Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Peer review/Tchaikovsky and the Five/archive2

< Wikipedia:Peer review

Tchaikovsky and the Five

Previous peer review
Toolbox
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
This is an article on a known and important but little-discussed (in the West) area of Russian classical music, one that helped shape Pyotr Ilyich Tchaikovsky and determine his course as a creative personality. Since the last peer review this article received, it has been improved considerably, thanks in no small part from the input received. However, it still needs work and input before it is ready to be submitted to FAC. Therefore, I am submitting this article for a second peer review in hope and expectation to make it FAC-ready in the near future and would greatly appreciate help from readers and commentators to reach this goal.

Thanks, Jonyungk (talk) 18:53, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Quick point: I am reading this, and will have more points later. One initial thing: the caption to the lead image should surely read "anti-clockwise", not clockwise? Brianboulton (talk) 21:26, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

  • Thanks for pointing this out. The caption has been corrected. Jonyungk (talk) 00:52, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Ricardiana

  Done Ricardiana (talk) 02:30, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lead

  • Overall, the lead reads much better than before - it was not bad before, but assumed a more knowledgeable readership. I think this version is much easier for the average reader to follow.
    • Thank you. This was exactly my intention in drafting the new lead, so I'm glad it succeeds in this respect. Jonyungk (talk) 06:11, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • endemically - ...except for this word! -which I had to look up. Can you rephrase or wiktionary link?
  • "Tchaikovsky wanted to write compositions in a style that would transcend national barriers while remaining endemically Russian, and of a professional quality that would stand up to Western scrutiny." -- this reads a little awkwardly to me. Could you put the end at the beginning, so that the references to the West are together rather than sandwiching Russia, something like "Tchaikovsky wanted to write professional compositions in a style that would stand up to Western scrutiny, transcend national barriers, and yet remain uniquely Russian" ?
  • "lead composer Mili Balakirev considered academicism a threat rather than a help to musical imagination" - this seems redundant - could you just say "a threat to the musical imagination" (if it is a threat, it cannot be a help)

Early years

  • "After the first opera was presented in Russia in 1731" - this makes it sound like there is a "first" opera - do you mean "after the first presentation / performance of an opera"? Also, the semi-colon later in the sentence should be a comma (tho' 19th c. texts certainly did use semi-colons this way)
    • Yes, I meant the first presentation of an opera in Russia. I've made this clarification in the text. Jonyungk (talk) 06:11, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

More comments ...

  • "As the minimum age for acceptance was 12, Tchaikovsky was required to spend two years boarding at the Imperial School of Jurisprudence's preparatory school in St. Petersburg" - was this required, or could Tchaikovsky have spent those two years at home? I'm not doubting your source, I've just never heard of a school that requires you go to another specific school first.
    • That's a good question. Brown, Holden and Warrack all mention this fact but do not go into detail on whether this was actually a requirement. I'll have to look into it. Jonyungk (talk) 03:34, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Music was not considered a high priority at the School" - this seems wordy and could just be "music was not a priority at the School" - unless by considered you mean "considered by current critics".
  • "From 1855 the composer's father, Ilya Tchaikovsky, funded private lessons" - you refer to T in the next sentence as a "potential composer", so the switch in time frames threw me momentarily. But maybe that's too picky a concern.
  • "Its objectives were "The development of musical education and the taste for music in Russia and the encouragement of native talent." " -- I assume that this is from the source cited in the next footnote, but I think it would be better to add a footnote after the direct quotation as well.
  • "Difference in Russianness" - the beginning of this section confuses me a little, only because I don't know what is being referred to. I mean, I am not sure what essential Russianness is or what Europeanness would be. These concepts become clearer by the end of the paragraph, but I think iit would be helpful to add some more explanation earlier - perhaps a non-musical example of each (such as these salon and ballroom habits) would help to explain what these concepts mean more broadly before the rest of the article goes into detail about what they meant musically.
    • I've addressed this to a small degree but am concerned into going into too much detail due to concerns about the article's current length. Please let me know whether this is enough detail or if more is needed. Thanks. Jonyungk (talk) 13:01, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

With the "Five"

