Talk:The Rite of Spring

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Classical music, which aims to improve, expand, copy edit, and maintain all articles related to classical music, that are not covered by other classical music related projects. Please read the guidelines for writing and maintaining articles. To participate, you can edit this article or visit the project page for more details.Classical musicWikipedia:WikiProject Classical musicTemplate:WikiProject Classical musicClassical music articles

The Rite of Spring was a good article, but it was removed from the list as it no longer met the good article criteria at the time. There are suggestions below for improving the article. If you can improve it, please do; it may then be renominated.
Review: July 6, 2007.

It is requested that one or more audio files be included in this article to improve its quality.
Please see Wikipedia:Requested recordings for more on this request.

... requested ... audio files ...

All of Stravinsky's works are under copyright (I apologize for posting this above all the other comments, but it needs to be adjacent to the relevant tag.) Robert Greer (talk)

Picollo

I assume the word picollo in the text should be piccolo.

It should, and now it is. --Camembert

Ballet score

"The Rite of Spring is a ballet score"

- I know what you mean, but isn't this slightly specialized language? I alwyas think of the physical score, the actual book, rather than the piece of music, when I read that. Would you consider a reword?? Thanks Nevilley 20:50 Feb 15, 2003 (UTC)

I've had a go. Better? --Camembert

Yes, much, thanks! :) Nevilley 01:28 Feb 16, 2003 (UTC)

Excellent piece on Rite of Spring. I changed the word "claque" since that always means "applauders" or, "Clappers" who are planted to show support. Hope you don't mind it being edited prior to discussion, it seemed minor, but unclear as it stood. Calicocat 22:56, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Article name

Should this article have the name Le sacre du printemps? -Acjelen 21:00, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

It is far better known to the English-speaking world as The Rite of Spring, and should be named such in the english section of the encyclopedia. Moltovivace 23:46, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. I find Le sacre du printemps is used much more frequently than its English counterpart in scores, performances, and in academic discourse. I don't believe the article should necessarily be retitled from The Rite of Spring. However, the commonness of its French title is given short shrift by its placement within the translation parenthesis. A sentence such as "The Rite of Spring, commonly referred to by its original French name, Le sacre du printemps" would be much more honest to this issue.Anderfreude 04:00, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No one has seen my suggestion to be problematic, so I changed it.Anderfreude 04:24, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I tend to agree that on a English language based site the English title should be kept. It makes for easier searching and cataloging, I would simply suggest that a redirect action be added for Le sacre du printemps and reference be made to this being the name in the original French, but again this being an English language site keep the English language title as the primary. FLJuJitsu 23:10, 7 Sept 2007 (UTC)

"According to some sources"

According to some sources, Stravinsky described the performance as "execrable" and thought the segment as a whole "involved a dangerous misunderstanding".

This is from the liner notes for Stravinsky's own recording of the piece and was published as being copyrighted under his name, transcribed from an interview. As such, it is more than mere reportage. Richard K. Carson 07:07, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Since no one has complained about the above comment, I have tweaked this section. Richard K. Carson 06:22, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Recordings

I wonder if there could a section about notable recordings. The only recording mentioned is the one by Stravinsky himself. Atavi 11:32, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What I wonder at this point is, what makes the listed recordings notable? This is the sand pit that the article on The Planets has slid into. If we're going to have a discography, it seems to me that it has to be a complete one, otherwise it is by definition POV. This is why I feel that without an agreed-upon template for what makes a recording notable, there shouldn't be any recordings listed. In a very quick scan of some piece-specific articles on Beethoven & Brahms, I have found no such lists of recordings. --Wspencer11 (talk to me...) 15:20, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Preferred wording?

