Jump to content

Template:Did you know nominations/String Quartet No. 16 (Shostakovich)

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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: rejected by reviewer, closed by Crisco 1492 talk 19:48, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

DYK toolbox

String Quartet No. 16 (Shostakovich)

(
)
  • Source: "The Thirteen-ness of the Thirteenth Quartet" by Iain Strachan in the DSCH Journal (July 2024): "Shostakovich had apparently intended to make a mathematical version of his DSCH signature in the key sequence of his quartets. Given that the musically logical sequence of keys indicated that if the composer had lived to complete a sixteenth quartet, it would have been in B major, this meant that the major key quartets of DSCH would all have been on the quartets whose numbers were perfect squares, namely 4, 9, 1, and 16".
  • ALT1: ... that there is no String Quartet No. 16 by Dmitri Shostakovich? Source: "Shostakovich and the 'Sixteenth Quartet'" by Krzysztof Meyer and Henny van der Groep in the DSCH Journal (July 2014)
  • ALT2: ... that Dmitri Shostakovich's String Quartet No. 16 has three movements, including a lyrical middle, ends with a double fugue, and does not exist? Source: Ibid; "Fifty Years Ago: April–September 1974" by Krzysztof Meyer (translated by Bryan Rowell) in DSCH Journal (July 2024)
  • Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/El Eternauta: tercera parte
  • Comment: QPQ coming soon. For what it's worth, my preference for these ALTs are in reverse order, with ALT2 being my most preferred. Also, is it possible to run this DYK on September 25, for the 118th anniversary of Shostakovich's birth?
Created by CurryTime7-24 (talk). Number of QPQs required: 1. Nominator has 48 past nominations.

CurryTime7-24 (talk) 20:20, 30 August 2024 (UTC).

  • The article was new enough and long enough at the time of the nomination. It is properly sourced; as all the sources are offline I am assuming good faith on verification here. ALT0 has a sourcing issue: the reference backing it up comes at the end of the relevant paragraph; according to WP:DYKG, the supporting footnote should be at the latest at the end of the sentence supporting the hook fact, which in this case is the DSCH signature aspect. ALT2 is a rather complicated hook so I'm rather disinclined to approve it. My preferred hook is actually ALT1; however, the article does not actually seem to back it up. The article is unclear if the String Quartet was even started, or if it was started but simply unfinished: if it was the former, then ALT1 is accurate. To be sure, I'm pinging Kingsif and RoySmith regarding ALT1 as both are knowledgeable about quirky hooks and their suitability. If ALT1 is unsuitable, only ALT0 will be approved.
There is another major concern: the lack of a QPQ. Per a recent discussion, the guidelines have changed so a QPQ should now be provided at the time of the nomination, rather than up to a week afterwards. As such, please provide a QPQ as soon as possible, as the nomination may be failed without further warning if one is not given soon. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 08:02, 31 August 2024 (UTC)
@Kingsif and RoySmith: It appears that the above ping did not work for some reason. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 08:04, 31 August 2024 (UTC)
  • I strongly prefer ALT1; the others are just too complicated. Also see T371948. RoySmith (talk) 10:13, 31 August 2024 (UTC)
  • While I have some questions about the focus of the article and whether it should really be about Meyer's work and how it was inspired by an uncomposed Shostakovich, if the reviewer is happy with it as is, I have no problems with alt1. I would object to alt0 on being too difficult. Kingsif (talk) 11:41, 31 August 2024 (UTC)
ALT2 could work, but it's cruising for a pruning, as in ALT2a: ... that Dmitri Shostakovich's String Quartet No. 16 does not exist?--Launchballer 15:35, 31 August 2024 (UTC)
  • Thank you all for bearing with me. QPQ is done. May I suggest the following amended ALT?
ALT2b: ... that Dmitri Shostakovich's String Quartet No. 16 has three movements, but does not exist?
@Narutolovehinata5: Meyer seems to imply in the transcript of his 1974 visit to Shostakovich and in his 2014 interview that the quartet was never even sketched. However, in the latter he also states ambiguously (emphasis mine): "[A]las, [Shostakovich] was not able to complete the project regarding the Sixteenth [Quartet]". Neither of the articles cited specifically details how much progress, if any, Shostakovich had made on this work at this point or ever. My copy of Meyer's monograph on the composer (in the Spanish translation) is also of no help; his mention of the work therein is even more fleeting. I've looked through the various books by Sofia Khentova, Shostakovich's official biographer, including her massive two-volume biography, which is far more exhausting in detail than any current English language books on the composer. It mentions various obscure odds-and-ends and aborted projects—but no String Quartet No. 16. Derek C. Hulme's Dmitri Shostakovich: The First Hundred Years and Beyond has an entire appendix devoted to such works. Again, no mention of this quartet. I've also not been able to find mention of it in the various Russian language sources in my personal library or in Levon Akopyan's editorial notes in the ongoing New Collected Works Edition of the quartets. For what it's worth, it's probably more likely that Shostakovich never went beyond working through the quartet in his mind. By 1974, his neuro-muscular disorder had made writing extremely difficult and exhausting for him. Consider that he had not even begun to work on the Fifteenth Quartet on April 11, 1974. (Meyer's visit and questioning may have been the catalyst to finally get work on that going: his first extant sketches are dated April 13.) The penmanship in the autograph copy of his last work, the Viola Sonata from July 1975, clearly evinces that it was a struggle just to get the notes to paper. (By this point, he could only write by having his left hand support his right.) Meyer is by far the most informative source on this cryptic work... but, unfortunately, he leaves a number of questions dangling. —CurryTime7-24 (talk) 21:20, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

