Jump to content

Talk:Symphony No. 3 (Górecki)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Featured articleSymphony No. 3 (Górecki) is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
Main Page trophyThis article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on February 12, 2011.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
August 25, 2007Featured article candidatePromoted

Hybrid Finished Symphony

[edit]

Is it really true that Hybrid's Finished Symphony samples Górecki's Symphony No. 3? I am familiar with both pieces and cannot identify any sampling.Timdown (talk) 17:48, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is there any sampling listed in the CD booklet? I'm afraid I'm not familiar with the song; that tidbit was a later addition. Chubbles (talk) 14:53, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No reference to a sample in the CD booklet.Timdown (talk) 21:44, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Who the heck is Hybrid? Anton Mravcek (talk) 22:44, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hybrid (producers). Chubbles (talk) 04:28, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, a band. Thanks. Anton Mravcek (talk) 18:53, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Paragraph below was added by anonymous user in such a way that it looks like it was me:

"hybrids wonderful piece. it is the first movement of no. 3 is completely sampled especially the/ crescendo middle. whereas the lamb track mentioned merely might sample some of the music and is titled "gorecki". i shudder to think what else is wrong in wikipedia when all three tracks easily available for listening on youtube/ last.fm / grooveshark so i will be editing the main page to reflect this".

First, the Lamb track mentioned is irrelevant to this. Second, I am a reasonable musician, have listened extensively to both the Hybrid track and the movement of Symphony No. 3 that it supposedly samples and am absolutely sure that there is no sample. The music is simply not the same. Also, there is absolutely no evidence on the CD sleeve or anywhere I can find on the web to suggest that it is a sample. Timdown (talk) 23:26, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I had never heard the Hybrid piece before, but am pretty familiar with this symphony, so I listened to two versions of the Hybrid piece after also listening to the symphony again.
I agree that there is no sampling, in that the orchestral part was newly performed and not taken from a preexisting recording. But there is a five-note motif in there that seems pretty obviously borrowed from the first movement of the symphony, particularly given the arrangement. More tenuously, the '90s timeframe adds to the likelihood that the symphony was exerting an influence.
I wouldn't suggest that anything go back into the article without a source, but neither would I completely dismiss the anonymous user's belief that the Hybrid piece was influenced by the symphony. It's just that "sampled" is not the right word. Richard K. Carson (talk) 03:27, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with all of that. The five-note motif you mention is the same in the two pieces although the underlay is definitely different. Timdown (talk) 11:39, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Polish text

[edit]

I am looking for the original Polish text of this symphony. Does anyone know where I can get it? Lexiphile 19:36, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Its reproduced here. Ceoil 16:25, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sound files

[edit]

Nice touch, but two observations:

  • They do not currently contain important information such as the source of the copyright (year and record label) or performers (at the least, the ensemble, soprano, and conductor).
  • The one I listened to was way longer than 30 seconds, which as I understand it runs afoul of fair use.

Chubbles 20:52, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Given that copyright still very much applies to both the score and the performance (we're talking no earlier than 1970) even 30 seconds might be too much to claim fair use. We should probably remove the sound files altogether. Anton Mravcek 19:30, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Fair points. I need to find out the limit of what is acceptable; I'm traveling this week, will be back home in a few days, can shorten the files and add the source credits then. After that I will ask the advice of some of the admins specialising in fair use. Ceoil 17:19, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Ceoil 10:25, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Automated Review as per User:Ceoil

[edit]

The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and might not be applicable for the article in question.

You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, Davnel03 07:29, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sales Figures

[edit]

I wonder if we can't find a more recent source for sales figures; I think that, since the Howard article was published, sales may have even hit two million copies. Chubbles 01:18, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Found one current up to Nov 2002... still at one million. Chubbles 01:27, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Nice, but still long, long ago. Ceoil 01:40, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Holocaust? Rather not.

