Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Symphony No. 8 (Sibelius)/archive1

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 by Ian Rose 10:01, 9 September 2013 (UTC) [1].

---

Symphony No. 8 (Sibelius)

Symphony No. 8 (Sibelius) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

• Featured article candidates/Symphony No. 8 (Sibelius)/archive1

Nominator(s): Brianboulton (talk) 20:32, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Sibelius's Eighth Symphony is one of the great artistic mysteries of the 20th century – the "great work" that never was. For years Sibelius tantalised the musical world with hints of the imminent appearance of this final masterpiece. Conductors were promised it, arrangements were made for its premiere – but it never appeared. In all probability he destroyed it, but maybe not all of it? Early fragments and sketches that seem to relate to this near-mythical work have turned up, been analysed, played and recorded. Some experts are convinced, and believe that somewhere in the piles of music manuscripts being pored over there even yet lurks the bones of another Sibelius symphony. Others are more sceptical; yet others dread the possibility. It's an interesting and at times painful story; I am grateful to all those who assisted with advice and suggestions at the recent peer review. Brianboulton (talk) 20:32, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Support I took part in the peer review and struggled to find anything to quibble at then. I have no quibbles now. This is a top-notch article, in first rate prose, with wide-ranging references, and covering this enigmatic subject fully. Brianboulton sets out Sibelius's shilly-shallying with unblinking clarity, and gives well-researched and convincing reasons for the composer's equivocation. I don't see how an encyclopedia article on this topic could be better done. – Tim riley (talk) 21:24, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Thank you, Tim, for your consistent interest in and help with musical articles, for your most generous words above, and for your support. Brianboulton (talk) 22:19, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Support - Eusebeus Some minor copy editing issues.

The Lede -

1. "according to later reports of his family" - shouldn't it be "by" or "from" his family?
2. "In 1924 his Seventh Symphony had been widely recognised as a landmark in the development of symphonic form" Reads as if the recognition is limited to the specific date. Suggest something like "His seventh symphony, premiered in 1924, had been widely ...."
3. Nitpicky bit here, but the follow-up fn for the above claim (Grove) does not really, as written, offer the needed substantiation. I think just a quick rewrite or quotation to show the Grove basis for the claim about contemporary recognition of the 7th.
4. "but as each scheduled date approached Sibelius retracted, ..." Is "retracted" the right word here...? He didn't retract the offer, it's more like he delayed or demurred.
5. "Similar promises, to the ..." perhaps consider: "Similar promises Sibelius made to .... " and eliminate the need to put what is important information into a parenthetical.
6. I find the last bit of the lede rather awkwardly written, starting with the "Only in the 1990s, during the cataloguing of numerous of Sibelius's manuscripts and sketches that had recently come to light," Here's a suggested rewrite: "It was only in the 1990s, while the composer's many notebooks were being catalogued, that scholars raised the possibility that some of the music for the 8th may have survived. Recent research has led to the tentative identification of several short manuscript sketches which are related to the Eighth, three of which (comprising less than three minutes of music) were recorded [you can play without recording, but you can't record without playing!] by the Helsinki Philharmonic Orchestra in 2011. While a few (or some?) musicologists have suggested it may be possible to reconstruct the 8th, others have suggested that this is unlikely given the ambiguity of the extant material. The propriety of publicly performing music that Sibelius himself had rejected has also been questioned.
7. Related to the end of the lede (reconstruction): according to the David Stearns piece he claims that "recent news from Finland’s Helsingin Sanomat (and its savvy music journalist Vesa Siren) tells of extensive sketches being discovered." This raises some ambiguity, since the article tells us that only 3 minutes of music were recorded. So perhaps clarify that while extensive sketches have been found (per Siren), only a tiny fraction of these were recorded. It is otherwise confusing, I think, for a reader to figure out how an entire symphony could be reconstructed from 3 minutes.... The issue can then be dealt with more extensively in the main article, perhaps under a dedicated heading.

