# Talk:Symphony No. 2 (Brian)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Symphony No. 2 (Brian)/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Nominator: NeoGaze (talk · contribs) 22:56, 12 March 2025 (UTC)
Reviewer: Tim riley (talk · contribs) 12:44, 25 March 2025 (UTC)


### Initial comments
The content is interesting, properly cited and the main text is well organised, but the prose lets you down.
Detailed comments:

Composition
"It was begun shortly after finishing editing the massive and ambitious Gothic Symphony, as well as composing the burlesque opera The Tiger" – this is a dangling modifier: the symphony did not finish editing the Gothic Symphony or compose The Tiger.
"Hoping for a premiere, it was sent to Adrian Boult" – another dangling modifier: the score did not hope for a premiere, though no doubt its composer did
"it was sent to Adrian Boult in October 1931, who was then Director of Music at the BBC – could do with reordering so that it is Boult rather than October 1931 who was Director of Music. Any why capitalise Director and Music?
"shelved for over fifty years, Brian not pursuing for a premiere or to stir further interest in the piece" – "pursuing"? Do you mean "pressing"? And why switch from "pursuing" to the infinitive?
"The symphony was not premiered until six months after Brian's death, on 19 May 1973 at the Dome in Brighton" – I'm guessing you mean the premiere was on 19 May 1973 rather than that was when Brian died? You must clarify.
"on 19 May 1973 ... 9 March 1979" – but earlier you use the American date order: "it was rejected on November 4".
"played and recorded as part of a broadcast at the BBC Maida Vale Studios" – I'm surprised you don't mention that this broadcast was the concluding concert in the BBC's broadcasts of all Brian's 32 symphonies (see here)
"Ever since then the piece as been performed a few times" – the prose is a muddle here. "as been" should clearly be "has been", and the opening "Ever" is superfluous.
"the life of the main character Götz von Berlichingen" – as this is a non-restricted (i.e. descriptive) structure you need a comma after "character".
"According to Reginald Nettel" – this would benefit from putting Nettel in context, e,g, "according to Brian's biographer RN" or according to RN in his  1976 H.B. and His Music"
"From this initial conception, which heavily resembles Liszt's Faust Symphony" – do things resemble "heavily"? Odd adverb to pick. One might expect something like "strongly" or "closely"
"or even Sibelius' Kullervo" – this is the current edition of Fowler on possessive forms of names ending in s:  Fowler (2015), p. 58: Names ending in -s: Use 's for the possessive case in names and surnames whenever possible; in other words, whenever you would tend to pronounce the possessive form of the name with an extra iz sound, e.g. Charles's brother, St James's Square, Thomas's niece, Zacharias's car.
"in 1972, the same year of his death" – you don't need the "same" here.
"According to music critic Malcolm MacDonald" – clunky false title
"He clasifies the work" – who is "he"? Brian or MacDonald? And you misspell "classifies"
"overtime during composition" – "over time" is two words in this sense (overtime is what you get paid for working past your normal hours)
"heroic figures of both the past and mythology, specially those of a mature age" – how is Oedipus "of a mature age"? And "specially" should be "especially"
Form
"The symphony is divided in four movements linked in pairs of two, an approach reminiscent of Saint-Saëns' Organ Symphony" – reminiscent according to whom?
"The language of the symphony is modern in sound, although not quite avant-garde" – says who?
"The harmonic scheme of the work is diffuse, and its tonal centres are unstable and distant, bringing tonality nearly to its limits." – Ditto.
"The harmonic language is reminiscent of Sibelius, particularly his Fourth Symphony. Like Sibelius, Brian makes extensive use of the tritone, which is present in almost every major theme in the piece and serves as basis for the whole symphony." – likewise. And "basis" needs an indefinite or definite article in front of it.
"Other's composers, such as Richard Wagner and Arnold Schoenberg had used the tritone as a form of "stable" harmony" – Ditto. And "other's should be "other"
"The ensuing description lays aside all programmatic considerations and offers a purely musical analysis" – Ditto.
"described to be in sonata form" – strange prose: you mean "described as", I think
This paragraph opens with 142 words, in  seven sentences, without any citation for the statements in them.
"Saxby points on the influence of Edward Elgar" – strange preposition: one points things out rather than pointing them on
"main theme exposed by solo Cor anglais" – two points here: first, why "exposed"? Strange verb to choose. Secondly, why capitalise the cor of cor anglais?
"reminiscent of Brahms' Developing variation technique" – two points here, too: the preferred possessive of Brahms is Brahms's (see above), and why capitalise "Developing"?
"Saxby points at the scherzo" – "to" rather than "at", surely?
"The fourth movement is generally described as a funereal march" – are you sure you mean "a funereal march" rather than "a funeral march"?
"The second episode consists of an elegy for strings, full of an Elgarian nobility as it grows into a passionate climax" – says who?
"recapitulated by the clarinet" – solo or all four?
"MacDonalds mentions" – MacDonald singular rather than plural.
"the movement's evocation of Wagner's Siegfried Funereal March from Götterdämmerung" – you quite definitely mean "Funeral" rather than "Funereal" here and in the next sentence. And Siegfried needs a possessive at the end.
References
A bit of a muddle. Why are the bibliographical details for Nettel 1976, Eastaugh 1976 and MacDonald 1974 squashed in with the citations rather than treated like Saxby 1981 and 1997, MacDonald 1983 etc in the Sources section?
And why are those sources in seemingly random order? Alphabetical order of authors' surnames is customary.
The foregoing points are, to my mind, so serious that the piece is close to a quick fail, but I'll put the review on hold for a week to give you time to address them if you can. Tim riley talk 12:44, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for reviewing the article @Tim riley
I think I have addressed most of the issues you brought in your comment with my recent edits. I just wanted to note a couple of things. First, Oedipus being described as "mature" comes from MacDonald himself in page 264 of "The Symphonies of Havergal Brian. Vol. 3". I quote below
"Beethoven in the ‘Nuremberg’ dream, Oedipus, Faust, and Goethe himself - conjurer of Faust and Gotz - are all figures of this type, a compound of the Hero and that other archetype whom Jung dubbed the ‘Wise Old Man’, and whom he considered to represent - not always in a benign way - ‘the factor of intelligence and knowledge’."
Second, in the reference part. I decided to create the sources section for sources that are referenced more than once, and leave sources that are mentioned only once in full detail in the reference list. If there is a better way to arrange this part, please tell me.
With the exception of these two points, I think the rest of the issues are fixed. NeoGaze (talk) 16:41, 25 March 2025 (UTC)


### Summary
There are still a few places where the prose is not as I would have written it, but that is not the point, which is that the prose now, to my mind, satisfies the requirements of GA criterion 1. Noting the problem with criterion 2d at the last GAN, I was particularly on the look-out for copyright violations, but I am glad to say I have not found any. The one substantial reuse of another writer's words is properly in quotation marks.
I still think your layout for the notes and references is peculiar, to say the least, but I don't think it flies in the face of criterion 2a. The requirements of criteria 3–6 are met. There are only two illustrations, but I can well see that this is all that's available. In my judgement the article is now of GA standard:
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Is it reasonably well written?
A. Prose quality: 

B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists: 

Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
A. References to sources: 
Well referenced.
B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary: 
Well referenced.
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: 
Duly tagged.
B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions: 
As well illustrated as I imagine is practicable.
Overall:
Pass or Fail: 

I am pleased to be able to promote this admirable article to GA. Tim riley talk 09:44, 26 March 2025 (UTC)