[edit]
  • the third movement contains christian text
  • You know how it is between Poles and Germans
  • Górecki was commissioned to write music in response to the Holocaust in the 1960s - Is it sure? 1968 was the time of anti-Jewish propaganda in Communist Poland. Xx236 08:41, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Quite sure on that last point; Howard discusses this. Chubbles 08:55, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

[1] says that the Symphony was written in 1976 for the Südwestfunk, but doesn't precise the subject. The same German Wikipedia article. So who comissioned in the 1960s? Xx236 09:01, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sym #3 was written in 1976; he was commissioned to write other works prior to this (one of them was an Anti-War Requiem with Lukas Foss which was never finished). Chubbles 09:12, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Main Page?

[edit]

Just wondering if anyone was considering nominating. Chubbles 06:20, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, never mind. It would be a colossal waste of everyone's time. Chubbles 21:34, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And, the process has changed. Ha, ha. Chubbles 21:43, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What? Why would it be "a colossal waste of everyone's time"? Anton Mravcek 23:00, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I thought it would be fun to have something I worked on be a main-page article, but it's not. Guinea pig was featured today, and I worked on that, but 99% of the some 250 edits it got were vandalism and reverting thereof. Far as I'm concerned, it's better that the page be there for the people who want to read it rather than be a target. Chubbles 23:04, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think you should nominate. What the hell if a few vandals pass by; it will be read (if not edited) by more well than ill intention people. Ceoil 21:37, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
When I first wrote that, I hadn't realized that the procedure had changed. There is no queue now; there's only a place to request if you wish to have the article featured on a particular date that is significant (like, say, featuring the article on Christmas on December 25th). On other days, the procedure is now that Raul just picks one that hasn't been shown yet, I think. Chubbles 22:56, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The only issue would be finding a free image. But imageless on the main page would be fine too. Ceoil 19:57, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a little shocked by the "critical reception" section

[edit]

I came to this article having listened to the Symphony for the first time and, in spite of not being a Polish speaker or having a copy of the words, found it absolutely wonderful, moving me to the point of tears.

I was therefore very surprised that the "critical reception" section is almost entirely negative, even mentioning the composer's own surprise that the work had been successful. It gave me the impression of a work universally loathed and was quite at odds with my own first reaction.

I find it hard to believe that there was no positive critical acclaim whatsoever, in spite of the commercial success - after all, this isn't a lightweight populist work. Do any of the experts on this work know of some critical reaction that might balance this section somewhat? Or were the critics really unanimous in their dislike? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Xgretsch (talk • contribs) 16:51, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It was distained when first performed, and seen as very much out of step with the radicalism of the times. Very rarely performed during the 1980's, and was generally only available through casette copies. To be fair to the article, the symphony's revival in 1992 is well covered and explained. Ceoil sláinte 21:04, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with the first commenter, this seems very odd. The revival section says that it was played at here and there and was popularly successful, but surely there are some positive reappraisals of the work by critics? John.Conway (talk) 19:17, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Text doesn't make sense

[edit]

Górecki was impressed by the 19th-century melody "Where has he gone, my dear young son" (Kajze mi sie podzioł mój synocek miły), which describes a mother's mourning for a son lost in war, and probably dates from the Silesian Uprisings of 1919–21

This doesn't make sense - how can it be a 19th-century melody if it dates from 1919-21? Can someone please clarify? Thanks! Madder (talk) 11:49, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well spotted. Seem to be a mangling of sentences during a copyedit resulted in 2+2=5. I'll go back and dig out where these fact came from. Here is a thanks for finding this[2]. Ceoil (talk) 20:09, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Media section

[edit]

Could it be included in another section, for example in "Instrumentation and score" next to the description of the music, so you can hear the music as you read? It is a suggestion. If not I suggest also to change the style of the template, because it mades so little space for the references section. Cheers OboeCrack (talk) 13:45, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Good idea. Ceoil (talk) 19:19, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
 Done, I also moved some images to fit better, please check if you like the result. OboeCrack (talk) 20:20, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nice work. Ceoil (talk) 22:16, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Recent additions

[edit]

