Talk:Threnody to the Victims of Hiroshima
|WikiProject Classical music|
Died in 1941 according to another wikipedia page (Tadeusz Zielinski's, actually). Removing sentence until citation can be provided. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.108.40.206 (talk) 16:29, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
The article states, "Another unusual aspect of Threnody is Penderecki's expressive use of total serialism." I see no evidence of total serialism in the piece and am wondering where this claim came from. Indeed, the New Grove Dictionary of Music and Musicians says "Penderecki never fully engaged with orthodox serial techniques" and that the Threnody "remains a classic avant-garde statement of the period, not least because it represented directness of expression at a time of advanced post-serial complexity." If the article here is to assert that the piece is serial, it must at least cite a source. 220.127.116.11 (talk) 19:50, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
Well, for one thing, there isn't a lot of "citing a source" going on in this article. For another thing, the piece is not an example of total serialism. I fixed it. Gingermint (talk) 19:41, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
"To" or "for"?
- It's absolutely "for" the Victims of Hiroshima, not "to." That's a pretty serious error. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 18.104.22.168 (talk • contribs) 7 March 2006.
- I have always heard it referred to as Threnody to the victims of Hiroshima, not Threnody for the victims of Hiroshima. As a non-expert, I ask on what authority you state that "to" is wrong? In German, as published by Schott, it is Threnos. Den Opfern von Hiroshima. The British library (search their online catalogue) who probably have some experience at this sort of thing translates this with "to" not "for", whereas Google returns more results if you search for the exact phrase "Threnody for the victims of Hiroshima". Interestingly, altavista babelfish completely ducks the issue by translating it as Threnos. The victims of Hiroshima (which I actually think captures it better than the current article title)! What do others (including our Polish Wikipedian colleagues) say? If consensus says it should be "for", not "to", then let's move the article, otherwise let's put the title back. As an aside, since it's a matter of translation for which, to me, all the alternatives I've outlined seem acceptable, I hardly think it qualifies as a "serious error" :-) --RobertG ♬ talk 09:47, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
- Can't say I agree, RobertG. I've never heard or read anyone using 'Threnody -to- the victims of Hiroshima' before. The piece is referred to as 'Threnody for the Victims of Hiroshima' on all the international releases I've encountered so far, and on that authority as you say I would argue that the use of "for" is preferable to "to". I understand the point of how the Polish title apparently lends several possibilities, but if both "to" and "for" are correct translations then I can't see how the German (or any other) translation should be preferred to the American and, in my experience, internationally used title. And as you already mentioned, Google-wise ("for" and "to") I would also argue that consensus has already been reached. Igorrr 11:00, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
- Forgot about this. If no one objects, I'll be moving this article to the title used by its main publisher, EMI Classics, next week. Igorrr 08:53, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
Fact or Opinion?
The statement "The piece—perhaps as a nod to John Cage originally called 8'37" (at times also 8'26")—applies the sonoristic technique and rigors of specific counterpoint to an ensemble of strings treated to unconventional scoring." has no reference. It appears to be the opinion of the writer that there is perhaps a "nod" to John Cage. I note there is an article on the NPR website dated March 4, 2012 entitled "First Listen: Krzysztof Penderecki And Jonny Greenwood" by Anastasia Tsioulcas which states "Penderecki's Threnody originally carried a thoroughly abstract and deliberately unevocative title: 8'37" (a nod to composer John Cage's infamous 4'33");"  It is not clear whether or not the Wikipedia entry is an original thought or if there is a source to cite for this reference to John Cage's work.
In any case as presently written it appears the statement is a possibility that Wikipedia itself is suggesting.