Wikipedia:Peer review/Symphony No. 8 (Sibelius)/archive1

Symphony No. 8
Symphony No. 8
— composition project —
by Jean Sibelius
	The composer, photographed in 1939. By then he had probably ceased all work on his Eighth Symphony, although he continued the fiction for many years that it was still a viable project.
Composed	first mentioned in 1926, end unknown

Symphony No. 8 (Sibelius)[edit]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.

I have always been fascinated by "lost" or destroyed literary or musical works, hence my previous endeavours with The Temple at Thatch and Monteverdi's lost operas (I'd have done Thespis, too, if some bright spark hadn't got there before). So it was inevitable that I would eventuallly pick up on Sibelius's ill-fated Eighth Symphony, the existence of which was a matter of debate for decades. He was assumed to have destroyed it—if it ever existed; recently, Finnish musicologists have been finding fragments and sketches which appear to relate to this mythical work, and have even persuaded the Helsinki Phil to play and record them! They suspect there may be more to come. Is there a new Sibelius symphony lurking in the piles of music manuscripts being pored over? Would it be good or bad news if there was? Read all about it, here. Brianboulton (talk) 18:50, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

At the starting post[edit]

I am greatly looking forward to getting into this - but what immediately struck me was the pic at the top - wouldn't, e.g. Jean Sibelius 1939.jpg (which I personally feel also suggests something of Sibelius as facade/insitution/alcoholic(?) rather than the active composer he no longer was) be better as more of the period? or at any rate something rather later than 1913? There are a number available on WikiCommons. Best, --Smerus (talk) 19:34, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

also I notice in a first readthrough Schneevoight cited twice, once saying "You have no idea how clever it is" (Speculation), once saying "You have no idea how brilliant it is" (Progress and Prevarication). (Presumably same qute in two versions?)--Smerus (talk) 08:49, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know which Commons page provides numerous portraits; the "Jean Sibelius" page offers a single pic, even older than the 1913 one. Also, there may be copyright issues on anything first published after 1923. On your second point, that is merely sloppy subediting on my part; I have removed one of them. I look forward to your further comments. Brianboulton (talk) 13:14, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Jean_Sibelius_1939.jpg looks OK for copyright.--Smerus (talk) 16:40, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Possible US copyright issues which I will check out. Meantime I've adopted it - it is so rare to see Sibelius actually smiling that it's worth it for that alone! Thanks for the suggestion. Brianboulton (talk) 09:11, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A few comments from Tim riley[edit]

This is top-notch stuff, and I have very little to suggest.

Background
- "prone to bouts of alcoholism" – I don't think one gets bouts of alcoholism: one is or isn't an alcoholic, though one may have it under control better at some times than others. See helpful list of alternative terms from a glossary of the works of Wodehouse:
  - awash: see blotto
  - woozled: see awash

- You clearly have expert knowledge in this area, to which I unhesitatingly defer. I briefly considered "fried to the tonsils" (never heard that one) but in the end have rephrased to "heavy drinking". Brianboulton (talk) 13:32, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

- Hepokoski – I had no idea he was a Sibelius expert. I have been reading him on Verdi's Falstaff, which is lurking in one of my sandpits. Quite a contrast.
Composition
- "the writer and critic Olin Downes" – vague feeling of tautology here: a critic in those pre-radio days was necessarily a writer, though I admit a writer was not necessarily a critic

- Yes - adjusted. Brianboulton (talk) 13:32, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Progress and prevarication
- "Nothing transpired from this" – "transpire" does not mean occur, happen or result, but (OED) "to become known, esp. by obscure channels, or in spite of secrecy being intended; to 'get wind', 'leak out'."
- "who led the Philadelphia Orchestra from 1936" – I think Ormandy was originally a violinist, but to an English eye "led the Philadelphia" was not what he did with a baton in his hand.

- Both fixed Brianboulton (talk) 14:19, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Destruction
- "the unthinkable – that…" – I think the MoS permits you to change the en-dash in this quote to the em-dash you favour in the rest of the article.
Discoveries
- "denigrated by musicologists" – was it really the dusty old musicologists or the thrusting young music critics?

