Talk:Symphony No. 3 (Górecki)

message: I am looking for the original Polish text of this symphony.  Does anyone know where I can get it? Lexiphile 19:36, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Its reproduced here. Ceoil 16:25, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Polish text

message: Nice touch, but two observations:
* They do not currently contain important information such as the source of the copyright (year and record label) or performers (at the least, the ensemble, soprano, and conductor).
* The one I listened to was way longer than 30 seconds, which as I understand it runs afoul of fair use.
Chubbles 20:52, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Given that copyright still very much applies to both the score and the performance (we're talking no earlier than 1970) even 30 seconds might be too much to claim fair use. We should probably remove the sound files altogether. Anton Mravcek 19:30, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Fair points. I need to find out the limit of what is acceptable; I'm traveling this week, will be back home in a few days, can shorten the files and add the source credits then. After that I will ask the advice of some of the admins specialising in fair use. Ceoil 17:19, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. Ceoil 10:25, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Sound files

message: The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and might not be applicable for the article in question.
*There may be an applicable infobox for this article. For example, see Template:Infobox Biography, Template:Infobox School, or Template:Infobox City.[?] (Note that there might not be an applicable infobox; remember that these suggestions are not generated manually)
*Per Wikipedia:Context and Wikipedia:Build the web, years with full dates should be linked; for example, link January 15, 2006.[?]
*Watch for redundancies that make the article too wordy instead of being crisp and concise. (You may wish to try Tony1's redundancy exercises.)
**Vague terms of size often are unnecessary and redundant -  “some”, “a variety/number/majority of”, “several”, “a few”, “many”, “any”, and “all”. For example, “All pigs are pink, so we thought of a number of ways to turn them green.”
*Please ensure that the article has gone through a thorough copyediting so that it exemplifies some of Wikipedia's best work. See also User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a.[?]
You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, Davnel03 07:29, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Automated Review as per [[User:Ceoil]]

message: I wonder if we can't find a more recent source for sales figures; I think that, since the Howard article was published, sales may have even hit two million copies. Chubbles 01:18, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Found one current up to Nov 2002... still at one million. Chubbles 01:27, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Nice, but still long, long ago. Ceoil 01:40, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Sales Figures

message: *the third movement contains christian text
*You know how it is between Poles and Germans
*Górecki was commissioned to write music in response to the Holocaust in the 1960s - Is it sure? 1968 was the time of anti-Jewish propaganda in Communist Poland. Xx236 08:41, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Quite sure on that last point; Howard discusses this. Chubbles 08:55, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Holocaust? Rather not. 

message: Just wondering if anyone was considering nominating. Chubbles 06:20, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, never mind. It would be a colossal waste of everyone's time. Chubbles 21:34, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And, the process has changed. Ha, ha. Chubbles 21:43, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What? Why would it be "a colossal waste of everyone's time"? Anton Mravcek 23:00, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I thought it would be fun to have something I worked on be a main-page article, but it's not. Guinea pig was featured today, and I worked on that, but 99% of the some 250 edits it got were vandalism and reverting thereof. Far as I'm concerned, it's better that the page be there for the people who want to read it rather than be a target. Chubbles 23:04, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think you should nominate. What the hell if a few vandals pass by; it will be read (if not edited) by more well than ill intention people. Ceoil 21:37, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: When I first wrote that, I hadn't realized that the procedure had changed. There is no queue now; there's only a place to request if you wish to have the article featured on a particular date that is significant (like, say, featuring the article on Christmas on December 25th). On other days, the procedure is now that Raul just picks one that hasn't been shown yet, I think. Chubbles 22:56, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The only issue would be finding a free image. But imageless on the main page would be fine too. Ceoil 19:57, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Main Page?

message: I came to this article having listened to the Symphony for the first time and, in spite of not being a Polish speaker or having a copy of the words, found it absolutely wonderful, moving me to the point of tears.
I was therefore very surprised that the "critical reception" section is almost entirely negative, even mentioning the composer's own surprise that the work had been successful. It gave me the impression of a work universally loathed and was quite at odds with my own first reaction.
I find it hard to believe that there was no positive critical acclaim whatsoever, in spite of the commercial success - after all, this isn't a lightweight populist work. Do any of the experts on this work know of some critical reaction that might balance this section somewhat? Or were the critics really unanimous in their dislike?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Xgretsch (talk • contribs) 16:51, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It was distained when first performed, and seen as very much out of step with the radicalism of the times. Very rarely performed during the 1980's, and was generally only available through casette copies. To be fair to the article, the symphony's revival in 1992 is well covered and explained. Ceoil sláinte 21:04, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with the first commenter, this seems very odd. The revival section says that it was played at here and there and was popularly successful, but surely there are some positive reappraisals of the work by critics? John.Conway (talk) 19:17, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  I'm a little shocked by the "critical reception" section 

message: Górecki was impressed by the 19th-century melody "Where has he gone, my dear young son" (Kajze mi sie podzioł mój synocek miły), which describes a mother's mourning for a son lost in war, and probably dates from the Silesian Uprisings of 1919–21
This doesn't make sense - how can it be a 19th-century melody if it dates from 1919-21? Can someone please clarify? Thanks! Madder (talk) 11:49, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Well spotted. Seem to be a mangling of sentences during a copyedit resulted in 2+2=5. I'll go back and dig out where these fact came from. Here is a thanks for finding this. Ceoil (talk) 20:09, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Text doesn't make sense 