Please feel free to reject any of these suggestions. If it is helpful, I can go through the rest later as I have time. Eusebeus (talk) 22:20, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for these comments. I have generally carried out your suggestions for minor prose fixes. On the suggested rewrite of the final lead paragraph, I agree that on the whole your version is tighter, and I have largely adopted your wording. One divergence is that I have reinstated the important phrase "subject to futher findings". These words are necessary to answer your point 7: readers might indeed wonder how a whole symphony could be reconstructed from three fragments. I think that the main text, in the Discoveries and Speculation nsections, makes it clear that there is other material under consideration, although the experts are divided about its relevance. Lastly, I agree that the Grove citation does not cover the contemporary status of the Seventh Symphony, and have altered the wording accordingly. I may return to this point when I get back to my Sibelius books (I am away from home at the moment). Brianboulton (talk) 22:19, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Changed to Support. Eusebeus (talk) 13:09, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Brianboulton (talk) 20:41, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Leaning to support Support

A typically solid looking effort here from Brian on an interesting subject I know little about. I'll put comments here as I read through.

• Lead looks very good. I have no issues here apart from with the image caption, which says "By then he had probably ceased all work on his Eighth Symphony, although he continued the fiction for many years that it was still a viable project." We say he had "probably" ceased all work on it, then say he "continued the fiction"; to me the latter piece of wording, while very good prose, appears to imply that he had definitely finished working on it, which we don't know. Perhaps we can reword slightly to "though he continued claiming for many years that it remained a viable project" or similar
• Background

• Did he name Ainola after his wife? We say he "settled in" Ainola; is Ainola the house or general area? If the house (or an estate), we should probably say he "settled at" Ainola (as we do in the next line)
• "Sibelius was often heavily in debt, and prone to bouts of heavy drinking" Perhaps we can remove the repetition of "heavily/heavy"
• Perhaps we can split the second paragraph at "By the mid-1920s"

• Composition

• "Beginnings" section generally looks good. I would rearrange slightly "to compose and imbibe the city's musical life" to "to imbibe the city's musical life and compose", but that's just personal preference
• "Sibelius had promised the world premiere" Do we know when he promised it?
• "Serge Koussevitzky and the Boston Symphony Orchestra" Perhaps we should clarify that this was one promise and not two, Koussevitzky being musical director of the Boston Symphony Orchestra for many years
• "Georg Schnéevoigt who had" I would put a comma in here after "Schnéevoigt"
• "Olin Downes, writing to Sibelius in 1937." You don't need a full stop here as this is not a sentence
• "through the 1930s" throughout the 1930s?
• "the Eighth Symphony would shortly be released" Perhaps "that the Eighth Symphony's release was imminent"

• Destruction looks good to me
• Also Discoveries
• Speculation I have only one quibble here: you don't need the parantheses on "(Vesa Sirén)" in the quote box
• Referencing looks good
• The images lacked alt text. I have taken the liberty of adding it myself, I hope you don't mind

All in all I believe this is a really first-class piece of work, very well constructed and presented, marvellously written and an all-round great read, even for somebody with very limited knowledge of the material. I have only a few points above I think could be looked at, but all in all I expect to be supporting in due course. Well done so far Brian, and if there's anything I can lend a hand with please let me know. —Cliftonian (talk) 07:19, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Thank you very much for these comments. The small fixes are all done. Ainola was indeed named after Aino, but I'm not sure that this is relevant information for this article. I don't know when Koussevitsky was first promised the symphony; as Sibelius was telling his sister in September 1928 that the work would be "sent to America", it may have been that early. No definite information, though I'll look again at my books when I get home. On alt text, I have always been sceptical of its value, and stopped adding it to my articles years ago, but I know that others feel differently, and I never object if others wish to include it. Brianboulton (talk) 22:19, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Supported for FA; well done Brian. —Cliftonian (talk) 08:03, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the support and help. Brianboulton (talk) 19:04, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