  • The first paragraph of this section seems too short. Could you perhaps remind readers of what you are introducing and why Balakirev ties in? Perhaps the beginning of the next section could be moved to the end of this, to that end.
    • I'm not sure that would solve the problem. Reading the section over, I think the problem is not so much of length but one of relevance—namely, how does the information tie in to Tchaikovsky and the Five? My impression is that it does so only marginally, and I'm not sure exactly what information to put in other than what you have indicated about Balakirev. I'm open to suggestions. Jonyungk (talk) 14:25, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think I've solved this problem, but please let me know if more should be done. Jonyungk (talk) 22:33, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good to me. Ricardiana (talk) 02:32, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In context, Tchaikovsky discusses" - I'm not sure what you mean by "in context" here.
    • I've looked and cannot find the passage in question. Copuld you please direect me to it? Thanks. Jonyungk (talk) 22:33, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Third para. of "Rimsky-Korsakov" section. Ricardiana (talk) 02:32, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. This sentence has been rephrased. Jonyungk (talk) 05:19, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "To Modest, he wrote, "[T]he whole company ...." - the sentence a few sentences up also starts with "To Modest," and since the phrase is a little confusing (I keep reading it against my will as "too modest"), I would change one or the other to avoid the repetition.
  • "Tchaikovsky's analysis of each of The Five is unsparing. " - I'm not sure why you switched to present tense in this paragraph. I think present tense is proper when referring to literary fiction, but not non-fiction.
  • "He went into some detail about Rimsky's epiphany" - should this be Rimsky-Korsakov?

The Belyayev circle

  • "Before this visit he had spent much time keeping in touch with Rimsky-Korsakov and those around him,[92] a group called the Belyayev circle after their patron, timber merchant and amateur musician Mitrofan Belyayev; and during this visit he spent much time in their company." --there are several clauses within clauses in this sentence, which can be hard to keep track of. Could you break it up?

More later... hope this is helpful. Ricardiana (talk) 03:36, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

cont.

Legacy

  • didn't see any problems here

References

  • this is a small point - some of the references have periods at the end and some don't
  • another - n. 65 has the italics flipped
  • another - bib. entries sometimes give ISBN, sometimes say ISBN n/a, and sometimes say nothing. I think it would be better to put one or the other statement after all entries.

That finishes me -- I'm sorry it took me so long. I hope my comments were helpful. Let me know when you take this to FAC. Best, Ricardiana (talk) 02:32, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Comments from Brianboulton edit

I was going to wait for Ricardiana, but it may help if you have my remarks on the early sections, with more to follow later.

One general point: the article is pretty long, at 9,000+ words. Absorbing though it is, and very well researched and prepared, I'm not sure it needs to be that long. In some of my comments below I have indicated where I think points could be expressed more concisely, but I believe it would benefit from an overall streamlining. I always do this with my own articles, and always manage to lose around 10 to 15 percent of the words without any loss of significant content.

