Talk:Sinfonia da Requiem

Formatting problem

I notice that, in the process of adding music examples to illustrate the analysis of the symphony, User:Profbounds removed the block-quote formatting of an extended quotation from Herbert Glass's LA Philharmonic programme notes. Profbounds's edit summary makes clear the reasoning for this change, which is to facilitate placement of the music examples within the text. I think this nevertheless creates a problem, in that it is no longer clear what is being quoted and what is not. The footnote that concluded the original block-quote now appear to document only the short portion of the text following the final music example, which potentially opens the rest to a copyvio charge, even though there is an introductory phrase attributing the quotation to the LA Philharmonic (instead of Mr. Glass). My first impulse was to restore the block indents, but upon checking the source, I see that the music examples are not part of the quoted material. This is a tricky problem, and I thought it better to bring this up for discussion here, before wading in with my size twelves.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 00:06, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

I had second thoughts about that myself. I was going to revert back and maybe add a section underneath with the examples. It would look a little wonky but would retain the extended quotation.Profbounds (talk) 15:42, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

It would be a pity to have to do this, but there is another difficulty. Because Glass's programme note includes neither music examples nor bar numbers, there is no way to verify that your music examples actually illustrate the correct passages in every case. Obviously, if Glass (or rather, Britten, since Glass is quoting the composer) says something like, "the movement opens with a six-bar theme ...", there is little room for error but, when he says things like, "there is a middle section" or "the scheme of the movement is a series of climaxes of which the last is the most powerful", it requires some judgment to establish just which bars of music are meant. Do you have any thoughts on how to avoid a charge of Original Research in such cases? Of course, if Britten's analysis is published somewhere else with music examples, citing that version would solve everything.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 00:04, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

When you know the score so well, it is obvious to which passages he/she is referring. To quote from the WikiProject Classical music Guidelines: "In general, it is permitted to make factual observations based on examination of the musical score of a work. Such observations should be limited to those agreed upon by virtually anyone with musical training, for instance "the trio section is in F major" or "the finale is in sonata form". Statements that are clearly interpretations, not observations ("the opening four notes of the Fifth Symphony are echoed by similar passages throughout the four movements") should not be inserted by editors, since they violate the policy against original research; though they can be quoted from source material if this is suitably cited." I see Glass/Britten's statements more as factual observations than interpretations. If there were room for debate about which thematic passages Glass meant, I suppose one could argue that the musical example would be Original Research. Would the same rule apply to other works of art? If an article on "Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone" mentioned the song sung by the sorting hat, would there need to be outside sources cited to prove exactly which passage was meant? If J. K. Rowling was quoted in a passage that mentioned Harry Potter's red-headed, best friend, would it be original research to post a picture of Ron? The musical examples come straight from the score and I feel meet the "agreed upon by virtually anyone with musical training" clause. However, if anyone raised a concern about possible "interpretation" as regards to multiple passages that might meet the criteria of the analysis, then, an argument for Original Research might be made. Could 10 musicians read Glass/Britten's description and point to the same passage in the score without fail? I would say, "Yes." If I were uncertain about which musical example to include I would refrain from posting one and/or ask the community for help.Profbounds (talk) 01:13, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Fair enough, though invoking "(trained) musicians" is a bit dodgy, since not all readers of this article possess that expertise, which means that any editor claiming such a thing is at the same time claiming special knowledge, which no anonymous editor is entitled to do. Moving the examples to a separate section does have the advantage of not directly connecting them with the text, and you certainly are not going to catch any flak from me. It is always well to anticipate problems where possible, however.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 03:49, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Consul or Council

In the early autumn of 1939, Britten was commissioned through the British Consul... was introduced in 2012 in this diff, but without any direct source (it is not found in the 2 sources already there for those opening sentences). It has survived later editing, and the sources are now different - it is not obvious what the reference "Britten 2003, p. 19." actually is; but Eric Walter White is clearly for British Council on p39. Douglas Lee in Masterworks of 20th-Century Music (p94) is equally clear - and gives more detail of the approach from the British Council through Boosey & Hawkes to Britten in September 1939. Davidships (talk) 23:50, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

@Davidships: It's

• Britten, Benjamin (2003). Kildea, Paul (ed.). On Music. N.Y.: Oxford University Press. ISBN 0-19-816714-8.

which also refers to the British Council. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:26, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

Thank you. Davidships (talk) 20:21, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

American English

This article seems to be written in US English rather than British English; the latter would seem more appropriate? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.144.110.20 (talk) 14:18, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

"Symphony"

Why is the piece referred to as a "symphony"? Its title does not necessarily indicate that Britten considered the work to be symphonic. Not only is this unexplained in the article; the article then goes on to refer casually to the piece as "the symphony", which seems most inappropriate considering the composer may never have intended it to be understood as such. Maybe I'm wrong and maybe one of the sources proves otherwise, but in any case it isn't clear why it should be accepted that it is "a symphony" rather than a composition with the word "sinfonia" in the title. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.144.110.20 (talk) 14:21, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

Changed to "Sinfonia", the term used by Britten in the "Britten 2003" source I recently identified. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:28, 19 April 2024 (UTC)