# Talk:Bethena

After several years on wikipedia, I decided to take the plunge and create this page. Please don't delete it -  it's a work in progress! Major Bloodnok (talk) 19:32, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

I've gone about as far as I felt I wanted to with this, and have just about used all the resources I could lay my hands on. What does the community think? Major Bloodnok (talk) 21:46, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't believe it is accurate to call the first theme a 4 against 3 polyrhythm. All the notes in the treble are either quarter or eighth notes.  This is against quarter notes in the bass.   The treble notes either coincide with or fall exactly midpoint between the bass notes.  To be called a 4 against 3 polyrhythm there would have to be 4 evenly spaced treble notes against the 3 evenly spaced notes in the bass. If you look at the bottom of the page of the link you have given you can see this explanation. Thanks. Troother (talk) 14:12, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Bethena/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
I will undertake this review. The article appears stable, neutral, well-written and well-referenced. The images appear in order and very well prepared in order to illustrate the article - kudos to editor(s) for that work.


#### Specific points
"...identification is made more difficult because her race is unclear" - clarify whether this refs to Freddie, or to the image on the music.
I'll clarify this; this should be refering to the image on the front cover of the music.
Done.
The section on form is a touch technical for a lay reader. For example, near the start is the following: "...in five different keys. Each of the major sections has a different tonality..." This immediately implies a key is different from a tonality. Frankly, a visit by the lay reader to tonality would not exactly cause immediate enlightenment. If "key" is what is meant, then rephrase the intro to just use the word once.
Agreed - possibly an over-excitement when using technical language. I'll simplify it.
Removed part of the sentence referring to tonality. I think it still makes sense.
Any chance of explaining to a reader what is meant by "chromatic interludes" - "a series of chords designed to harmoniously lead into a key change" or something?
I'll try and make this clearer - the material I have really doesn't mention these bits much.
Simplified this section in line with the reference.
A similar issue as for "tonality" arises with "cakewalk" - a wikilink that doesn't immediately assist the reader. A brief explanation (splitting the sentence in two i think) might be better.
I think I was trying to avoid too many sub-clauses. As you've suggested below, I'll separate these into separate sentences and explain the concept.
I have moved the information around a bit to make it tidier and to include a short explanation of "Cakewalk"
The use of both "theme" and "motif", and the wikilinking of the latter, suggests these are two different concepts, but that wasn't how i read the paragraph overall. I actually think that, despite repetition of the word, I would use "theme" again and lose the wikilinked "motif".
I'll replace the word to avoid confusion.
I've now removed "motif" altogether.
"The combination of the waltz and the syncopation has been compared to a 4 against 3 polyrhythm with many subtle variations" First the article needs to state explicitly that combining "unaccented eighth notes with accented quarter notes in the treble with conventionally accented three-quarter notes in the bass" amounts to combining waltz and syncopation. Only then can a sentence begin "The combination of the waltz and the syncopation..." Even then, there remains the issue of the technical nature of "a 4 against 3 polyrhythm with many subtle variations". I'd try a couple of things here. First would be to expand the wikilink thus: 4 against 3 polyrhythm. I would also consider expanding thus: 
"The combination of the waltz and the syncopation has an effect similar to a 4 against 3 polyrhythm, with the simultaneous sounding of two independent rhythms with many subtle variations." See what you think.
I agree with you here. I'll expand and clarify as you suggest.
I have now expanded the paragraph using your suggested phrasing and expanding the explanation.
"an inner voice". No idea what this means.
It's a phrase the source was used, and I think refers to the overal chord harmony contrasting with the melody line of that particular section. I'll try and clarify.
Essentially the source was discussing counterpoint in theme C. I've simplified that paragraph and the caption.
Why is it that the first mention of the incorporation of duple meter (itself a technical term) only appears in "critical reception" and not in "form"?
I didn't spot that; again, I was using the word used by the source. I'll take a look at whether to use Duple in "Form", or get rid of it, as it is probably unnecessary.
I have removed "Duple" altogether as it was confusing matters.
As you can see, almost all my concerns relate to technical clarity and accessability of the article, which is otherwise excellent. Regards, hamiltonstone (talk) 03:29, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments; I've annotated above and I'll amend the article accordingly. Major Bloodnok (talk) 17:21, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
I've started to do the changes you suggest. Major Bloodnok (talk) 22:30, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
I've now finished amending the article as suggested. Major Bloodnok (talk) 22:14, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
Excellent, that has improved everything. I'm passing it now. Look forward to your next contributions! hamiltonstone (talk) 23:29, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Bethena is my favorite Scott Joplin work. Even before I was familiar with the sad event that led to his having written it, I knew from the music that something like the death of a loved one had occurred, someone with whom there had been happiness. This article does justice to this magnificent piece of music. As far as I can tell, the article is accurate, although I was under the impression from a Web source I read several years ago that Freddie died of an untreated common cold (which happened in those days), instead of diagnosed pneumonia. Of course, a cold could easily have progressed to pneumonia, so this is a fine point. Anyway, I especially love the detailed description of the music, with its several unique and lovely modulation cadences (perhaps its most distinctive feature) that each separate contrasting happy and sad sections. David Spector 04:24, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

This has been transcluded from Wikipedia:Peer review/Bethena/archive1. Add any further related comments there.