A good suggestion, for which I am thankful. Since this peer review began, I have removed between 20 and 25 percent from this article, mostly in the latter half. Does the article feel like it needs to be trimmed further? If so, please let me know and offer suggestions. Thanks. Jonyungk (talk) 23:09, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lead
    • Wordiness: "...Tchaikovsky was schooled at the Imperial School of Jurisprudence in St. Petersburg, the political and cultural capital of Russia at the time, and was engaged in a career as a civil servant in that city when he decided to study music professionally." Can be reduced to "...Tchaikovsky decided to study music professionally only after three years' employment as a civil servant" (15 words instead of 43)
    • "...to compose in the same manner as Joseph Haydn,..." → "...to compose in the manner of Joseph Haydn,..."
    • "19th century Western European composers of conservative leanings." This seems a rather ill-defined category. Also, with its political connotation, "conservative" may not be the best word, perhaps "traditional" would be better? But I think the phrase needs explanation.
      • I meant conservative in musical practice, as opposed to the progressive musical practices of Wagner, Liszt, Chopin and Schumann. Jonyungk (talk) 23:37, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • How can something "transcend national boundaries" and remain uniquely associated with one nation?
      • If the music is of a quality and meets a standard of compositional excellence that could be measured universally yet have melodic or other characteristics that are unique to one nation. Jonyungk (talk) 23:37, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Unnecessary link on "composers"
    • Describing Balakirev as the "lead composer" makes the Five sound rather like a pop group (The Dave Clark Five?). Could he be described otherwise?
    • ...a specifically Russian kind of art music". Why "art music" rather than just "music"?
      • "Art music" as opposed to "folk music" or "popular music". Jonyungk (talk) 23:37, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm not sure about the "unique" properties of Russian folk music. All national folk music has particular identifying characteristics; is there something else about Russian folk music that distinguishes it from all others?
      • Brown, Figes and Maes all discuss that there are stylistic and compositioanl qualities of Russian music that hold true only for it. Jonyungk (talk) 23:37, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • "He took pains to ensure his musical independence from them as well as from the conservative faction at the Conservatory—a course of action facilitated by his acceptance of a professorship at the Moscow Conservatory." Tchaikovsky's musical independence, which is what was facilitated, can't be described as a "course of action". I suggest the phrase is replaced with "outcome".
    • Why do Glazunov and Lyadov turn up in the final sentence - what's the connection? And why the teaser "at least on the surface" in relation to Rimsky?
      • Glazunov and Lyadov were part of the Belyayev circle, a St.-Petersburg-based compositional group that took up in the 1880's where the Five left off. The circle was headed by they and Rimsky-Korsakov. Jonyungk (talk) 23:37, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Early years (intro): "...the greater number of concerts took place in the homes of the aristocracy and was likewise dominated by foreigners." No doubt this is grammatically correct, but it reads awkwardly. I'd try "...most concerts took place in the homes of the aristocracy and were likewise dominated by foreigners"
  • Tchaikovsky: This subsection ends prematurely. It needs to have added most of what is at present the last paragraph of the "Rubinstein and the St Petersburg Conservatory" subsection.
  • The Five
    • First sentence: this is first mention of Glinka since the lead, so I think his full name should be given.
      • Glinka is actually first mentioned in the brief lead-in before the Tchaikovsky section. Jonyungk (talk) 23:37, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Same sentence - in Spain? Unless his being in Spain is relevant I suggest you omit this. Otherwise people (like me) will wonder: What was he doing in Spain?
    • Same sentence: Suggest omit "two men" and run on: "Around Christmas 1855, Glinka was visited by Alexander Ulïbïshev, a rich Russian amateur critic,..." etc
    • "young composers through which..." Shouldn't that be a "whom"?
    • "All the composers in The Five..." They hadn't been dubbed "The Five" at this stage, so I would call them "the group"
    • Describing Borodin as "the old man at 28" is not really encyclopedic language. Perhaps "the oldest"? But - do we need to know all their ages? Maybe it would be enough to say: "All the composers in the group were young men in 1862, with Rimsky-Korsakov at just 18 the youngest and Borodin the oldest at 28."
    • This paragraph needs a bit of repunctuating to improve the flow; at present it has a staccato feel with some very short sentences, e.g. "They were all self-trained amateurs." and "Borodin combined composing with a career in chemistry."
      • I've remoed the second half of this paragraph and merged it with the following one. Jonyungk (talk) 23:54, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • "All five of its composers was essentially self-taught" This point already made in the previous paragraph ("self-trained amateurs").
      • I removed the first of these references. Jonyungk (talk) 23:37, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • "The fourth was the use of, and incorporation of compositional devices linked with, folk music." Surely these two things are the same? We can avaoid the awkward commas by simply saying: "The fourth was the incorporation of compositional devices linked with folk music."
  • Rubinstein etc
    • "He also came to realize the essentiality of serious professional musical training..." The word "serious" is probably superfluous. The wording is anyway rather stiff. "He had come to realize that professional musical training was essential, and that higher..." etc
    • "on his return" not necessary
      • Removed.
    • "Musical life had flourished everywhere in those places;" - "had" and "everywhere" are redundant, thus "Musical life flourished in those places;"
  • St Petersburg firestorm
    • Is "firestorm" your own metaphor? I suspect it is, as the word doesn't appear in the text. It is a rather loaded word, definitely not neutral, so unless it can be cited to a quote I think it should be replaced with a less florid term. Sorry about that.
      • Since I merged this section into the previous one, the heading (and the term) is gone. Jonyungk (talk) 23:54, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Rubinstein had barely founded the Conservatory when a sharp difference of opinion broke out between musical progressives and conservatives—or, to label these groups more accurately, radicals and traditionalists" could easily be "Rubinstein had barely founded the Conservatory when a sharp difference of opinion broke out between musical radicals and traditionalists." Why use the less accurate labels at all?
    • I'm not sure that "mentor" is the best term here - I think "inspiration" is the meaning intended.
    • The radicals have broken into two factions, and now we have "Each of these three factions..." I suppose the third is the traditionalists, but this is not clear, since the traditionalists are not really a "faction". I'd choose another word, and add an explanatory phase: "Each of these groupings—two radical and one traditionalist—championed a different aesthetic ideal..." etc
    • "...the essence and function and music." Typo? ("of music"?)
    • "According to musicologist Francis Maes, one thing that should be stressed, given the negative connotation of the term conservative, is that Rubinstein could not be accused of any lack of artistic integrity." This is rather cumbersome, and I don't follow the internal logic of the sentence, unless there is an general assumption that musical conservatives must lack artisitic integrity. Could this be simplified to "According to musicologist Francis Maes, Rubinstein could not be accused of any lack of artistic integrity."
    • Reading on in this section, I found myself wondering whether this level of detail (Balakirev and Rubinstein attacking one another, Serov attacking both of them, Balakirev savaging Serov's opera, anti-semitism etc) is really necessary in this article about Tchaikovsky and the Five. I can see that you want to establish that Rubinstein was an early target for the Five, and that Tchaikovsky's association with the Conservatory and therefore with Rubinstein brought him into the line of their fire. But I'm not convinced that we need this much detail, and am inclined to think that the essentials could be incorporated into the previous subsection.
  • Differences in Russianness: Stravinsky quote
    • Enclosing the quotation in a box rather cuts it off from the prose flow. Is there any reson why it shouldn't be a simple blockquote?
    • As to the quotation itself – what on earth is he going on about? It's about as crystal clear as much of his music, and as tortuously expressed. And did he actually say "popular Russian melos"? Sorry, but I simply can't work out his point.
      • Yes, he actually said that. Rest assured, though—I've removed the quote. Jonyungk (talk) 00:03, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's quite a bit to be going on with, so I'll post the rest later. Brianboulton (talk) 19:44, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Continuing edit

  • Balakirev; Initial correspondence
    • "Tchaikovsky included a note to Balakirev concluding with a request..." phrasing doesn't read smoothly, suggest "that ended with a request" etc
      • Thanks for the suggestion, which I have used. Jonyungk (talk) 02:01, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Ironically,..." Is this the source's word or your intrepretation?
      • My interpretation but I have since removed the word. Jonyungk (talk) 02:01, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Writing Romeo
    • Perhaps the title should give the full name of the work?
    • Is the first sentence covered by the source, or is it editorial comment? The phrasing "As Tchaikovsky would soon find out" doesn't seem encyclopedic. If covered by the source it could begin: "Tchaikovsky soon discovered that Balakirev could be strong-willed..." etc
    • Later in the same paragraph, the word "Still" at the start of a sentence has they same informal effect. I would start the sentence "While Tchaikovsky..." etc
    • Would you consider condensing the content of the second part of the paragraph? We don't really need two long quotations from Tchaikovsky's letters to Anatoly, and the first rather disrupts the logic of the paragraph. Why not reduce to: "Tchaikovsky had initially written of Balakirev to his brother Anatoly: '...I just cannot get into full sympathy with him. I don't like the exclusiveness of his musical views, or his sharp tone.'[51] Later, however, Tchaikovsky told Anatoly that Balakirev was '...a very honorable and good man, and immeasurably above the average as an artist.'"[51]
    • Second para, second sentence; the second "he" needs to specify Balakirev
    • "...he used his extraordinary catalytic power..." Whose wording (I note the sentence is uncited)? The sentence has a distinctly non-neutral feel and needs to be specifically referenced if it is to be retained.
      • I've removed the sentence in question. Jonyungk (talk) 02:01, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • The phrase "at Balakirev's suggestion" should be relocated at the start of its sentence.
    • "It was Tchaikovsky's idea to reduce the plot of Romeo to one central conflict and combine it with the binary structure of sonata form." Does "it" refer to the plot or the conflict? I'm also a bit puzzled by "combine". Does the sentence mean: "Tchaikovsky intended to reduce Romeo to one central conflict and represent it musically with the binary structure of sonata form."? (the last sentence would require a small adjustment to follow on)
      • Yes, that is what I meant. I've changed the wording per your suggestion. Jonyungk (talk) 02:01, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Learning from failure
    • Another of those section titles which is vaguely POV/interpretative.
      • I've removed the heading and allowed this sectin to merge with the previous one. Jonyungk (talk) 02:01, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • New section, so we need to know the first version of what.
    • The prose between "Stung by this rejection" and "dramatic catastrophe" is strongly written but has a single citation. Can you confirm that all this content is citable to p. 74 of Maes? If any of the terminology comes from Maes I think it should be in quotes.
      • It is citable but the phrasing is mine. Suggestions? Jonyungk (talk) 02:01, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • If it is all supported by Maes p. 74, no problem - it's a fine bit of prose. Brianboulton (talk) 19:37, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rimsky-Korsakov
    • First sentence: "Not too long..." I think "too" is redundant. Also, whose summary is "a doubly-ironic twist of fate"?
      • The sentence in question has been removed. Jonyungk (talk) 02:01, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • "When Rimsky-Korsakov underwent a change in attitude on music education and began his own intensive studies privately..." When did this change happen? Was it as a result of his being offered the professorship, or did it happen after he assumed this post?
      • It was, I suspect, the result of his being offered the professorship, though Rimsky-Korsakov may have already been aware of his musical shortcomings by this time. Jonyungk (talk) 02:01, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Pronoun problems: I've noted this problem on occasion before, but there is considerable confusion with: "Rimsky-Korsakov added that "during the following years, when visiting St. Petersburg, he usually came to Balakirev's, and we saw him." Both "he" and "him" actually refer to Tchaikowsky, but this needs to be made more evident. Further confusion in the same paragraph with "he was impressed" and "he was too balanced an individual" - in neither case is it totally clear who "he" is.

