Talk:Short Symphony/GA1

GA Review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Wasted Time R (talk · contribs) 02:49, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

I have begun reviewing this article. Wasted Time R (talk) 02:49, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

   Some writing and MoS issues in the text, see below

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   A few areas that could use a little more coverage, see below

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

   Some negative views need to be represented, see below

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   A nice short article for a short symphony! But a few aspects need attention ...

Re writing and MoS issues:

I like Short Symphony as the title, but the lede should state that it is also known as his Symphony No. 2.

Done. GeneralPoxter (talk) 15:48, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

When asked why he did not include a percussion section, Copland answered, ... – when did Copland give this quote? Sooner after the piece premiered, or many years later?

I added notes attributing the sources of as many of the quotes I can. GeneralPoxter (talk) 15:48, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

However, the Short Symphony did not grow as popular as some of Copland's other compositions. – It isn't clear whether this comparison is being made to Copland's "average" work or to his most popular works such as Appalachian Spring or Fanfare for the Common Man.

I reworded the claim to "not widely performed" since I actually cannot find any explicit comparison of popularity in any of the sources. GeneralPoxter (talk) 15:48, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

as the Sextet for Clarinet, String Quartet, and Piano. – the link to 'String Quartet' should be removed, per MOS:LINKINNAME.

Done. GeneralPoxter (talk) 15:48, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

I think Note A is unnecessary – it is clear from the preceding text that the other piece is Statements for Orchestra.

I think Note B is unnecessary – the idea of introduction/elaboration/recapitualation of a theme is intuitively understood by even by listeners who aren't well versed in music terminology. And it's odd to have this little bit of music terminology given an explanatory Note when far more complicated tonal and harmonic mentions in the article are not.

I think Note C doesn't have to be a separate Note like this, but rather can be an annotation on the MacDonald entry in the Bibliography. And the article text should probably use the Callum name he was writing this particular commentary under.

All of these notes have been removed. GeneralPoxter (talk) 15:48, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Digital archive of published score. Contains markings by Leonard Bernstein. – this annotation can be placed at the end of the score entry, rather than being a separate sub-bullet.

Done. GeneralPoxter (talk) 15:48, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Online sources – It's kind of weird to have a 1944 New York Times story and a 1984 PhD dissertation considered as "online", when they both came out on paper at the time. How about calling this section "Other sources" instead?

Done. GeneralPoxter (talk) 15:48, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Re content issues:

was impressed by the country's people, music, and government. – what impressed him about Mexico's government? That will seem an unlikely reaction to current-day readers.

I'm not sure as well; that's just what the source says. I agree that it is both confusing and irrelevant to the topic, so I removed "government" from the list. GeneralPoxter (talk) 15:48, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

After being turned down for its rhythmic difficulties ... - it is worth adding that originally, the Short Symphony was on the short list of new works to be presented by Stokowski during the Fall 1935 season of the Philadelphia Orchestra. See this clip from the Philadelphia Inquirer. Stokowski was already calling it "asymmetrical in rhythm and very difficult."

Added. GeneralPoxter (talk) 15:48, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Almost a decade later, the United States premiere was performed by the NBC Symphony Orchestra under Stokowski - why did Stokowski change his mind about conducting it?

This information is not provided in any of the sources as far as I know. GeneralPoxter (talk) 15:48, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

I have also tried looking for an explanation in other sources, but have not found anything yet. GeneralPoxter (talk) 16:36, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

The article should have some mention of the first recording of the symphony, which did not take place for a long time. Indeed this 1961 Stereo Review piece about a set of Columbia Masterworks releases being made for his 60th birthday laments that Short Symphony is missing from them. It was not until 1969 that a recording came out and that itself had Copland conducting - see this Pittsburgh Press review of it.

Added the latter. GeneralPoxter (talk) 15:48, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

The Stout review of a later recording, which you already use as a source, alludes to the Short Symphony being more written about than actually heard, which I suspect is quite true and is worth mentioning in the article.

Added. GeneralPoxter (talk) 15:48, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Although not required, the article would benefit from an audio sample being added. An example can be seen in the Appalachian Spring article and many other articles on classical music pieces.

And more advanced beyond that would be to include a piece of the score, such as maybe one of the sections where there are frequent time signature changes (such as shown on pages 31–32 of the Bernstein-annotated score). There are examples of this too in many classical music articles.

I'll see what I can do about these two. I'm not very familiar with uploading score images and adding audio samples, so some help from editors who are more experienced in this would be appreciated. GeneralPoxter (talk) 15:48, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Re neutrality:

It's okay for the article to report that the New York Times account of the New York premiere says the performance of the symphony was warmly received. But the review itself that this comes from is quite harsh, with assessments such as "There is little to be said about the work, since it is all so manufactured and uncommunicative that it never gets anywhere in particular and leaves the impression of futile fragmentariness in general." and that it " cannot be reckoned among its composer's important contributions to the literature" and that "it was next to impossible to tell how many of the seemingly false entrances were actually correct and intentional in the cacophonous maze of intricacies." The article needs to reflect this viewpoint.