- Maybe both, but I've changed to the all-purpose "critics" Brianboulton (talk) 14:19, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

- "the Sibelius Rights Holders" – a body corporate? The capital letters are a bit unexpected

- Capitalised in two sources (Sirén and Mellor) so I suspect it is a formally constituted body. Brianboulton (talk) 14:19, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

- Last quote box – a bit baffled by this. Is it one quote or two, and if the latter, how are they linked?

- Clearer now? Brianboulton (talk) 14:19, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - Much. That will do nicely. Tim riley (talk) 15:05, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

- "daring, spicy harmonies - a step…" – em dash for hyphen, as above, but more so.

And that's my lot. Sorry to deliver such a meagre gleaning, but, like King Gama, I find nothing whatever to grumble at. – Tim riley (talk) 11:59, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for all these. I will continue to fuss and polish. Am I right in thinking that Sibelius is not a major element in the Riley pantheon? If so, more kudos for bothering with this! Brianboulton (talk) 14:19, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As a fully paid-up Colin Davis groupie I went to many of his Sibelius concerts, including a perf of the Fourth that had the entire audience looking about as we tottered out at the end for a quiet corner in which to commit suicide. Now the great man is no longer here my Sibelian credentials may grow tarnished. I must say your article made me want to hit Sibelius over the head with a Schnapps bottle for his shilly-shallying, though your quote box about the inhibiting effect of being a national treasure is, I admit, very telling.

A few more comments from Smerus[edit]

Fascinating article about this Snark of a symphony ('they sought it with forks and hope'). I write as one who is a sceptic that the fragments relate to the 8th, but of course it is great to have the whole story here. Like Tim I have a few crotchety comments, but none I think are overpoweringly significant.

Lede

'How much...was completed is unknown'. That suggests anything from 0-100%,but we do know from the copyist's receipt that a first movement was finished. And it seems that this is all that we know - which ?may? be worth reiterating somewhere in the final summary.

I have left the lead, but added something to the opening of the "Speculation" section. Brianboulton (talk) 18:02, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

'It was generally anticipated that the flow of innovative works would continue' - no citable evidence of this (and it would be difficult find anything appropriate). ? Better 'There was no reason to suppose that the flow of i ws would not continue'?

My wording would I think be citable, but I prefer yours so have adopted it. Brianboulton (talk) 18:02, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

'In musical circles' - and outside of them as well I suppose, so the phrase may be superfluous

Agreed Brianboulton (talk) 18:02, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Limbo

The bound 'Symphonie' - but is there any reason to suppose at all that this relates to the 8th? It's not clear from the text (- e.g. this could have been one of the earlier symphonies, or even somene else's manuscript that Sibelius owned)

The reason for linking "Symphonie" to the Eighth is provided in the text by Kilpeläinen, who points out that none of the earlier symphony scores carry the unnumbered heading "Symphonie", and asks: "Could he have omitted the number to prevent news of the now completed Eighth from spreading? Or did he not give the work a number at all, because he was not satisfied with it?" Brianboulton (talk) 18:02, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Destruction

Begining of 3rd para - 'although Sibelius informed his secretary of the burning' - as this comes immediately after Salemhaara's postulation of a second burning, it's not quite clear that this relates, as it does, to the first and only known incineration.

Tweaked the wording here. Brianboulton (talk) 18:02, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Discoveries

'when the composer had become critically fashionable again...' Although many critics and musicologists did Sibelius down, I beleive that many held a place for him (and of course he continued to be popular in concerts). ?Maybe 'when critical interest in the composer once more revived'? - as it seems now (I hope) that Sibelius's position in the pantheon is secure and the revival is not merely a matter of fashion.

Again, I've adopted your wording.

General - It still seems a very murky story (not your fault of course). The long period of prevarication and fantasy by the composer about the symphony is itself a matter of great psychological interest (apart from musicologically). I am not well-read in Sibeliusiana - I have always gone along with the story which I somehow drew out of the atmoshpere that S. just burnt out after the Seventh and took to the bottle. Are there any psychological interpretations of his behavior that might be worth expounding in a bit more detail?

