# Talk:Symphony No. 5 (Nielsen)

After Nielsen's death, an edition of this symphony was published- edited by his close relative and violinist friend (dedicatee of the concerto, if memory serves) Telmányi and by another also- in which several indications were dropped, including that in which the percussion were asked to attempt to break up the texture, I believe (will check the more recently published critical edition, which restores Nielsen's original thoughts. The history here is somewhat interesting actually...) Schissel | Sound the Note! 13:30, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

The conductor Erik Tuxen and Emil Telmanyi made a large number of revisions and alterations for the published score of 1950; until the recent appearance of the critical edition one had to track down the original long out-of-print 1927 score to know what Nielsen intended, though there are also ambiguities that the first score does not address. --Wspencer11 (talk to me...) 13:33, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't believe the score includes contrabassoon but I will have to check and get back to you on this. --Wspencer11 (talk to me...) 13:34, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

This article is stable and sufficiently broad in coverage, but there are a few issues which need attending to:


### NPOV
The main problem I see with this article, relating to NPOV, is the inclusion of this paragraph in the lead section:

"The work is renowned for its high originality and its startling weight of substance, which distinguishes it from its precedent classical-romantic symphonies.[1] According to a programme note by Nielsen specialist Robert Simpson, musicologist Deryck Cooke went so far as he remarked the fifth symphony by Nielsen as "the greatest twentieth-century symphony".[2]"
Full of Peacock terms (see WP:PEACOCK), such as "high originality", "startling weight", and "greatest" this paragraph should be replaced by something more balanced, along the lines of:

"The subject of the Fifth Symphony, as with his Symphony No. 4 the war symphony (the description is confirmed by Nielsen[11]), is survival in the face of struggle. The forces in the Fifth Symphony are more organised and human, with clashes between creative and destructive elements. Simon Rattle described the Fifth Symphony rather than the Fourth as being Nielsen's war symphony.[10]"
Peacock terms are also evident in the last paragraph of the article.


### Referencing
Referencing is good, but a few more references are needed:

"Musicians' opinions were divided. Victor Bendix, a long-time supporter and friend, wrote to Nielsen the day after the première, calling the work a "Sinfonie filmatique, this dirty trenches-music, this impudent fraud, this clenched fist in the face of a defenceless, novelty-snobbish, titillation-sick public, commonplace people e masse, who lovingly lick the hand staine with their own noses' blood!"[5]"
Opinions are said to be divided, yet this statement is not referenced, and only one opinion is given. Another statement needing a reference is this one:

"Nevertheless the Swedes approved the symphony, as seen from reviews of the Stockholm concert on 5 December 1928."
Another substantive claim which deserves an in-text citation is this:

"The symphony did not reach Britain until 27 years after the symphony was composed, when Erik Tuxen conducted it in a 1948 BBC studio concert."


### English expression
English expression is generally good, with a few exceptions:

"Only in autumn he used..." (in Composition section), "was well in general" (in Reception section), "1927at" (in Performances section), "desicribed" (in Interpretation section), "It is at its climax comes..." (First movement), "execptional" (last paragraph).
Also, I think this would be an improved format for the last paragraph (although it still needs to have Peacock elements removed):
"A number of recordings have certain notability for their distinguished interpretations on the work and exceptional styles: 

Danish Radio Symphony Orchestra, Georg Høeberg, 1933 (Dancord)
Danish Radio Symphony Orchestra, Thomas Jensen, 1954 (Decca, Dutton Laboratories)
Danish Radio Symphony Orchestra, Erik Tuxen, 1955 live (Dancord)
New York Philharmonic Orchestra, Leonard Bernstein, 1962 (CBS, Sony)
San Francisco Symphony Orchestra, Herbert Blomstedt, 1987 (Decca)
Odense Symphony Orchestra, Edward Serov, 1993 (Kontrapunkt)
Leonard Bernstein's recording has helped the work to achieve international fame.[24]"


### On Hold
I've decided to put this article on hold as the article is close to GA status, however the issues noted above must be dealt with before GA status can be awarded. I hope that this can be addressed within the seven days allowed by on hold, and wish you all the best with your editing... -- Johnfos 03:43, 16 July 2007 (UTC)


### Some reworking done
I've done some revisions based on your review [1], i wished some of the authors could help as well. Cheers, RCS 13:14, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

I have made a medium-sized rewrite but there is still a ton to do; why this article has been nominated to be a good article escapes me. There are many passages that are almost useless in their description of what is going on. Besides, detailed analysis often slides over to being original research. WP isn't a musicological or theoretical journal and the level of technical musical analysis ought to be kept to a minimum, I believe. I'm not at all certain of how to write about it without either being way too scholarly or way too casual. And I really don't think we should be citing CD liner notes! If there's no better source we should leave it out, I think. The danger is we're going to sound like that anyway... --Wspencer11 (talk to me...) 17:17, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

The Saint-Saens Organ Symphony is in two movements, as is Mahler 8, so Nielsen's cannot be the first. --Wspencer11 (talk to me...) 18:42, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