I have to leave it here but will return to it. Brianboulton (talk) 23:48, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Continuing (again)

  • Furor over The Little Russion
    • "Furor" is quite a loaded word, implying something more than just a fuss (uproar, frenzy, rage etc). Are you sure it is justified as a neutral observation?
      • I've changed the heading but am open to suggestions. Jonyungk (talk) 12:50, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • The first two paragraphs of the section have nothing to do with The Little Russian
    • "Those meetings": as this is a new section the meetings need to be defined. It isn't clear what meetings these were – meetings between Tchaikovsky and the Five? I'd also begin the section a bit more cautiously, removing "proved an unqualified triumph for Tchaikovsky", which reads as editorial judgement. The nature of the triumph is fully evident from the quoted letter.
      • This sentence has been eliminated. Jonyungk (talk) 12:50, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • "transcribing" → "who had transcribed"
      • Where was this located? I can't seem to find it. Jonyungk (talk) 12:50, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • "hermetic" means air-tight. I think "hermitic" is the word, or maybe "hermit-like"
    • "was not there when Tchaikovsky was present." Need to be clarified: "...had left the gathering before Tchaikovsky's arrival."?
    • (Note: from this point on I will do non-controversial fixes myself, to stop this list getting longer and longer.)
    • Last two paragraphs: where's the furor?
      • As stated above, I have removed "furor". However, I have also removed the second paragraph as it seemed to go off the subject of Tchaikovsky and the Five. Should it have been retained? Jonyungk (talk) 12:50, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Parenthetical note has nothing to do with "Tchaikovsky and the Five"
  • To Mme von Meck: this title does not reflect the substance of the section. I can't come up with something pithy immediately, but it needs thinking about. I have made minor text adjustments
    • I have chenged the heading but a better one would be nice. Jonyungk (talk) 22:01, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Balakirev returns
    • "Tchaikovsky passed on the project" means different things in American and British English. In America it means he declined the project, in BritEng it might be read as meaning he passed it on to someone else. Best find a phrasing acceptable all round.
      • I have changed the wording to state that Tchaikovsky declined the project initially. Jonyungk (talk) 22:01, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • This sentence needs work: "Two years of effort, along with Tchaikovsky's re-reading Manfred for himself while tending to his friend Iosef Kotek in Davos, Switzerland, nestled in the same Alps in which the poem was set, finally changed Tchaikovsky's mind." Two many commas, too many clauses, too much unexplained info. "Two years of effort along with..." suggests that the effort was on something other than the activities in the rest of the sentence. Needs complete reconstruction along the lines: "Tchaikovsky's mind was changed after he spent two years in the Swiss Alps, tending to his friend Iosef Kotek and re-reading Manfred in the milieu in which the poem is set."
    • First sentence of final paragraph is unnecessary; the substantive content is sufficient.
  • Belyayev circle
    • Having read this section, my earlier concern about its relevance is rather confirmed. I think there is far too much detail here. In an article on Tchaikovsky and the Five I don't believe we need fairly lengthy subsections about Tchaikovsky's relationships with Glazunov or Lyadov. I know it's hard to discard well-researched material, but I would recommend the section is reuced to a fairly brief summary accounr indicating that Tchaikovsky's somewhat fraught relationship with The Five has melded into a more harmonious one with the "Belyayev circle". We should, incidentally, be told who Belyayev was, and why the circle was named after him. I have not prepared detailed comments on this section, though I have regularised the spelling of Belyayev, which needs watching.
      • Two questions. First, is it not clear that Belyayev is mentioned in the first paragraph as the patron of the group, hence the reason it is named after him? If it needs to be spelled out further, please let me know. Second, I have cut the section back to the first three paragraphs, but are we talking about cutting material or a complete rewrite to make it a proper summary? Again, please let me know as I ould use some direction here. Thanks. Jonyungk (talk) 22:01, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • I have since reworded the mention of Belyayev to make it clearer how he fits into the picture. I have also cut down the section further, to two paragraphs, and tried to make it more of a summary. Additional suggestions would be welcone. Jonyungk (talk) 23:00, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'll deal with the last part of the article tomorrow. Brianboulton (talk) 23:52, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My last words