@Narutolovehinata5, Launchballer, Kingsif, and RoySmith: Pinging as a courtesy. Please let me know if any work remains to be done on this nom. I'll be happy to amend the ALTs further if needed. Would like this to get approved and be included on the DYK for September 25, the 118th anniversary of Shostakovich's birth. Thank you all. —CurryTime7-24 (talk) 18:00, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

As much as I really like the "doesn't exist" angle, it seems that the sourcing and circumstances just aren't strong enough to justify it, so regrettably it may have to be dropped. Maybe Theleekycauldron has some more ideas on how to move forward. ALT0 is probably acceptable, but honestly not as good and I doubt it would get as much interest from readers. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 23:30, 3 September 2024 (UTC)
Could ALT1 possibly work? The wording is also slightly more ambiguous than the other ALTs, which unequivocally state that the work does not exist at all. There really is no "String Quartet No. 16" insofar as a published piece of music is concerned, but the wording of ALT1 doesn't rule out the fact that unfinished sketches, etc. may exist. —CurryTime7-24 (talk) 00:26, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
ALT1 is actually the sticking point here. The accuracy of the hook depends on how one interprets "there is no String Quartet No. 16." If one means "it was never made", yes it's accurate. If one means "it never existed", then exactly what "exist" means is the issue. The finished product doesn't exist, but as you said there's ambiguity if sketches or work was made. If they did, it technically did exist, if in an unfinished/unreleased state. Even if not, one could argue that it did exist as a concept if not as a composition that was at least attempted, so the hook is too vague and ambiguous. Even if it were to be approved, I can see it going to WP:ERRORS and/or WT:DYK before being pulled. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 00:54, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
@Narutolovehinata5: Give me a few hours to finish some work, then I'll respond. Thanks for bearing with me! —CurryTime7-24 (talk) 18:45, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
@Narutolovehinata5: Looking over ALT1 again, I'm thinking that perhaps this is simply a semantic debate. Because there really is no "String Quartet No. 16" insofar as there is no published score or any kind of tangible media directly related to it that is available. Even Meyer's derivative work is only based on his own conjectural idea of the work. That he, as a close friend and one of the great scholars of Shostakovich, did not utilize any of the composer's material is telling. It should be noted, too, that Henny van der Groep's title for his DSCH Journal interview places the projected work title within sneer quotes. Of course, I also have new ALTs for your consideration:
ALT3: ... that you cannot listen to Dmitri Shostakovich's String Quartet No. 16? (Source: "Shostakovich and the 'Sixteenth Quartet'" by Krzysztof Meyer and Henny van der Groep in the DSCH Journal (July 2014))
ALT4: ... that there is no String Quartet No. 16 by Dmitri Shostakovich to listen to? Ibid.
ALT5: ... that there is no available score to Dmitri Shostakovich's String Quartet No. 16? Ibid.
Otherwise, I think ALT0 would be best after all. —CurryTime7-24 (talk) 00:14, 19 September 2024 (UTC)
Yes the objection to ALT1 may seem like semantics, but semantics are actually taken seriously at DYK and can result in hooks getting pulled. Many of the issues raised at WT:DYK or WP:ERRORS are ultimately semantics, but given how much the project wants hooks to be accurate, semantics are important. Among the new suggestions provided, ALT3 is probably the best option and also accurate, but it needs to be reflected in the article. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 01:00, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

Is it possible to just use ALT0? While it is the blandest and my least favorite off all options, it appears to be the only one that isn't ensnared in potential semantical problems. As for ALT3, I'm not sure how to proceed without having to prove a negative. —CurryTime7-24 (talk) 22:20, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

I'm honestly not sure. I think it would be better to ask for a second opinion regarding ALT0's suitability. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 02:58, 27 September 2024 (UTC)
ALT0 depends on having heard of his monogram. I don't find it interesting.--Launchballer 12:25, 27 September 2024 (UTC)
At the rate things are going, it's probably for the best to let this one go. Unfortunately not all articles are good fits for DYK, often for factors beyond the nominator's control. It's a shame because the "not existing" angle is actually pretty good, but going that angle would surely put this at the crossfire of WP:ERRORS or WT:DYK. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 01:57, 1 October 2024 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Did_you_know_nominations/String_Quartet_No._16_(Shostakovich)&oldid=1249599557"