The Saint-Saëns is in three movements and the Mahler is in two, admittedly, but is an oratorio or a cantata more than a symphony. Let's say Nielsen's was the first purely instrumental symphony unmistakenly set in two movements. RCS 21:59, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
Have you looked at the S-S score lately? It is in two movements. Period. Sorry to be emphatic but facts are facts. Plus the fact that there is a prominent organ part does not mean it is not a "purely instrumental two-movement symphony." (FYI the organ part was a literally last-minute addition.) As for Mahler, he called it a symphony (& did not call Das Lied a symphony, but only for suprestitious reasons), as did Shostakovich with Babi Yar and Vaughan Williams with A Sea Symphony. I don't understand why my version is unacceptable. I'd be perfectly happy to accept any improvement but this is not an improvement. --Wspencer11 (talk to me...) 22:54, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
Okay, having had a deeper look at S-S 3, i acknowledge you are right, indeed. Sorry. Now, what ? (by the way, i consider an organ to be an instrument too, don't you ?). Cheers, RCS 02:23, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
Of course it's an instrument! That's my point: an added organ still makes a work an instrumental work, which the revised sentence didn't seem to say. (I'm married to an organist, so I'm very aware of its importance!) --Wspencer11 (talk to me...) 03:00, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
I added the sentence before checking that S-S 3 was indeed in 2 movements (4 squeezed into two, specialists actually write), remember ? Cheers, RCS 06:04, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
Could you say something like "The form of the work is unusual: it is the first symphony in two movements that uses the standard symphonic orchestration." and then use a discursive footnote to note that S-S and Mahler 8 were earlier but the first used organ and the latter voices?  Just jumping in as an outsider, it seems like your two versions are already pretty close to each other in their wording that some compromise should be possible to work out.  (hey, didn't Schubert write a symphony also in tw---ow! ow! ow!  Okay, I'll be quiet!) -- Myke Cuthbert (talk) 05:09, 17 July 2007 (UTC)


### Compromise found
The work is noted for its unusual structure, as it was the first ever two-movement symphony written by a Scandinavian composer. What about that, folks ? RCS 06:40, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't particularly like it, but I am also unwilling to prolong this argument. I simply do not understand why this absolutely has to be the first two-movement symphony in some fashion? Besides, how do we know that no other Scandinavian composer did so? This feels like it could end up by saying this is the first two-movement symphony written by a left-handed Lutheran wih red hair who was born on a Wednesday. --Wspencer11 (talk to me...) 10:36, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
It all started with me quoting the liner-notes to the Saraste recording (a very good recording, incidentally) saying it was the first two-movements symphony ever. Obviously, blind faith was not sufficient here, but since obviously the symphony has to be the first of its kind of some kind, they do not let completely clueless people write liner-notes, don't they ? RCS 11:28, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
This is still my question: why does it have to be "the first of its kind of some kind"? Why can't it just be what it is? I suppose one could say it's the first symphony to include orchestral improvisation. I don't know, I haven't done any research on that. --Wspencer11 (talk to me...) 20:54, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
Okay, let's drop it anyway. I have replaced it by The work is noted for its unusual structure - two movements instead of the customary three or four. RCS 08:38, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
Completely clueless people writing liner-notes... erm... on the evidence of the results, at least, yes-- how many examples would you like cited (not referring to these particular notes, but very many others I've had the displeasure of reading) Schissel | Sound the Note! 03:57, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm pleased that progress is being made with this article, and compromises are being found, but it is still not worthy of GA status at this time.  My main concern is still POV, and in particular the statement in the lead about "greatest twentieth-century symphony."  I think there are more important things that could be said in the lead and that this statement should be moved to the body of the article instead of being featured in the way it is.  Some more references are needed to support what is being said and I've added a couple of {fact} tags. Please consider re-submitting the article after improvements are made.  -- Johnfos 00:35, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Symphony No. 5 (Nielsen)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Pyrotec (talk) 08:54, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Starting review. Pyrotec (talk) 08:54, 2 April 2010 (UTC)


### Overall summary
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

A well-written, well-referenced article. The WP:Lead is rather sparse. It acts as an Introduction, which is one of its functions, but is not all that good at providing a summary of the main points, which is its other function.
Is it reasonably well written?
A. Prose quality: 

B. MoS compliance: 

Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
A. References to sources: 

B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary: 

C. No original research: 

Is it broad in its coverage?
A. Major aspects: 

B. Focused: 

Is it neutral?
Fair representation without bias: 

Is it stable?
No edit wars, etc: 

Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales: 

B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions: 

Overall:
Pass or Fail: 

Overall, I'm marking this article as GA-compliant. The WP:Lead however is rather weak: I suggest that it is expanded - there is no mention of performances, for example. Pyrotec (talk) 09:36, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

I was going to say the same about the lead, please expand it a little. Congrats, OboeCrack (talk) 15:39, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Please see Talk:Symphony No. 6 (Nielsen)#Simpson editions for more information about editions of the Simpson book. Mirokado (talk) 19:18, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Symphony No. 5 (Nielsen). 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/20100409070144/http://www.kb.dk/en/kb/nb/mta/cnu/forord_kilder.html to http://www.kb.dk/en/kb/nb/mta/cnu/forord_kilder.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
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) 17:04, 8 January 2018 (UTC)