  • Legacy section: This has been reorganised and largely rewritten in the last couple of days, so I won't post the points I had initially prepared, but will make these brief comments on the new format.
    • I believe that the Legacy section in this article must focus on the long-term musical consequences of Tchaikovsky's relationship with The Five (that is what is implied by the word "legacy"). I wonder whether breaking up the section into three parts is the best way of achieving this? This structure suggests that the legacies of The Five and of Tchaikovsky are being considered separately.
    • If Arensky, Taleyev and Rachmaninoff are important elements in this legacy, then they should at least be mentioned in the lead.
    • My understanding from the article is broadly that the main legacy of Tchaikovsky's relations with The Five came through the activities of the Balyelev circle. The "Five" dispersed, and were succeeded by the Balyelev circle, with Rimsky-Korsakov being the linking factor between the groups. Tchaikovsky's relations with the later group were generally warmer and less stressful than with The Five. The Balyelev group influenced Russian music well beyond Tchaikovsky's day, into the 20th century, and became a burden to younger composers such as Dimitri Shostakovich who wished to move in a different direction.
    • The separate influence of Tchaikovsky on the careers of Taleyev and Rachmaninoff, as presented in the article, doesn't appear to be truly a part of the legacy of "Tchaikovsky and the Five".

So I suppose what I am arguing for is a tighter and more focussed Legacy section. I am sorry that all my recommendation seem to be asking you to destroy properly researched work, but I am anxious to keep within the bounds of the subject as defined by your title. I'll leave you to ponder this and wil desist from further comment for a while! Brianboulton (talk) 00:39, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Ruhrfisch comments: As requested, here are some nit-picky suggestions for improvement. I agree that this looks much improved and think it is nearly there for FAC. I am also glad Brianboulton knows counter-clockwise from clockwise - sorry for the error.