"there are many different translations of the original titles; the ones given are Stravinsky's preferred wording." I had to tag this as needing a citation. Why would Stravinksy's "preferred wording" be in English? And why are the French titles no given? A reader might think this ballet was written in English.--Hraefen ^Talk 20:25, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think what they mean is that it is his preferred translation into English since when changing languages, sometimes wording gets screwed up.--Whitey138 01:01, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Players vs Instruments

Currently the instrumentation reflects the number of instruments required rather than the number of players. Should this be changed? 24.91.251.238 02:26, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It looks fine to me; what do you have in mind? —Keenan Pepper 03:34, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

GA Re-Review and In-line citations

Members of the Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles are in the process of doing a re-review of current Good Article listings to ensure compliance with the standards of the Good Article Criteria. (Discussion of the changes and re-review can be found here). A significant change to the GA criteria is the mandatory use of some sort of in-line citation (In accordance to WP:CITE) to be used in order for an article to pass the verification and reference criteria. Currently this article does not include in-line citations. It is recommended that the article's editors take a look at the inclusion of in-line citations as well as how the article stacks up against the rest of the Good Article criteria. GA reviewers will give you at least a week's time from the date of this notice to work on the in-line citations before doing a full re-review and deciding if the article still merits being considered a Good Article or would need to be de-listed. If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to contact us on the Good Article project talk page or you may contact me personally. On behalf of the Good Articles Project, I want to thank you for all the time and effort that you have put into working on this article and improving the overall quality of the Wikipedia project. Agne 01:52, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As Film Score

The article as it stands states:

The Disney studios maintain they were completely surprised by his turn of opinion in latter years. In the most bizarre iteration of Stravinsky's story regarding his trip to the studio, he claimed he signed over the rights for The Firebird to the Disney studios only after Walt Disney personally threatened him and told him he was going to film The Firebird whether he liked it or not, so he might as well sign over the rights and be paid for it. and then says: Such a story strains credibility . . .

What is being cited that the claim strains credibility?

L Hamm 05:28, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reggae?

I was listening to the radio and heard what sounded like a reggae group playing part of The Rite of Spring. The DJ never said who performed it, though. Has anyone heard (or heard of) this? 63.245.182.235 05:21, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Transliteration of Russian title

"Vesna svjaščennaja" does not really reflect current pronunciation in modern Russian, as the щ is no longer šč but rather šš, i. e. a very long voiceless "sh" sound. Does anyone agree with me? -andy 80.129.116.55 00:12, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Siouxsie and the Banshees - Nocturne

Didn't Siouxsie and the Banshees use this piece to open their concerts in the early 80's? I believe it's included with "Isreal" on the Nocturne album. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.63.201.84 (talk) 01:08, 9 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Wikipedia 0.7 Nomination

Well done, your article The Rite of Spring has passed through the Nomination Process. Social Studiously ^{My Editor Review! -} 12:14, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redundant references to piano versions

Just noticed that what I just added is largely redundant with the same info addressed in an earlier section; am deleting it and reconsidering. Whoops.

Good Article Review

This article is at Good Article Review for review and possible delisting of its GA status, due to not meeting criterion 2b, as far as I can tell. "Article is badly undercited, especially the more scholarly analysis. Would require someone with good knowledge and available literature to cite the stuff. The paragraph on Disney's Fantasia is very close to trivia. History needs more citations also." Please assume good faith and improve the article as it is reviewed. -Malkinann 04:09, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Would you be able to elaborate on what you mean by the article being undercited? It seems to have a fair enough number of references for an article of it's size. If you feel that there is content that is likely to be challenged that is not sourced can you point it out. - T-75|talk|contribs 16:09, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please check in at WP:GA/R - I was helping the initial reviewer out (who I've quoted) by posting the notice. -Malkinann 00:39, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I'll do that. - T-75|talk|contribs 16:01, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Would require someone with good knowledge and available literature to cite the stuff." I'll have a go. My PhD was on Stravinsky JonPowles 12:31, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reason for delisting

The article was removed for good article per review which found i tno longer met the good article criteria. However, the only reason was a significant lack of sources.--Exarion 04:32, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The review had not yet received an adequate number of recommendations to determine consensus at the time of delistment. For this reason, the discussion has been restored. Although, the few recommendations were all for delisting, therefore, the article shall remain delisted unless the article is improved resulting in a consensus for the article to retain GA. The restored discussion can be found here. LaraLove ^T/_C 06:19, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

An adequate number of reviewers have now determined a consensus to delist this article. That review can be found here. The article therefore remains delisted as at this time.--VS ^talk 07:16, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]