as part of the Nazi administration of Poland, a major undertaking. However, this could all be fixed by a direct quote or two from critics. Shall I ask a Polish editor to comment?qp10qp 12:34, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Actually, that couldn't hurt. I'm a little out of my league here... Chubbles 17:18, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

• The movement opens with a folk drone A–E and a melodic fragment E–G#–F#, which are alternated with sudden plunges to a low Bb–Db dyad. This becomes technical and in so doing also loses its will to punctuate. And if "b" means "♭", shouldn't the right symbol be used (but I'm not sure if the editors are notating differently for modes, or something, so ignore that if I am wrong—it's still confusing, though).

Good to see the correct symbols used. I've punctuated this myself.qp10qp 17:08, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

• I think Cquotes look unprofessional and blockquotes look elegant, but this is a matter of taste, I suppose.

Much better, I think.qp10qp 17:08, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

• The melody is established in the opening verse, while the second and third are formed in duple metre.... Another unexplained technical term here. And I sense that "formed" isn't quite the right word (written, composed?). The reversal of subject position in these two clauses is also awkward.

• as the soprano begins to phrase. Does this just mean "begins to sing", or has she been singing wordlessly?

Fine.qp10qp 17:08, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

• subtle changes in dynamism and mode make it a deceptively complex and involving piece. Why "deceptively"? I'm not quite sure what is meant here.

Changed this. Please check that I understood what was intended.qp10qp 17:08, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Your rephrasing better conveys the intended meaning. Ceoil 12:10, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

• Lastly, a microdetail: it would be good if all the sources had publisher locations, for consistency.

That's me done. Many thanks to the editors for all their efforts.

qp10qp 18:31, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Lots to work with here. Yes, I would like to go into the wider issue of how minimilasm crossed over in the early nineties, and yes the symphony is of course heavily linked with the so called Holy Minimalists; at least in popular and commercial terms; both Górecki and Pärt are famously reclusive, while Tavener is famously not, and I doubt any was influenced by one of the others.

I dislike the phrase as much as the next person, but there was a tipping point, and it could as easily have been Tavener´s ´´Innocent´´, or Pärt´s ´´Ikos´´; though I would struggle to make any link with either Reich or Glass; the appeal is just too different, and both Glass and Reich are cooly modern, while this is a pointed return to more elemental modes, and perhaps its popularity was a general reaction against that movement. A comparison could be made between Sarah Lucas and Odd Nerdrum, though in visual art popular taste went in the opposite direction. But I take your point, it´s worth discussing. I left this wider aspect out wondering if was off topic, and wheather it was more suited to the main Holy Minimalist page; but I would be happy to expand on the topic.

The transitional aspect of the work I can easily clarify; the "Polish post-war Renaissance" too; I might need Chubbles help on some of the more technical points you have raised. Will let you know when we are done. Ceoil 19:47, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

You know, one thing I've been thinking over is, many of Qp10qp's concerns would be addressed if we had an article on holy minimalism. (Do we perhaps already have one under a different name?) We could then use that article as a point of reference for a larger context on the Part/Tavener/Kancheli end of things. It will be very difficult for me to work on that after this week, since I am graduating and moving to another part of the country. Chubbles 20:47, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Support: I am now happy that this article is of featured standard, despite my remaining reservation about the holocaust aspect, which I hope the editors will look into. Congratulations to them for their work on the piece.qp10qp 17:08, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Support. I think overall it strikes just the right balance between not being too technical but not dumbing down for a general audience. The only thing that confused me was the line "British industrial music group Test Dept used Symphony No. 3 as a backdrop for video collages during concerts, reinterpreting the symphony as a vehicle for promoting the band's sympathy with the Polish Solidarity movement[24] (which Górecki also opposed; his 1981 piece Miserere was composed, in part, as a response to government opposition of Solidarity trade unions).[25]" Did Górecki support or oppose Solidarność? Probably just one little word that needs to be changed. Other than that, I wholeheartedly support this article being a featured article. Anton Mravcek 21:46, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Fixed Chubbles 23:00, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

• Strong support. Oh, this is one of the very best music articles I've ever read on WP. It's well-written and contains the right balance of musical and stylistic analysis, historical/cultural/political context, and other associated information. Congratulations to the contributors! Just a few silly points: MOS says to space ellipsis dots; I think we're not supposed to link within direct quotations (I delinked it for you); avoid the "of" in the colloquial "outside of". The title at the start of "critical reception" is in roman, not italics; is that intentional? Tony 05:53, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

"well-written": Iots of help: Outriggr and Qp10qp. Ceoil 13:10, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

• Support. I believe this article achieves all aspects of FA criteria, good work. ♫ Cricket02 12:37, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.