From Smerus I commented on this excellent article, which I am delighted to support for FA, in the Peer Review. Now I am back in London I have found a typically pungent passage by Richard Taruskin, which might be useful and relevant for context purposes, and which I set out here anyway for interest:

"[A]fter the last symphonic poem, in 1926 [there were] no more major works...The sphinx-like silence seemed like the outcome of an inexorable trajectory. Sibelius now loomed not merely as a Finnish national monument but as the very embodiment of the North - harsh, frosty, inscrutable, chastening. His authority, especially in the 1920s and '30s, was enormous. ....There was hardly a composer of symphonies during this time, especially in Britain and America, who was not profoundly - and often openly, even reverently - beholden to his example. The First Symphony (1931-5) by ... William Walton ... could easily have passed for Sibelius's Eighth." (Music in the Nineteenth Century, (2010), Oxford: Oxford University Press, ISBN 978019534833, pp. 822-3).

Best, --Smerus (talk) 08:31, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for the support. The quotation is splendid, and I am using it in place of the previous somewhat anodyne quote box in the final section. A worthy tailpiece to the article, I think. Brianboulton (talk) 22:19, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Glad you liked it - I have tarted up the box a bit with links and ref, hope that is OK.--Smerus (talk) 08:06, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Fine, yes, thanks Brianboulton (talk) 19:04, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

From Stfg

Support Nice article , and I'll be supporting. Just a few issues:

• "... and a later conflagration ..."; "conflagration" seems rather over the top; "... and a later one ..."?
• Just before that: "got rid of" is too colloquial; destroyed? disposed of?
• Discoveries, 1st sentence: "boring" is too colloquial; uninteresting?

Sentences of the form "John went to the shops and bought some milk" should never have a comma before the and. I think I've caught all instances. --Stfg (talk) 10:02, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for these comments, all fixed I think. Brianboulton (talk) 22:19, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

– and thanks for the support. Brianboulton (talk) 19:04, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Comments from Squeamish Ossifrage

Reference formatting for now, I think. I'll try to look at the rest later, time permitting:

• Although it offers a list of references, I am not clear why Sirén et al. is a reliable source. Also, the way the website is identified in the citations (as "Sibelius" website) seems odd to me. My concerns over this site are critical because you lean on it very heavily.

• If you look at the details of the contributors, here, you will see that they are among the leading present-day Sibelius scholars. They also provide a very comprehensive list of their sources. There can be no doubts about the reliability of the material; had they chosen to publish it in print, there would clearly be no question about it. As to how the website is identified, I'm not sure I can do much about that, other than to call it "sibelius.fi", its formal name in the web address. Brianboulton (talk) 23:28, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

• Citation 16 is a source originally published in the Finish Music Quarterly, and it would be ideal if we had the full journal citation for that appearance (volume/issue/pages, as appropriate).

• I can't provide volume or pages information. The date information that I initially gave (April 1995) was wrong; the article comes from the fourth quarterly issue for 1995. I have amended accordingly. Personally I think there is enough information to identify the print source, but it would also be possible to alter the citation to the FIMIC website, as the online host for the article. Brianboulton (talk) 23:28, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

• Citation 18 has an issue number, so looks like a citation to print that is archived online; are page numbers available?

• Similar to the above - page numbers not provided, although the print source is clearly identified. Brianboulton (talk) 23:28, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

• Citation 21: I believe a period is required after eds.

• Hmm, this might be a question of BritEng versus AmEng, but I was taught not to put a period at the end of an abbreviation when the last letter of the abbreviation is the same as that for the full word. Thus "ed." is the correct abbreviation for "editor", but "editors" becomes "eds" not "eds." For the same reason I would shorten Saint to "St" not "St." However, I think that provided that one is consistent, either form should be acceptable. Brianboulton (talk) 23:28, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

• Citation 25 is a traditional journal and decidedly needs page numbers.

• I've no idea how these were left off. I have added them now. Brianboulton (talk) 23:28, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

• The pdf in citation 38 isn't loading for me, but that may be my problem, so I'm not able to determine what it is or evaluate its reliability. The citation formatting is odd. Editions elsewhere are set off in parentheses, for example.