Somebaody must wikify the recent additions that M.J.E has done. But please don't remove them, they are pretty interesting. For example, this: "The bassoons, contrabassoons, and trombones play only in the first movement, and only for a few bars." You only notice that when you see it at a concert. It is so curious! Or if you see the score. Please, don't remove this valuable, tough bad edited, information. OboeCrack (talk) 18:28, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Glad you like the information I added. But I might ask why you think it is badly edited. I put quite a bit of thought into it, and reworded it several times to make sure it was accurate and clear. And I spent quite a bit of time examining my copy of the score to make sure I got it all right.
In what way does it need wikifying? You are free to do this yourself, if you know how to. As for me, I put the information in the section of the article I thought it best fitted - so what more needs doing? M.J.E. (talk) 20:46, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah!, the ifo is all right, tough it needs references, maybe. It's better if it is written in fluid style, not like points. Well, i'm not an expert, maybe Ceoil,the main wikipedist of this article, can do sth. Cheers, OboeCrack (talk) 23:04, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
OboeCrack: "tough it needs references, maybe"
I checked it all in the score - the ultimate reference! I do not know of another reference for the things I said - but that would have to have in turn derived from the score, anyway. I guess I could add the edition of the score as a footnoted reference, if that helps. I will look into how to do that a little later.
OboeCrack: "It's better if it is written in fluid style, not like points."
If you're talking about the list of canon entries in different modes (the only place where I made a list of points), I beg to disagree. I think this kind of information is far clearer when given as a list, not as continuous prose.
I grant I may not have used the correct list format - I forget the exact syntax for that, and was mainly focusing on getting the information written while it was still clear in my mind. I will correct it if I can find out how to do it - or someone else of course can do it. But it would be far less clear as continuous text running from line to line. M.J.E. (talk) 07:44, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
 Done Now it's perfect! I've made some editions and added more information looking at the score. Where did yu get the score? CheersOboeCrack (talk) 21:32, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I found it by chance in a second-hand bookshop in the town where I live. Why? - is it particularly rare or difficult to find? M.J.E. (talk) 05:57, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Iwas just curious about it, in Spain, where I live, that kind of musical second hand shoops doesn't exist. Only first hand ones, and therefore, buying scores is very expensive. BTW thanks for the corrections...OboeCrack (talk) 18:07, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Text in Polish

[edit]

Can we add the text in Polish to the article, or it is copyrighted? I don't know... OboeCrack (talk) 21:38, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Here says that "The texts themselves should be in the public domain unless otherwise stated. To the best of our knowledge, we have received permission to post all texts that are copyright." So we can do it, didn't we? OboeCrack (talk) 21:42, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have added some pieces of text in es:Sinfonía n.º 3 (Górecki)#Descripción (Spanish wikipedia), I don't have English translation, but it would be interesting to add it. Please reply :S OboeCrack (talk) 21:50, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Full text in English

[edit]

My son, my chosen and beloved
Share your wounds with your mother
And because, dear son, I have always carried you in my heart,
And always served you faithfully
Speak to your mother, to make her happy.
Although you are already leaving me, my cherished hope.

[Lamentation of the Holy Cross Monastery, from the “Lysagóra Songs” collection, dating from the second half of the 15th century.]

No, Mother, do not weep,
Most chaste Queen of Heaven
Support me always.

[The opening words of “Ave Maria” in Polish.]

This prayer was found inscribed on the wall of cell # 3 in the basement of Gestapo headquarters in Zakopane, Poland, and was signed by an 18 year old girl with the date of her imprisonment. The movement ends with the soprano intoning a single note in a manner reminiscent of Gregorian Chant, followed by an extended chord held without diminuendo for what seems like forever.

Where has he gone
My dearest son?
Perhaps during the uprising
The cruel enemy killed him

Ah, you bad people
In the name of God, the most Holy,
Tell me, why did you kill
My son?

Never again
Will I have his support
Even if I cry
My old eyes out

Were my bitter tears
To create another River Oder
They would not restore to life
My son.

He lies in his grave
and I know not where
Though I keep asking people
Everywhere

Perhaps the poor child
Lies in a rough ditch
and instead he could have been
lying in his warm bed

O, sing for him
God’s little song-birds
Since his mother
Cannot find him

And you, God’s little flowers
May you blossom all around
So that my son
May sleep happily.

