Talk:Serenade to Music

Source for Rachmaninoff info

This comes from the notes to the Hyperion recording of the Serenade, conducted by Matthew Best. How to cite? --Wspencer11 (talk to me...) 19:09, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

The concert pianist, Phyllis Sellick (wife and duo partner of Cyril Smith), was also at the premiere, having been given a ticket. As a student she might have expected to be somewhere in the Gods, but her ticket was for a good seat, and she could see Rachmaninoff quite clearly, in a box (I think). About twenty years ago (2002) she appeared on the BBC's Desert Island Discs, and she chose the Serenade to Music as her favourite disc, the one to be kept if all the others were washed away. And she chose Rach 2 as one of the other discs, which speaks volumes. She said that she noticed Rachmaninoff standing up and leaving the auditorium, not because he didn't like the music, but because he was crying, and she was close enough (and sensitive enough) to realise what was happening. The episode is still available on the BBC's website, and the relevant sentences could perhaps be transcribed, which would provide first-hand corroboration.

My old piano teacher, Terence Beckles, became Miss Sellick's replacement duo partner (secondo in his case), after she was widowed. He brought her to an informal concert I once gave, and so I met her. What a thoroughly beautiful woman, in every way. Pianola (talk) 12:24, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

Use in popular culture

I recently placed a reference to a use of this song in contemporary culture. Namely, the song is used in the first scenes of the blur documentary "No distance left to run".

This appears to have been removed becaused of "uncited assertion of dubious notability". This was my first serious wikipedia edit and although I am by no means adamant that this reference be included, it has raised several questions which I would like to discuss. I apologise if this is the wrong place to do so and would much appreciate being pointed in the right direction for futures "discussions".

In the first place, regarding the lack of a reference, the only possible reference might be the film itself, which I'm not really sure how to reference. I would appreciate any suggestions. I have found a clip of the film on youtube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NLpELcZHpio) but I don't know if this kind of reference - which probably isn't even legal and might quite easily have been a fabrication - is considered serious enough.

As for the notability, I'm quite sure this is a subjective measurement, to which countless years of discussion must be owed on wikipedia. Having said this, the only way to proceed in case of disagreement might be to offer as much evidence as possible atesting to the notability of the fact at hand and hope that those discussing it's non-notability might be eventually persuaded. Those who argue against notability are unfortunately much more restricted it terms of providing evidence for the non-notability. Alas, any evidence as to non-notability, might be considered notability in itself.

Having said this, even from a subjective standpoint, the documentary seems to me to represent a quite notable use of the piece. In the first place, it seems to be the only use in recent culture, which in itself seems quite notable, given its beauty.

As for the documentary, well it seems to be quite notable as a work on its own, having gotten a 93% Fresh rating on Rotten Tomatoes (usually cited on Wikipedia as a measure of general appreciation for a film) and reasonable reviews in The Times and The Guardian. It was also nominated for numerous awards including a Grammy (2011 Grammy Awards – Best Long Form Music Video)

However, the greatest stamp of notability must come from the object of the document: the band itself. Blur are certainly not a flash in the pan, having been perhaps the defining band in british culture over the past 20 years or so and the real driving force behind the britpop movement. I'm sure, of course, that many might argue that this is an untasteful apropriation of a piece written in a different spirit, almost a century ago. But it seems to me quite fitting that a piece of this power might have been (re-)presented to popular culture within a work which documents the falling-apart and successful reunion of one the most important cultural items of the past 20 years. Picomagalhaes (talk) 12:34, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

I am persuaded, and have reverted my deletion of the section. I've added a little detail and a good reference. Tim riley (talk) 13:26, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Programme of Sir Henry Wood's Jubilee

I removed "The Serenade was the climax of the programme" (in reference to its premiere) as it was actually followed by three other works: Wagner's "Ride of the Valkyries," Handel's "Hailstone Chorus" from "Israel in Egypt," and Elgar's "Pomp and Circumstance" No. 1 in D. This comes from The Musical Times, Vol. 79, No. 1148, Oct., 1938, pg. 778. http://www.jstor.org/stable/923797 Rubbersoul88 (talk) 13:35, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Alternative versions

• (lede) Vaughan Williams later arranged the piece into versions for chorus and orchestra and solo violin and orchestra.
• (text) Vaughan Williams … subsequently made arrangements for four soloists plus choir and orchestra and for orchestra alone. … The composer also authorised the performance of the solo parts by sections of the chorus.

So it seems there are 5 alternative versions:

• chorus and orchestra
• chorus and orchestra with solo parts sung by sections of the chorus
• 4 soloists, choir (chorus?) and orchestra
• solo violin and orchestra
• orchestra alone.

If this is correct, I think we shouldn't be dividing the details between the lede and the text. The full details of the alternative versions should appear in the text. The lede is meant to summarise the text, and there shouldn't be anything in the lede that isn't supported by the text. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 18:56, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

I concur about what belongs in the lead and what in the main text. As to RVW's different versions, I suspect that there is some confusion arising from what earlier editors have written. I think the first and second versions listed above may be one and the same, and likewise the fourth and fifth. Any version of the S to M must have a solo violin – think of the lovely solo violin part right at the beginning, before the singers get started – so I'm reasonably sure that the fourth and fifth are the same thing. As to the first and second, it's hard to imagine that RVW arranged or allowed a version in which the entire chorus sang all the words: the sops must surely have sung the IB, SA, ES and ET lines (including the ensemble passages) etc. But I have never heard a purely choral performance, and claim no expertise on the matter. Tim riley (talk) 19:36, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

A bit of WP:OR

It's well established that VW had specific singers in mind. But, did he also have specific instrumentalists in mind for the solos? I strongly suspect that he did.

I've seen an unsourced suggestion that the leader in the first recording was George Stratton, founder of the Stratton Quartet. I'll dare to suggest names for some of the other original soloists: Lionel Tertis (viola), Sidonie Goossens (harp), Leon Goossens (oboe) and Frederick Thurston (clarinet) - all of whom were in the right place at the right time. Their instruments all have important parts in the Serenade.

As an oddity - I can't hear a cello solo in the Serenade - but, nor can I think of an outstanding British cellist from Woods' era.

My speculation is purely fanciful unless any of it can be backed up by something WP:RS which says "he/she played a solo in the premiere of Serenade to Music". But, IMO it's worth keeping in mind in case there is something WP:RS, and you happen to come across it. Narky Blert (talk) 23:32, 29 May 2017 (UTC)