message: Could it be included in another section, for example in "Instrumentation and score" next to the description of the music, so you can hear the music as you read? It is a suggestion. If not I suggest also to change the style of the template, because it mades so little space for the references section. Cheers OboeCrack (talk) 13:45, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Good idea. Ceoil (talk) 19:19, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: , I also moved some images to fit better, please check if you like the result. OboeCrack (talk) 20:20, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Nice work. Ceoil (talk) 22:16, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Media section 

message: Can we add the text in Polish to the article, or it is copyrighted? I don't know... OboeCrack (talk) 21:38, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Here says that "The texts themselves should be in the public domain unless otherwise stated. To the best of our knowledge, we have received permission to post all texts that are copyright." So we can do it, didn't we? OboeCrack (talk) 21:42, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  I have added some pieces of text in :es:Sinfonía n.º 3 (Górecki)#Descripción (Spanish wikipedia), I don't have English translation, but it would be interesting to add it. Please reply :S OboeCrack (talk) 21:50, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Text in Polish 

message: I'm fairly confident that Thomas' comment - 'no second-hand stylistic referencing'- must have been taken out of context. It is widely acknowledged that this work exhibits the direct influence of Karol Szymanowski's music, especially his Stabat Mater (1926). Thomas' article 'Intense Joy and Profound Rhythm: an Introduction to the Music of Gorecki' (PMJ 6/2) contains a detailed discussion on this- 'Górecki touched base with his predecessor. As he once said: "Where Szymanowski went, I went too.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wdc20 (talk • contribs) 16:10, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Szymanowski influence

message: I've found that the article Unfinished Symphony is not mentioned here, add something if you wish! OboeCrack (talk) 17:08, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: More info

message: There is a new version of this piece by Colin Stetson, some details can be found @ this pitchfork article
174.7.162.146 (talk) 21:49, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Colin Stetson "reimagining" 

message: quote 
"Until 1992, Górecki was known only to connoisseurs" This is wrong for several reasons. It is also redundant and circular. I propose to cut it.--— ⦿⨦⨀Tumadoireacht Talk/Stalk 12:48, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: It is cited.  Also see 1994 article from the New York Times:  "Gorecki wrote the symphony 17 years ago when Poland was cut off from the West and the composer was a fiery figure, fashionable only among a small circle of modern-music aficionados."  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.134.146.175 (talk) 16:45, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: And not very well like by most of them either, outside of Poland, France. Ceoil 21:50, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  speculative and unsubstantiatable ? 

message: "critics who felt that Górecki had moved too far away from the established avant-garde style"
What is the "established avant-garde style?" Is there another way to write this that doesn't seem paradoxical? Perhaps: "critics who felt that Górecki had moved too far away from other avant-garde musicians"
GladiusMaximus34 (talk) 22:00, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Contradiction? 

message: I find the projected estimates of the duration of the entire piece and of individual movements to be a little troublesome:
*A performance typically lasts about 54 minutes
*Typically 27 minutes in duration, the first movement...
*The nine-minute second movement
*With a duration of approximately seventeen minutes, it (the third movement)...
I'm guessing a survey of actual performances and recordings will reveal significant deviation from the stated figures.  Firstly, the 'typical' and 'approximate' durations listed for the individual movements (53 minutes) don't even add up to the 'typical' duration of 54 minutes listed for the entire piece. Rounding to 54 minutes implies the 'typical' performance should not deviate more than 30 seconds either side of this mark.  A statement such as 'typically 27 minutes in duration' is only true if the majority of performances surveyed fall within a range of 26:30 to 27:30.  The emotional content of the work does not benefit from that level of precision. 
Suggestions:
* Are these timings important or contribute anything important to the understanding of the work?  I'd be OK with eliminating them altogether
* Change the 'approximate' and 'typical' values to ranges or less precise values such as 25-30 minutes for the opening movement, approximately 30 minutes, or perhaps 'of a duration that would make Mahler proud' (jk...).  The second movement is about half the duration of the first.  I find 9 minutes to be excessively constraining.  In listening to the piece it's easy to imagine given appropriate performance parameters that include emotions and acoustics the duration even for this shorter movement could vary by as much as 5 minutes from shortest to longest performance.
* Assign less importance to the timings by moving them to a position later in the discussion.  Important stuff first, less important stuff later.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.63.232.6 (talk) 17:53, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  'Approximate' Duration 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Symphony No. 3 (Górecki). 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/20120917102253/http://www.mahlerarchives.net/archives/ellisevocations.pdf to http://www.mahlerarchives.net/archives/ellisevocations.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090814012656/http://pages.sbcglobal.net/jameswierzbicki/gorecki.htm to http://pages.sbcglobal.net/jameswierzbicki/gorecki.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:55, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Symphony No. 3 (Górecki). 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/20070607182456/http://www.cdtimes.co.uk/content.php?contentid=150 to http://www.cdtimes.co.uk/content.php?contentid=150
*Added  tag to http://www.ransomfellowship.org/articledetail.asp?AID=144
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:44, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Symphony No. 3 (Górecki). 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/20070927212621/http://www.andante.com/article/article.cfm?id=25383 to http://www.andante.com/article/article.cfm?id=25383
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070611145606/http://inkpot.com/classical/goreckisym3.html to http://inkpot.com/classical/goreckisym3.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:59, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Symphony No. 3 (Górecki). 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/20121018111313/http://www.usc.edu/dept/polish_music/PMJ/issue/6.2.03/GoreckiThird.html to http://www.usc.edu/dept/polish_music/PMJ/issue/6.2.03/GoreckiThird.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:01, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified