Jump to content

Talk:On Guard for Peace

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Did you know nomination

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by RoySmith (talk) 13:48, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(
)

Created by CurryTime7-24 (talk). Self-nominated at 07:16, 5 October 2022 (UTC).[reply]

Interesting composition with quite a history, on excellent sources, offline and foreign sources accepted AGF, no copyvio obvious. I don't like the original hoo, because we have only one line for what this is, and I suggest not to waste it on what it is not. We probably need a link to oratorio for our general audience, so whatever the hook, I suggest to begin with the title, then say "an oratorio by SP", because otherwise we get a sea of blue. It also is welcome to have the bold link first, not to make clicks go to the composer. In ALT1, I'd drop the last bit (awful), the other two being more juicy. But do we really have to paint it that way. How about saying that it was the composers attempt to regain the favour of the powerful? Anyway, a year may help to clarify that this peace was born from World War II. - In the article, I noticed that he worked hard in 1949, but a quote before was from 1951, - wanted? - I'll read in more peace another day, and may make minor changes. Nothing in the way of a DYK approval. Go for GA! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:00, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Please bear with me as I'm currently away from home and will not return home until Sunday. I'll respond to your points then (as well as complete the QPQ), but thank you for the GA encouragement. That was very nice to read. —-05:50, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
OK, so I'm back. Thanks for your patience. With respect to the first ALT, I'd prefer to rewrite it according to your suggestions, but not eliminate. What the oratorio is not is precisely why it is how it is. After all, the choice of Marshak and the tone of his libretto were direct responses to Fadeyev's dislike of Ehrenburg's original idea. In respond to your second point, I could've conceived ALTs that on the surface were more respectful of Prokofiev and his oratorio, but chose not to because I felt that they would be boring, especially to a reader unfamiliar with the subject or the artists involved. What is to somebody unfamiliar with the subject that Prokofiev (who's that guy?) tried to restore himself to official favor with this oratorio (a whatatorio?)? As you know, I strongly prefer ALTs that use whatever razzle-dazzle the subject is capable of to pull eyeballs in. If that means having fun with the subject, even at their expense, so be it. The point is that once these readers' attention is drawn, they will read for themselves the true nature of the subject and, hopefully, come away edified. Which is why, again, I very strongly prefer rewriting ALT0.
Let me relate a personal anecdote. A long time ago, when Simon Morrison's Prokofiev book first appeared on the shelves of a local bookstore, I flipped through it when I suddenly stumbled upon Ehrenburg's original scenario for On Guard for Peace. "What is this?," I thought to myself. I then spent a long while reading the long and fascinating history behind a work that until then I had only a vague awareness of and no interest in hearing. Morrison's retelling of the saga behind the oratorio immediately changed my mind about it—and convinced me to buy his book in order to read more! Had I not found Ehrenburg's scenario all the way back while book shopping in 2009, I probably would never have gotten around to writing the article whose DYK we're currently discussing.
Now if such an experience happened to me, a seasoned listener of classical music, then imagine the average reader unaware of the genre, who is probably already predisposed against it, and convinced that its depiction in popular media as so much pretty and effete sonic wallpaper for pretentions people is accurate. Imagine how shocking and unexpected it would be for them to have those expectations subverted by coming across a mention for a classical work they've never heard of that was originally supposed to be set in a post-nuclear apocalypse—with the US and NATO as culprits, no less. That last detail in particular, given the current geopolitical situation in the "near abroad," would likely draw even more page clicks from curious readers. It certainly seems more enticing to me than reading an earnest blurb about things and people unfamiliar that seem to only relate that they do the expected things.
That's why that for me any ALT that brings in new readers to a subject that is unfamiliar to them is a positive one, not negative.
(PS: QPQ coming up later today, FYI.) —CurryTime7-24 (talk) 19:10, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think I understand. Waiting for a reworded ALT1 and the qpq. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:23, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
ALT0a: ... that On Guard for Peace, an oratorio by Sergei Prokofiev composed in 1950, was originally to be set in a hypothetical Soviet Union devastated by preemptive nuclear strikes launched against it by the United States with assistance from NATO? Source: The People's Artist: Prokofiev's Soviet Years by Simon Morrison, pp. 360–362 —CurryTime7-24 (talk) 04:59, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I asked for a rewording of ALT1, and you give me one of ALT0 :)
Trimmed:
ALT0b: ... that On Guard for Peace, a 1950 oratorio by Sergei Prokofiev, was originally to be set in a hypothetical Soviet Union devastated by preemptive nuclear strikes by the United States with assistance from NATO?
Rewording of ALT:
ALT1a: ... that Sergei Prokofiev's oratorio On Guard for Peace has been called "Kremlin music" and "Stalinist era kitsch at its most egregious"?
I prefer ALT1a, nominator prefers to say what the piece is not, which is admittedly more sensational. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:35, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Gerda Arendt: I expressed myself clearly as to which ALT I preferred. My impression was that you accepted my preference; now I find that you don't. As explained earlier, the piece is what it is precisely because of this ultimately unused scenario. In the last DYK of yours I reviewed (Giedrė Šlekytė), you will recall we had a prolonged back and forth based on our respective preferences for the sorts of DYKs we regard as ideal. Ultimately, I gave way to your desired DYK after you contacted me on my talk page with an impassioned plea to reconsider my position. When I did, you may also recall that my approval summary did not backhandedly make the case of my preference over yours; I simply yielded to your preference and approved. I do not see why you now cannot extend to me the same courtesy now. —CurryTime7-24 (talk) 13:15, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I see that I misread your reply; I forgot that the first ALT are always "0," then followed by "1," "2," etc. So I apologize for having misread your reply, but my wish for another editor still stands. —CurryTime7-24 (talk) 13:20, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
(We had an edit conflict, this was an answer to your first comment, thank you for the second.) I possibly don't know enough English: why do you need another reviewer when your version is approved? The prep builder may take it (even likely, many of them tend towards sensation), or not, in which case you can talk to the prep builder. I, however, don't have to hide that I prefer the other. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:23, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
My version did not get approved; it was yours, you rewrote it according to your personal preferences. Had I understood what you said correctly to begin with, I would have insisted on using ALT1 as is. Not sure why "unspeakably awful" needed to be excised. Seeing something like that is definitely eye-catching and it's not like we have to abide by WP:BLP when Sergei Sergeyevich has been dead for nearly 70 years anyway. I would have at least appreciated the courtesy of allowing me to rewrite ALT1 according to my liking. That said, I also don't want to get into another exhausting clash of our personal DYK preferences again as occurred with Mira Mendelson and especially Brigitte Manceaux. So I'll reiterate to whoever closes this DYK nomination that I strongly prefer ALT0a or ALT0b and leave it at that. —CurryTime7-24 (talk) 18:46, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I really seem to have a problem with English. All hooks not struck are approved: ALT0a, ALT0b and ALT1a. It's the prep builder's choice. If you insist I can also approve ALT1, but the I feel that the third term is weak compared with the first two. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:18, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

[edit]
GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:On Guard for Peace/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Mike Christie (talk · contribs) 14:10, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'll review this. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:10, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sources are reliable.

  • File:Sergey Prokofyev.jpg is tagged on Commons as public domain in Russia, but the photographer died in 1974 as far as I can tell. I can tag it for removal from Commons, but you could move it to en-wiki if you think there's justification for fair use. I don't think there is, myself; this is an article about a work, not the composer.
    Either way is fine with me. It is possible that the photograph qualifies for public domain use as it may have been "an information report (including photo report), which was created by an employee of TASS, ROSTA, or KarelfinTAG as part of that person's official duties between July 10, 1925[3] and January 1, 1953, provided that it was first released in the stated period or was not released until August 3, 1993", but I personally do not know. —CurryTime7-24 (talk) 21:59, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The parent image here, has already been nominated for deletion, so it may disappear at any time. I'll strike this point as if it's deleted it's moot and if it's not it can stay. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:59, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • The paragraph in the subsection "Premiere and Soviet appraisals" starting "In 1951 ...", including the following quote, is unsourced.
    Done! —CurryTime7-24 (talk) 21:59, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • The paragraph in the subsection "21st century appraisals" starting "Reviewing a live 2003 performance ...", and the following quote, is unsourced.
    Done! —CurryTime7-24 (talk) 21:59, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "By 1947, the number of distinctions and prizes he earned were hitherto unmatched in the history of Soviet music": I think "hitherto" is redundant here.
    Done! —CurryTime7-24 (talk) 21:59, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The opera outraged Stalin for reasons that remain undetermined." It's a minor point for this article, but our article on The Great Friendship seems quite definite about the reasons for Stalin's ire.
    The editors of that article rely extensively on Solomon Volkov's debunked Testimony. Even if the book were really by Shostakovich, he was not involved at all in the decision-making that led to the campaign against the opera. Oddly enough, Frolova-Walker is also used as source material for that article, but she makes clear on page 223 that "we lack documentary evidence for the cause of Stalin's anger that night at the Bolshoi". She then states that "oblique evidence" exists, but that these only permit one to "assess the probabilities" (emphasis mine). —CurryTime7-24 (talk) 21:59, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Fair enough; just wanted to make sure it wasn't an omission. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:59, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "to prepare and carry out an investigation into the opera": can we make this just "to investigate the opera", foc concision?
    Done! —CurryTime7-24 (talk) 21:59, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "One cannot keep an artist from creating. [T]he music will live in his soul ...". Per MOS:CONFORM there's no need for the "[T]" here, which is ugly for the reader. However, an ellipsis seems to be needed anyway, so perhaps "One cannot keep an artist from creating ... the music will live in his soul"?
    Done! —CurryTime7-24 (talk) 21:59, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think the three paragraph quote from Prokofiev in the "Origin" subsection falls foul of WP:NFCCEG, which specifies "brief" quotations. I think this needs to be cut by at least half to meet the non-free content requirements. Perhaps paraphrase the first two paragraphs and then quote the third?
    Let me work on that in the next day or so. —CurryTime7-24 (talk) 21:59, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Simon Morrison incorrectly states that Prokofiev's release date was April 20, 1950. In her diary entry for that same date, Mira Mendelson wrote that she picked up Prokofiev and "went straight to Barvikha" on April 3." This is confusingly phrased, since "that same date" makes the reader think that Mendelson picked up Prokofiev on April 20. I think what is meant is that Mendelson wrote the entry about April 3 on April 20. If so I'd suggest "Simon Morrison incorrectly states that Prokofiev's release date was April 20, 1950, but Mira Mendelson's diary entry for April 20 records that she had picked up Prokofiev on April 3, and gone to Barvikha on that day." And perhaps move the note to the end of the sentence so that the reader understands that the reference to Barvikha is evidence that Morrison is wrong.
    Done! —CurryTime7-24 (talk) 21:59, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Fadeyev then notified Sergey Balasanian ... to approve the commission of an oratorio from Prokofiev": I don't think "notified" can be the verb you want here. "Told"?
    You're right. Fixed that. —CurryTime7-24 (talk) 21:59, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • The long paragraph quoted in "Finding a librettist" I think needs to be cut -- you have a few block quotes and I think that raises the bar on justifying each one. I'm also not clear who is saying this -- the cite is to Morrison, but it seems to be Ehrenburg speaking? Is this a set of quoted fragments of the libretto?
    Yes, Morrison quoted from the original libretto there. His cited source is the document itself, which is preserved in the archives of the Russian State Archive of Literature and Art. —CurryTime7-24 (talk) 21:59, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    OK; I'll leave this unstruck till you've worked through reducing the use of quotes. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:59, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Cut the Ehrenburg blockquote! —CurryTime7-24 (talk) 01:30, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Most of the "Music" section is unsourced. Are all performances likely to use identical orchestras? I'm not knowledgeable about classical music but I think I recall that there is often some variation, so how can we be so definite about the number of woodwinds and brass?
    Yes, although the size of the strings and chorus may vary. The instrumentation is listed in the published score and in the Prokofiev work catalog by Sikorski, which is his authorized publisher. I forgot to cite that, so thank you for letting me know. —CurryTime7-24 (talk) 21:59, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Instrumentation is now cited and I've updated other references with the new Prokofiev work catalog from Boosey & Hawkes. —CurryTime7-24 (talk) 01:13, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "He praised both Prokofiev and Marshak for the "original fashion" they treated the central theme of world peace": suggest "He praised both Prokofiev and Marshak for the originality of their treatment of the central theme of world peace"; it's a little clumsy as written and we have so many quotes we should take the opportunity to cut one.
    I revised the sentence, but would you prefer I drop the Nestyev quote? —CurryTime7-24 (talk) 21:59, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The revision works. I don't want any particular quote cut; it's just the overall number of them that I think is an issue. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:59, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Vladimir Kruzhkov [ru] from Agitprop disagreed": you link "Agitprop" to the concept, but it reads as though you intended to link to an organization.
    Unfortunately, Wikipedia has no article yet specifically about the Soviet organization known as Agitprop. I tried doing an interwiki link, but it seems to pull back to the same English article. —CurryTime7-24 (talk) 21:59, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Then I'd suggest redlinking to [[Agitprop (Soviet organization)|Agitprop]]. I don't think we should leave the link as it is now, to an unhelpful article. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:59, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "According to David G. Tompkins": why do we need to call out his opinion? And the reader should know who he is (an academic, a biographer ...).
    Off the top of my head, I don't recall his importance in Prokofiev studies. Will pull down the book later today to check. —CurryTime7-24 (talk) 21:59, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "a confidant, cynical man of the world": surely a typo for "confident", and if so MOS:TYPOFIX allows us to silently correct it.
    Done! Thanks for catching that. —CurryTime7-24 (talk) 21:59, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'A reader replying to The Independent called the oratorio "unspeakably awful."' I don't think we can justify mentioning this without a secondary source; a random letter writer is no different than a blog poster.
    You're right. I've cut their letter. —CurryTime7-24 (talk) 21:59, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • The quotes in "21st century appraisals" are too extensive. You might find WP:RECEPTION useful; can we do more summarizing and organizing of these opinions, and less quoting?
    Thank you. Please let me go over this in the next couple of days. —CurryTime7-24 (talk) 21:59, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I've trimmed down the section, removing the blockquotes and Schmelz altogether (who simply repeated what was stated by others). Please let me know if you can suggest any further improvements for that section. Stepping away from my desk for a couple hours, so I may not reply immediately. —CurryTime7-24 (talk) 19:32, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    That looks fine. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 20:43, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

-- Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:05, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

CurryTime7-24, just checking to see if you're still planning on working on this? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:39, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I am! Sorry, I did not see this review. Let me go over it and reply in detail when I get back home in about an hour. Thank you! —CurryTime7-24 (talk) 15:21, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Spotchecks -- footnote numbers refer to this version. I don't have access to these sources; can you quote the text that supports these citations?

  • FN 20 cites "Prokofiev's doctors warned him against taking on any more work, but he persisted as he hoped his proposal for an oratorio would result in a paid official commission from the Committee on Arts Affairs."
    • 20: "Although Prokofiev’s doctors advised him against taking on any new projects, he decided that a vocal work on the theme of world peace might interest the Committee..." (Morrison 2009, p. 315) —CurryTime7-24 (talk) 01:36, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • FN 51 cites "Prokofiev attended the premiere alone because his wife was ill; she stayed at home where she listened to the broadcast of the performance with her father."
    • 51: «Сережа слушал в Большом зале ораторию «На страже мира» под управлением С.А. Самосуда. Я не смогла пойти из-за плохого самочувствия и слушала с папой дома по радио». ("Seryozha went to the Great Hall [the House of Unions' Hall of Columns] to hear the oratorio On Guard for Peace conducted by S. A. Samosud. I wasn't able to go since I was feeling unwell and I stayed home to hear it with Pops on the radio.") (Mendelson-Prokofieva 2012, p. 488) —CurryTime7-24 (talk) 01:36, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • FNs 42 & 43 cite "A private performance in September at the headquarters for the Radio Committee resulted in Atovmyan, Balasanyan, Samosud, and Klavdiy Ptitsa, the choirmaster for the Chorus of the USSR All-Union Radio, joining to request further alterations to the choral parts in order to mitigate the difficulty of their harmonies. To their surprise, Prokofiev yielded without dispute."
    • 42: "Even with a boy soprano, children's choruses, and lyrical homage to peace, Prokofiev and his interlocutors worried that the oratorio might not be accessible enough for the authorities. Following a late September run-through of the score at the offices of the Radio Committee, Atovmyan, Balasanyan, Samosud, and the choral director Klavdiy Ptitsa enjoined the composer to rewrite the choral parts and the concluding movement to moderate the difficulties supposedly posed by the harmonic writing." (Morrison 2009, p. 365) —CurryTime7-24 (talk) 01:36, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • 43: «После первого прослушивания, состоявшегося в Комитете Радиоинформации в присутствии С. Самосуда, С.А. Баласаняна, Н. Чаплыгина, Данилевича, к нам на Николину Гору приезжали Самосуд, Баласанян и хормейстер Птица с просьбой о внесении ряда переделок в партию хора, так как они находили, что партия слишком трудна для хора с точки зрения гармонии и модуляций. Сережа удивил приехавших не только мягким согласием на эти переделки. С. Самосуду было особенно приятно, что сделал он это быстро, тут же изменил в требуемых местах гармонии и модуляции». ("After the first play-through—held at the Radio Information Committee in the presence of S. Samosud, S. Balasanyan, N. Chaplygin, and Danilevich—Samosud, Balasanyan, and choirmaster Ptitsa came to Nikolina Gora requesting some changes in the choral part, as they found it too difficult for the choir in terms of harmony and modulation. Seryozha surprised the visitors not only by gently agreeing to these rearrangements.") (Mendelson-Prokofieva 2012, p. 479) —CurryTime7-24 (talk) 01:36, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • FN 38 cites "Together with the musicologist Pavel Lamm, a mutual friend, Prokofiev helped to boost Myaskovsky's morale and tended to his dacha while he was gone."

-- Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 20:47, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've struck the four above, but because one was an error, I'm going to ask for one more:

  • FN 28 cites "Prokofiev seriously considered the offer, at one point expressing the hope that the film score could provide the basis for a future opera. The film's depictions of Mikhail Glinka's professional failures led Prokofiev to reflect on the neglect of his own operas; he ultimately declined Aleksandrov's offer." Can you quote the source for this?

Other than this, there are just the two unstruck bullet points at the top of this review left to address. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:15, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"Toward the end of his stay in the hospital ... and with his thoughts turning back to full-time work, Prokofiev received an invitation from the director [Grigori] Aleksandrov to write original music for a biographical film about Glinka. ... The project appealed to Prokofiev because it would allow him to merge his musical method—and his entire legacy—with that of his distinguished predecessor. He sought, in other words, to provide a context for his career that would have nothing to do with his catastrophic run-ins with the Committee on Arts Affairs and everything to do with the history of Russian culture. He even imagined writing an opera 'based on the material of the film,' though he quickly, and prudently, banished the thought. 'Certain episodes' in Aleksandrov’s screenplay 'enthralled him,' Mira recalled. 'Others (the descriptions of Glinka’s disappointments and the failure of Ruslan and Lyudmila) he found exceedingly painful.' Disheartened by the lack of performances of his own operas, Prokofiev decided against working on the film." (Morrison 2009, pp. 358–359) —CurryTime7-24 (talk) 16:00, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That works. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 16:22, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I will address the remaining bullet-points tonight and tomorrow (PDT). —CurryTime7-24 (talk) 23:34, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Got held up with something else that I had been stalling on, but will return to address the issues brought up in your review later today. —CurryTime7-24 (talk) 17:39, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Changes look good; passing. Congratulations on a fine article. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:47, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Talk:On_Guard_for_Peace&oldid=1209077116"