  • I noticed that it is usually spelled "The Five" (both words capitalized) wherever it occurs in a sentence (obviously if it is the first phrase in a sentence, "The" must be capitalized). However, there are also places where it is spelled "the Five". It has to be consistent.
  • Would it make sense to add the word "musically" before conservative and progressive in the lead, so to compose in the manner of Joseph Haydn, Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart and 19th century Western European composers of [musically] conservative leanings. and ...they focused on works by [musically?] progressive contemporaries such as Frédéric Chopin...
  • One "critic" too many in Along with critic Vladimir Stasov, a critic who supported The Five, Balakirev attacked ...
  • In "Early years" could some years be added to Glinka so we know when he was active as a composer?
  • Would this be a bit smoother? Tchaikovsky was born in 1840 in Votkinsk, a small town in present-day Udmurtia, formerly the Imperial Russian province of Vyatka. A precocious pupil, he began piano lessons at the age of five, and could read music as adeptly as his teacher within three years.
    • Yes. Thank you for the suggestion. Jonyungk (talk) 23:00, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Five section - would this be clearer? "They became known as the kuchka, [variously translated as] the Five, the Russian Five and the Mighty Handful..."
  • Logical quotation is not one of my strengths, but it seems this does not follow it (last period should be inside the quotation marks since it is a complete sentence) At the same time, historican Orlando Figes writes, they were also Europeans, with both their cultural identities—Russian and European—"intertwined and mutually dependent in a number of ways. However hard they might have tried, it was impossible for Russians such as these to suppress either part of their identity".[40]
  • The header With the "Five" does not match the rest of the article, where they are referred to as The Five. Why are quotation marks needed?
  • "Initial correspondence" section - Similarly the only place in the whole article where it is written as "The Five" (with quotes) is At this point "The Five" as a unit was dispersing. Be consistent
  • In the Furor over the Little Russian section, there is To Modest, he wrote, "[T]he whole company almost tore me to pieces with rapture—and Madame Rimskaya-Korsakova begged me in tears to let her arrange it for piano duet".[72] Should that be "To his brother Modest, he wrote..."? to avoid confusion with Mussorgsky?
  • Since Little Russia is the Russian word for Ukarine, would it make sense to mention this in As for the piece that had initially captured Stasov's attention, what endeared the Little Russian to the kuchka was not simply that Tchaikovsky had used Ukrainian folk songs as melodic material.
    • I've done this in the intro paragraph under the heading "With the Five". Jonyungk (talk) 23:00, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the To Mme. von Meck section, can Cui be mentioned after In addition, the Five's finest days had long passed.?
  • I asked for the Legacy section and it is much longer than I expected. I am not enough of a musical expert to know if it needs to be trimmed, but do make sure the focus is kept on Tchaikovsky and the Five as much as possible.
    • I have cut this section down considerably but look forward to additional comments from you ahd Brian on how it could be tightened further. Jonyungk (talk) 23:00, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog. I do not watch peer reviews, so if you have questions or comments, please contact me on my talk page. Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 22:39, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

More comments

  • I went through and made the capitalization consistent as "the Five" unless it is at the start of a sentence, since it is written "the FIve" in the article title.
  • Since the article is about both Tchaikovsky and the Five, and since we get Tchaikovsky's death mentioned, I think it would be helpful to add a bit more about the Five and what happened to them. For example, could the year of Mussorgsky's death be added to Also, in the nine years since his letter to Nadezhda von Meck describing the Five, Mussorgsky had died (in 1881)...? Or the fact that Borodin had died in 1887, before Tchaikovsky (in 1893), is not mentioned at all, though again this could be very brief.
  • The article on Cui mentions he was in the army and taught fortifications - should this be mentioned (Borodin's chemistry career is mentioned)?
  • I would add a Main article header {{Main}} to the Belyayev circle section, linking Tchaikovsky and the Belyayev circle
  • This sentence is a bit awkward: The initial hostility of the Five against Tchaikovsky was mitigated by Tchaikovsky's improved relationships, first with Balakirev and then with Rimsky-Korsakov, the latter of whom substantially embraced the cosmopolitan conservatory-based approach, as distinct from pure Russian nationalism. COuld it be split as something like The initial hostility of the Five against Tchaikovsky was mitigated by Tchaikovsky's improved relationships, first with Balakirev and then with Rimsky-Korsakov. The latter substantially embraced the cosmopolitan conservatory-based approach, as distinct from pure Russian nationalism.?
  • Could the word until be dropped here: Nevertheless, the Belyalev circle continued to influence the development of Russian music until well into the 20th century.[107]

Overall I think this looks very good (especially that attractive lead image ;-) ) and think it is just about ready for FAC. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 05:28, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Comments from Ealdgyth (talk · contribs)

  • You said you wanted to know what to work on before taking to FAC, so I looked at the sourcing and referencing with that in mind. I reviewed the article's sources as I would at FAC.
    • Your sources in non-English languages need to note that in the Bibliography.
Hope this helps. Please note that I don't watchlist Peer Reviews I've done. If you have a question about something, you'll have to drop a note on my talk page to get my attention. (My watchlist is already WAY too long, adding peer reviews would make things much worse.) 21:32, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Peer_review/Tchaikovsky_and_the_Five/archive2&oldid=1078793341"