This is my fault. I barely read through the article and mainly just looked at the end. I have added the following quotes to the reception section. GeneralPoxter (talk) 15:48, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Another negative viewpoint comes from this 1965 review from The Observer of a performance that Copland himself conducted of the London Symphony Orchestra: "[It] made claims that it never fulfilled, raised topics that it appeared to discuss while not really doing so." The reviewer compares it unfavorably with other works that Copland conducted on the same program, including Statements for Orchestra and Stravinsky's Symphony in C. The reviewer also makes a case that symphonies are inherently not a form that fitted Copland well.

Added. GeneralPoxter (talk) 15:48, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Now, I'm not suggesting that all newspaper accounts of the symphony are like these; I have seen some brief mentions, or reviews of recordings, that are positive. But I think these two high-profile reviews of high-profile performances need to be included in the article.

Anyway, those are my comments; I am placing the nomination on hold. Wasted Time R (talk) 11:42, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

@Wasted Time R: Thank you for your comprehensive and detailed review on the article. The newspaper clippings you provided made it extremely easy to add your suggestions. I believe I have addressed most if not all of your suggestions. Please let me know if further changes are necessary. GeneralPoxter (talk) 15:48, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

@GeneralPoxter: Okay, good. Some further comments on the above responses and changes:

The symphony was not widely performed, – the symphony is still able to be performed, so this should be 'has not been widely performed'. Or you could make it 'was not widely performed in Copland's lifetime', to set up the quote from him.

In this context, I've been trying to see if Bachtrack can show statistics for how often the piece has been performed in recent years (they are known for releasing end-of-year lists of the most popular composers and pieces). But for some reason the search filter isn't honoring past dates of Copland performances and is only showing me upcoming scheduled performances (a small sample size given the pandemic).

The Short Symphony was included in the 1969 Columbia recording "Copland Conducts Copland" (MS-7223). ... – the album name should be in italics. The label name and link should be to Columbia Masterworks Records (as indicated by the MS- prefix). The text should make clear that this was the first recording anywhere of the piece (made clear by the third paragraph of the source) and that it took 35 years for one to come out. And I think this should be a paragraph of its own.

and received a "modest number" of performances. – it is not clear whose quote is that, Copland's or some writer's. Why not just paraphrase instead?

New Notes A, B, C – what I meant in the original comment was that the text itself should briefly indicate when Copland was making each of these remarks, and not force the reader to consult a Note. So for instance, "Copland explained in a 1969 radio program" or "When asked in a 1981 interview why he did not include a percussion section" or "in his 1968 book The New Music, Copland did concede that the musical language used in works like ...". Clarifying the timeframe of quotes can make a difference; the comment about the lack of percussion instrumentation was made when Copland was 80 years old, and it's quite possible that he no longer remembered what his original rationale had been.

Unfortunately, I'm not familiar with audio sample creation either – I only included one once, and I think there was a WP music project page somewhere at which I requested it, but I don't recall what it was. And I have no idea how that <score ...> element works of if there is a tool that generates it.

They also found that the piece – re the New York Times review, the use of the singular they here is awkward. If you look at the actual New York Times page 15 this was in, the review is credited to "N. S.", who is Noel Straus, who has a bylined review of a different concert on the same page (for many years the NYT had a policy against giving any reporter or writer two bylines in an issue). So you can use Noel Straus in the text and in the footnote you could say something like "N. S. [Noel Straus]" for the author.

"Copland Short Symphony Comes Alive" – this should preserve how the newspaper wrote it: "Copland 'Short Symphony' Comes Alive" (single quotes not italics on the title).

"Stokowski Favors Low-priced Concerts". The Philadelphia Inquirer. September 19, 1935. p. 25. – this is a continuation; the actual title of the story is "Stokowski Outlines Plan for Low-priced Concerts", it starts on page 1, and the author is Victor Henderson. So the cite can be adjusted accordingly.

That's it for now; I don't think there's anything too major. Wasted Time R (talk) 13:56, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

@Wasted Time R: All right, thanks! I believe I addressed the points you made in this second round, so please let me know if there's more I can do. GeneralPoxter (talk) 16:39, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

@GeneralPoxter: We're done! Good work. Wasted Time R (talk) 22:32, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

@Wasted Time R: Thanks for the help and attention! I have some minor concerns over sourcing for the Henderson and Straus authorship, however, since I do not have access to the Philadelphia Inquirer front page as well as the paywalled NYT article archive, so I have no idea how to cite them. GeneralPoxter (talk) 22:44, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

The Inquirer cite you did is fine and I've done some edits to the NYT one to try to explain the situation (I decided not to try to reverse order the initials or name, too confusing). Wasted Time R (talk) 23:33, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.