### Bethena
This peer review discussion has been closed. 
I've listed this article for peer review because I've worked on this article and managed (with others) to get it to GA status; I was wondering whether there were any areas which the community thought could be improved, and ultimately whether it was possible (or worthwhile given the relative brevity of the article) to try for FA nomination.
Are there any parts of the article which need further development and explanation? I'm thinking primarily in terms of general improvements, but also in terms of FAN.
Are there any gaps (obvious or otherwise) in the article's coverage of the subject? I went about as far as I could with the sources I had, but maybe I missed important areas.
Are there any formatting issues / spacing / labelling and citations which could be improved? 
Any feedback (further to the GA-review) would be appreciated.
Thanks, Major Bloodnok (talk) 17:46, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
Brianboulton comments: My general reaction is that this article is at present too slight, and needs to be expanded if it is to be a comprehensive account of this musical work. There are also issues of accessibility, particularly in the "Form" section. Otherwise this is interesting stuff, but it needs to be developed if it is to meet the FA criteria.

Lead:
The brief lead does not conform to WP:PR, which requires a concise summary of the entire article rather than a brief introduction. Anything mentioned in the lead should be developed in the main text.
The number of citations in the lead is distracting. The citations would be better placed in the body of the text where these matters are raised.
"It was the first Joplin copyrighted work since his wife Freddie's death..." What is the significance here of "copyrighted"? Was this Joplin's first composition after his wife's death?
When you say this was played "throughout" the Benjamin Button film, does this mean it was literally played non-stop? Or that it was "used" throughout the film as the basis of its story?
Background
"Fall does not require capitalisation
"unidentified" rather than "unknown" associate
What is the distinction between "seeking commissions" and "writing for hire"?
"On 6 March, Joplin registered the copyright of Bethena, A Concert Waltz, and dedicated the work to the otherwise little-known "Mr. and Mrs. Dan E. Davenport of St. Louis Mo"." Needs a citation
"...and the identity of the woman featured on the cover of the work is unknown." Clarify that this refers specifically to the original publication of the music
I'm a bit confused by the last paragraph of this section. What is the significance of: " but had frequently advertised in the St. Louis Post-Dispatch newspaper"? The rest of the information in the paragraph doesn't seem to have a lot of relevance to the article's subject.
Also, this section covers rather more than "Background". Since it also covers the writing, dedication and publication of the work, perhaps a broader title should be used.
Form; It seems to me that this section is almost impossible to understand by anyone without a significant knowledge of music theory, and has to be rewritten in a form much more friendly to the general reader. Here are some examples of "difficult" sentences:-
"The alternate unaccented eighth notes and accented quarter notes is the rhythm of the Cakewalk minus the final note."
"The combination of the waltz and the syncopation, with the simultaneous sounding of two independent rhythms, has an effect similar to a 4 against 3 polyrhythm with many subtle variations occurring throughout the work."
"The B theme presents its counterpoint with the contrary motion of the bass and treble in bars 29-30 being exchanged in bars 31-32. This pattern repeats itself during the theme. In the opening phrase of the C theme, bars 77-81, counterpoint is evident with the melody line in the treble complementing the bass line."
Critical reception: I am not sure that the opinions of two Joplin biographers and two unnamed critics can be fairly said to represent the critical reception of the work. However, should there not be some information in the article on its public reception? Was it popular, did it sell well, etc? For it to be used in a film 100 years later is an indication that the work endured, but what was its general history over this long period?
I hope these comments help. Brianboulton (talk) 00:22, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Many thanks for this. It is most appreciated! I'll take a look at improving the article in line with your comments. Major Bloodnok (talk) 07:25, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
I have edited the article in line with the above comments, hopefully addressing all of the issues. Any comments further to the above would be appreciated.Major Bloodnok (talk) 21:12, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
I've just had a quick look, and made a couple of alterations in the lead. Please note that if direct quotations occur in the lead, they must be cited. Brianboulton (talk) 22:22, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
A further point occurs to me: there is no mention of the work having been recorded, though I assume it must have been. What about adding a very brief recording history, mentioning when it was first recorded and perhaps a few of the more recent issues? Brianboulton (talk) 20:54, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

How come images of the A, B, and C strains have been uploaded but the D strain has not?? Georgia guy (talk) 19:25, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

That's a very good point; it could be a very useful addition. I'll do it when I get the time, unless someone else beats me to it that is. Ben (Major Bloodnok) (talk) 10:44, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
It has been more than 3 years and no one has done it. Georgia guy (talk) 19:16, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Bethena. 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:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070224171910/http://www.scottjoplin.org/biography.htm to http://www.scottjoplin.org/biography.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).
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) 01:29, 1 November 2016 (UTC)