[The words are a folk song in the dialect of the Opole region of Poland.]

Found in here, OboeCrack (talk) 21:55, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is useful information about the symphony, and surely belongs in the main article. In fact, it was there (and in Polish also) but someone removed it recently. Why? Should it be put back again?
If someone has a good reason for removing text from an article, I think they should state the reason, to forestall possible queries about the removal. M.J.E. (talk) 12:39, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Szymanowski influence

[edit]

I'm fairly confident that Thomas' comment - 'no second-hand stylistic referencing'- must have been taken out of context. It is widely acknowledged that this work exhibits the direct influence of Karol Szymanowski's music, especially his Stabat Mater (1926). Thomas' article 'Intense Joy and Profound Rhythm: an Introduction to the Music of Gorecki' (PMJ 6/2) contains a detailed discussion on this- 'Górecki touched base with his predecessor. As he once said: "Where Szymanowski went, I went too. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wdc20 (talk • contribs) 16:10, 18 May 2009 (UTC) [reply]

More info

[edit]

I've found that the article Unfinished Symphony is not mentioned here, add something if you wish! OboeCrack (talk) 17:08, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Colin Stetson "reimagining"

[edit]

There is a new version of this piece by Colin Stetson, some details can be found @ this pitchfork article 174.7.162.146 (talk) 21:49, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

speculative and unsubstantiatable ?

[edit]

quote "Until 1992, Górecki was known only to connoisseurs" This is wrong for several reasons. It is also redundant and circular. I propose to cut it.--— ⦿⨦⨀Tumadoireacht Talk/Stalk 12:48, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is cited. Also see 1994 article from the New York Times: "Gorecki wrote the symphony 17 years ago when Poland was cut off from the West and the composer was a fiery figure, fashionable only among a small circle of modern-music aficionados." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.134.146.175 (talk) 16:45, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
And not very well like by most of them either, outside of Poland, France. Ceoil 21:50, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Contradiction?

[edit]

"critics who felt that Górecki had moved too far away from the established avant-garde style"

What is the "established avant-garde style?" Is there another way to write this that doesn't seem paradoxical? Perhaps: "critics who felt that Górecki had moved too far away from other avant-garde musicians"

GladiusMaximus34 (talk) 22:00, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

'Approximate' Duration

[edit]

I find the projected estimates of the duration of the entire piece and of individual movements to be a little troublesome:

  • A performance typically lasts about 54 minutes
  • Typically 27 minutes in duration, the first movement...
  • The nine-minute second movement
  • With a duration of approximately seventeen minutes, it (the third movement)...

I'm guessing a survey of actual performances and recordings will reveal significant deviation from the stated figures. Firstly, the 'typical' and 'approximate' durations listed for the individual movements (53 minutes) don't even add up to the 'typical' duration of 54 minutes listed for the entire piece. Rounding to 54 minutes implies the 'typical' performance should not deviate more than 30 seconds either side of this mark. A statement such as 'typically 27 minutes in duration' is only true if the majority of performances surveyed fall within a range of 26:30 to 27:30. The emotional content of the work does not benefit from that level of precision.

Suggestions:

  • Are these timings important or contribute anything important to the understanding of the work? I'd be OK with eliminating them altogether
  • Change the 'approximate' and 'typical' values to ranges or less precise values such as 25-30 minutes for the opening movement, approximately 30 minutes, or perhaps 'of a duration that would make Mahler proud' (jk...). The second movement is about half the duration of the first. I find 9 minutes to be excessively constraining. In listening to the piece it's easy to imagine given appropriate performance parameters that include emotions and acoustics the duration even for this shorter movement could vary by as much as 5 minutes from shortest to longest performance.
  • Assign less importance to the timings by moving them to a position later in the discussion. Important stuff first, less important stuff later. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.63.232.6 (talk) 17:53, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Symphony No. 3 (Górecki). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:55, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Symphony No. 3 (Górecki). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:44, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Symphony No. 3 (Górecki). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:59, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Symphony No. 3 (Górecki). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:01, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Symphony_No._3_(Górecki)&oldid=1234837975"