The final paragraph in the "Destruction" section summarises the main theories as to why the symphony was abandoned. Need more be added? I have not seen any professional psychological analyses of his behaviour, though it is possible they exist. Brianboulton (talk) 18:02, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again for an excellent article and a stimulating read. --Smerus (talk) 13:05, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your interest and for your helpful comments, much appreciated. Brianboulton (talk) 18:02, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Gerda[edit]

Fascinating! Just a few comments:

Lead: "Much of Sibelius's reputation as a composer rested on his symphonic works." Did that change? Or add: during his lifetime already?

Clarified Brianboulton (talk) 18:02, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Destruction: "Sibelius letzten Gedanken" is no correct German, should be "letzte Gedanken", - if it's like that in the source (I don't find it), add "sic."

It is as per the source (I had given the wrong url – sorry). "sic" added Brianboulton (talk) 18:02, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speculation: Sibelius wrote wrong German (chortext instead of Chortext), but probably best left like that.

It could be Siren's wrong copying of Sibelius's German - but I'll leave it as you suggest. Brianboulton (talk) 18:02, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The difference between a lowercase "c" and uppercase is minimal in handwriting. Perhaps Sibelius had it right, as you suggest. But we have to go by the source even if wrong ;) Gerda Arendt (talk)

Finally: I find it a bit misleading to read Symphony No. 8 and then find out it's almost not extant, but I would not know how to hint at that in the article title, - similar to "lost operas ..". Interesting reading! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:14, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think that last point of Gerda's is decidedly ad rem, though I too can't think how one would get round it. When I ran up the article on Elgar's Third I was able to call it "Symphony No. 3 (Elgar/Payne)", but obviously no such recourse is available here. I think you may have to leave the title as it is faute de mieux. Tim riley (talk) 15:17, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The precedents in WP are L'ange de Nisida (not one of mine), a lost opera by Donizetti; The Temple at Thatch, a destroyed novel by Evelyn Waugh (yeah, that's mine); and L'Arianna, an almost-entirely lost opera by Monteverdi (mine too, but still under wraps). All these carry a normal title. We could add the words "(lost work)" to the symphony title – but what if more of it turns up? What if Josephson's dream of a reconstruction should eventually come about? My inclination is to leave the title as it is, at least for the time being. Brianboulton (talk) 17:05, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Gerda: thanks for your review comments, all of which I have addressed. Brianboulton (talk) 18:02, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I like thinking together, thank you for that gift and your thoughtful actions, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:25, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that there is no easy way to describe the project character in the title, but we could show it "at a glance" in the article. You will find better wording. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:13, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't dislike this concept, but it is a bit wordy - does it need anything but a 'thumb' text on the lines of Gerda's caption, (and maybe the 'name' section at the top)?--Smerus (talk) 19:11, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I took the caption from the article, it could be any, of course. Great image, btw, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:30, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Gerda, thanks for offering the proto-infobox for consideration. It, or something like it, might well at some time be incorporated into the article, but not at this time. I intend to go forward with the present image and caption, and I hope that reviewers will respect this decision. Brianboulton (talk) 21:52, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The bound copy[edit]

Not that any of the following is much relevant to the review, but I am fascinated by the bound copy of an unnumbered symphony, which seems to me to be the crux of the story. It's not clear from the article whether the other bound symphonies were Sibelius's ms. or the copyist's. Also it's not clear whether Sibelius had other things bound by this company or only his own symphonies (or own compositions). If the binding company only did his own works, and the bindings were the copyist's versions, then it is highly likely I think that the the bound copy was a complete eighth symphony; one does not send such things to the binders until one is, at least temporarily, satisified. But clearly it wasn't, on Sibelius's further consideration, the Eighth Symphnoy of his heart's desire. There are two incompatible stories running in parallel in the article - the story of the symphony which was never written, but which Sibelius pretended was in progress; and the far more tragic story of the symphony which was written, but just failed to live up to what S. wanted it to be. The bound copy could point to the second storyline. Glad I've got that out of my system, apologies for spamming the page.--Smerus (talk) 19:23, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This thoughtful conjecture would make an excellent conclusion to a magazine article on the Eighth, but until such an article is published and I can cite it, I can't incorporate it here. Everything about the nature of what was bound in 1938 is circumstantial; we only have the bill which refers to the binding of a "Symphonie". It may have been the Eighth. I don't there is much more that can be said with any certainty. Brianboulton (talk) 21:52, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

May I suggest that we copy the above two entries to the article talk page? This PR talk page will subside into obscurity once we have moved on to FAC, but the point mentioned by Smerus may occur to later readers, and it would be useful to show that it has been examined now. Tim riley (talk) 14:03, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A good idea. I have copied the comments as you suggest. Brianboulton (talk) 15:13, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I will talk to my friends at the Slovak musical journal Hudobny zivot to see if they would accept such an article! Best, --Smerus (talk) 09:39, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Short comment from Eusebeus[edit]

This is strong work, offering a very readable and thorough take on a very interesting and longstanding Sibelian mystery. I suspect that Brian you may wish to move this to FA at some point, in which case my only suggestion would perhaps to offer a little further clarity on the (mental) health issues that afflicted Sibelius in the latter part of his life in terms of his compositional stagnation. Obviously, the point is not to duplicate the biographical details in the main article, but perhaps simply highlight these aspects to provide the context for his compositional difficulties a little more than is the case at present. Eusebeus (talk) 16:25, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for these comments. I have added a little to the final paragraph of the Destruction section, to highlight Sibelius's tendency to depression and lack of self-confidence as factors in his relative silence after Tapiola. The diary entry quoted by Ross seems a telling indicator of his state of mind, even when he apparently had little to be depressed about. Brianboulton (talk) 15:08, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from SchroCat[edit]

After so many excellent reviewers, it's been pretty slim pickings left on which to comment. The following are ~~not~~ suggestions, so take on board or ignore as you see fit. I've made a few small edits: feel free to revert if you don't like them.

Lead

"How much of the Eighth Symphony was completed is unknown; Sibelius repeatedly refused to release it for performance, though he continued to assert that he was working on it long after he had, according to later reports of his family, burned the score and associated material in 1945." That's quite a sentence and I had to read it a couple of times to get the full sense (although I was in a particularly dense frame of mind at the time!)

I have struggled to find a way of rephrasing this. I could replace the supporting clause "according to later reports of his family" with the single word "reportedly", but I'm not really sure that's an improvement. Brianboulton (talk) 14:13, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Background

"middle 1920s" or mid 1920s?

Either, but as I've previously used the "mid-" format, I've changed it. Brianboulton (talk) 14:13, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Progress and prevarication

"In a revision of plan": should there be an article in there?

Maybe, but the whole phrase is pretty well redundant, so I've removed it. Brianboulton (talk) 14:13, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speculation

Should "postwar" be one word?

I have often seen it thus, but the dictionaries seem to hyphenate it so I have done so. Tim riley may have a view. Brianboulton (talk) 14:13, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Tim Riley always has a view. I can't help it. I was born sneering. The OED will have none of "postwar", and insists on the hyphen. I am bound in all conscience to say that I think the OED is out of touch with reality. From a swift and highly unscientific check of online archives I reckon The Times and The Guardian favour "postwar", and The Indy and The Telegraph favour "post-war". My search site (Newsbank) throws up more "post-war" than "postwar", but if The Times and The Guardian go for "postwar" it's admissible me judice. I am too inclined to take the OED as gospel, and this is a reminder to me that I didn't oughter. Hyphenate or not, ad lib, I'd say. Pray remind me of this next time I'm laying down the law with the OED in my hand. Tim riley (talk) 15:03, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - Thank you Mr Pooh-Bah for that magisterial summary. I'll leave the hyphen for now (and maybe remove it later when no one's looking). Brianboulton (talk) 15:59, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As usual, an excellent and balanced piece which is informative and interesting. Drop me a note when you go to FAC. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 21:18, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review and helpful comments. Brianboulton (talk) 14:13, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My pleasure. As an aside I'm listening to the Friday repeat of Radio 3's Composer of the Week at the moment: it's Sibelius and the talk is about the unfinished eighth. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 18:03, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]