• The parenthetical "editions" refer to the international editions of newspapers. In this case the "Sibelius edition" is a series of recordings issued by BIS. This essay is likely to be part of the material issued with that edition. The writer is a leading Sibelius scholar. Brianboulton (talk) 23:28, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

• I suppose that Stearns has sufficient influence in the field to make citation 40 a reliable source.

• Stearns is music critic for the Philadelphia Inquirer, an Arts reporter for the radio station WRTI-FM, a contributor to Gramophone, Opera News, The Guardian etc. I don't think his reliability status is in doubt. Brianboulton (talk) 23:28, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

• There are missing close parentheses in both Tawaststjerna source entries.

• Thanks. In fact, only the second Tawaststjerna book is a cited source, so I have removed the mother from the list. Brianboulton (talk) 23:28, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

I'll see about looking at prose when I have the chance. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 21:50, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for the review. Brianboulton (talk) 23:28, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Support just a few comments (sorry I missed the peer review)

Lede

• "While a few musicologists have speculated that subject to further findings it may be possible to reconstruct the entire work" I'm pretty sure I know what is meant, but the "subject to further findings" is placed and reads oddly.

• I have reworded to: "if further fragments can be identified" Brianboulton (talk) 19:00, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Background

• "large output of orchestral works, chamber music, piano pieces and songs, as well as lighter music." Songs can be fairly light. Perhaps shift to end of sentence, "large output of orchestral works, chamber music and piano pieces as well as lighter music and songs."

• Well, if you consider Richard Strauss's Four Last Songs, or Mahler's Kindertotenlieder, or the entire output of Hugo Wolf, you realise that songs are often anything but light. I'd prefer to let the phrasing stand. Brianboulton (talk) 19:00, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

• When you mention "his country" in the 1920s, I would toss in a "by then independent" at a suitable position, since you made a point of the duchy before

Limbo

• I like the quote box statement on the 9th Symphony. I like less reading it, and then having it described to me in the main text. I'm not sure both are necessary and I think the quote box works better.

Destruction

• "numerous stages during his life" Perhaps "of his life"?
• Consider moving the McKenna quote box down a paragraph, to be by the content it relates to
• "This was essentially a tidying operation" I would make it clearer that "this" refers to the preparation of the material, rather than the performance thereof.

Speculation

• " is accepted beyond reasonable doubt " Interesting application of the legal standard, but perhaps "is fully accepted" is tidier.
• Are the location, publisher, and ISBN really needed in the Taruskin quote box?

• Someone has tidied this up for me. Brianboulton (talk) 19:00, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

That's all I have. Well done.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:25, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

• Thanks for the comments and support. Except as commented I have followed your suggestions. Brianboulton (talk) 19:00, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Comments from PumpkinSky

Image check...all fine.

Accessdate format for web refs are not consistently used. Some web refs have them, some don't. All should have them. Otherwise, excellent work. PumpkinSky talk 02:21, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

• Thanks for the image check. As for access dates, the principle I have applied is the same as that in all my featured articles (except maybe a few very early ones when I was less cognisant), namely, that if the material originally appeared in identifiable print form, then the access date is unnecessary. This is not just my practice, it is widely observed. If you think this principle has been applied inconsistently in this article, can you please indicate where? Brianboulton (talk) 20:54, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

• Support now I know myself and many others follow the rule that books retrieved online don't need accessdates. I'd not see it explicitly stated that anything originally in print form didn't need one, but I had often wondered about it and it makes sense. So I support now. PumpkinSky talk 01:02, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

I think on this issue, consistency is the thing, one way or the other. Thanks for the support. Brianboulton (talk) 20:41, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

• Support -- Well balanced, well referenced and immaculately written. A wonderful article. -- Cassianto^Talk 17:11, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Support. I was one of the travellers at PR and had my say there: this excellent article has improved further since then and I'm very happy to support it. - SchroCat (talk) 20:00, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 05:30, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.