Talk:Piano Sonata No. 2 (Shostakovich)

Rewrite, FYI

Just letting everyone know that I rewrote this article earlier today. New and properly cited sources are used throughout, which add a lot of fascinating details to one’s appreciation of this enigmatic work. Hoping my work is enjoyable enough! :) —CurryTime7-24 (talk) 23:32, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

DYK nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Desertarun (talk) 08:22, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

• ... that although he initially dismissed his own Piano Sonata No. 2 as a "trifle," Dmitri Shostakovich would later consider it his most important piano composition? (Source: "At the composer's express wish after discussing several projects Inger Wikström performs here his Sonata No. 2. This work, which he premiered on November 11, 1943[sic] while the war was still raging, he values most among his piano compositions." Liner notes for Swedish Society Discofil SCD 1031, page 3)
  • ALT1:... that despite being considered one of the great exponents of Dmitri Shostakovich's Piano Sonata No. 2, Emil Gilels found the music unsatisfying? Source: "Even Emil Gilels, who later became one of the Sonata's greatest exponents, felt at the time that it "testifie[d] more to Shostakovich's wonderful technique than to the depth of thought which was characteristic of his last symphonies." (A Shostakovich Companion, page 143)
  • ALT2:... that Dmitri Shostakovich's Piano Sonata No. 2 was described by one commentator as being "something disquieting—something faintly obsessive"? Source: "John Gruen notes that 'there is nothing forbidding in Shostakovich’s Second Sonata—nothing obscure or technically impenetrable about its design or content. And yet, something disquieting—something faintly obsessive—emerges from its deceptively simple structure.'" (Shostakovich's Music for Piano Solo: Interpretation and Performance, page 81)
  • ALT3:... that although Dmitri Shostakovich initially dismissed his own Piano Sonata No. 2 as a "trifle, something impromptu," he would later consider it his most important piano composition? (Source: "At the composer's express wish after discussing several projects Inger Wikström performs here his Sonata No. 2. This work, which he premiered on November 11, 1943[sic] while the war was still raging, he values most among his piano compositions." Liner notes for Swedish Society Discofil SCD 1031, page 3)

5x expanded by CurryTime7-24 (talk). Self-nominated at 20:41, 2 June 2021 (UTC).

Willing to review later today. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:56, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Substantial article, on good sources, offline sources accepted AGF, no copyvio obvious. I like the original hook best, as closest to the composer who cares about one specific disquieted critic ;) - I'd like "impromptu" also quoted. - If you want to pursue Gilels, turn it around, - "exponent" is too vague when we don't know yet that it's music to come. I'd pipe S. to his surname, he seems famous enough. I'd support an image of him, - better recognised than a given name. Some questions for the article, not needed for approval, but to be considered:

• pipe "sonatas for solo piano" to "piano sonata", - the article is not for readers who don't know what a piano is ;)
• I'd like a year of composition/completion early on, otherwise 1933 hangs in the air. I'd like an infobox, that's the easiest way ;)
• I'd prefer a summary in the lead (no. of movements, dedication, first performance ...), not one critic's evalution which I doubt is even lead material. It should appear in the body even if it remains in the lead.
• Once introduced as No. 2, you don't have to repeat that string with all capitals so often. "the sonata", or "his second sonata" will do. Perhaps repeat once in every section - if at all. This is generic, not something like a name.
• Use "would" only when needed.
• The last sentence of Music belongs in Reception.
• The Neuhaus quote seems to suffer from translation, but I couldn't read the original if there ...
• "great impression" is not specific, - I could do without the whole sentence if he had no more to say.
• "premiered" vs. "debuted"?
• "After they both ..." - too much follows before we get to know who "they are".
• The last para ("trifle") is a fine conclusion, but - as obviously not in chronology - would profit from a year given, for the conversation, and perhaps also for the other. (Actually, it's not even a real contradiction if he thought about his other piano works as even more "trifle". But I doubt that for the 24 preludes and fugues.)
• Make the references work. (How about sfn throughout?) This last point is needed for my approval. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:48, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Gerda Arendt, thank you very kindly for your thoughtful appraisal and your remarks. Let me fiddle around with the article in order to improve it according to your wishes; hopefully it should meet with your approval in the next couple of days! To answer three points where further clarification would be appreciated:

• As for the lede, the one I wrote for Prokofiev's Sixth was similarly constructed and was approved for DYK. My logic is that since the article will already discuss the first performance, does it really need to also be included in the lede. But the dating of the score and dedication to Nikolayev can definitely be fitted in; they slipped my mind earlier.
• I have not read the Neuhaus in the original. Unfortunately, what you see in the article is a verbatim transcription of how his remarks appear in Fay's bio.
• Glikman doesn't say too much about the work, but I think his input is important as he was a lifelong intimate friend of Shostakovich's and also imparts to the reader the wide range of reactions to Op. 62 from his closest friends and colleagues.
• In my conversations with Inger Wikström, she has personally recounted her encounter with Shostakovich and has told me when this meeting occurred. However, there is nowhere in print, at least that I'm aware of, which attests to that date. It isn't mentioned in her disc's liner notes.

Again, thanks for taking the time to read this article over! :) --CurryTime7-24 (talk) 18:35, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

fine! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:31, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Gerda Arendt, I've revised the article and DYK as per your recommendations. Please let me know what you think! Thanks in advance! --CurryTime7-24 (talk) 04:56, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

Thank you so much! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:41, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

Removed image

I deleted the image that was included in the infobox. What is needed is an image that is immediately relevant to the article itself, not a generic image of Shostakovich. Otherwise, you eventually have dozens of pages which have the same image. I do have an image of the sonata's dedicatee dated 1927 which could be used here; if not in the infobox, perhaps at least in the "Background" section. However, I scanned this image from a book printed in 2013. Is this safe to upload to Commons? --CurryTime7-24 (talk) 18:31, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

Interesting. Users are different. All operas by Handel showed the same image until this year (and most still do), and a user seems to have left Wikipedia because that was questioned. My usual stance: when there's an image related to the composition, wonderful! But if not, an image of the composer at around the time of composition gives a reader an idea about the background. If you check the operas by Rossini, many have an image such as a score cover, scenic design, singer in a role, others the composer young to old, funny or serious depending on the opera. I agree that the dedicatee should not be in the infobox. You decide though, I have been trained to follow the principal author's wishes ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:34, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

Gerda Arendt, no worries. I see what you mean. I'll restore the image, at least for the time being. Do you think the aforementioned image of Nikolayev would be safe to upload also, though? --CurryTime7-24 (talk) 07:40, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

I'm no expert in image licenses, ask GRuban or Nikkimaria, perhaps. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:15, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

GA Review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

This review is transcluded from Talk:Piano Sonata No. 2 (Shostakovich)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Amitchell125 (talk · contribs) 10:58, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

Happy to review the article. AM

Review comments

Lead section / infobox

• N Link piano sonata; composition (Musical composition); C-sharp minor.
• B-minor – no dash.
• composing the sonata in early 1943 – repeated information.
• form in B minor – simplify to ‘form’?
• Kuybyshev - amend to something like ‘Kuybyshev (modern Samara)', here and in the main text.
• N Introduce Ivan Sollertinsky; Emil Gilels; Inger Wikström. This problem also occurs in the main article – please check though the text and introduce the individuals accordingly.

Main text: Vissarion Shebalin; Lev Oborin; Ivan Sollertinsky, etc.

• N piano professor - ‘piano teacher’?
• Who was Isaak Glikman, apart from the composer’s friend?
  • Done! —CurryTime7-24 (talk) 21:22, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

Background

• N Shostakovich – needs to be introduced and linked using his full name, as this is the first time his names appears in the main article.
• Link piano sonata; B-minor (without the dash); Soviet government (Government of the Soviet Union); composition; C-sharp minor.
• Add a comma after some edits.
  • Done! —CurryTime7-24 (talk) 21:30, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
• budding sonata – why budding? Why is "graphomania" in quotation marks?
  • I removed "budding". Graphomania is in quotation marks because I was quoting the exact wording of Shostakovich himself. He did not suffer from the condition, but would often use the term in a joking way in reference to works composed during a particularly productive period. However, I can remove the quotes if needed. —CurryTime7-24 (talk) 21:30, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

Music
Link motif (Motif (music)); variations (Variation (music)). has been likened – by whom? I have wiki-linked "motif", "variations", and also removed the weasely language. —CurryTime7-24 (talk) 21:41, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

Premieres

Link Western (Western world). Done! —CurryTime7-24 (talk) 21:58, 25 July 2023 (UTC) Brodsky Lawrence's performance – was this the one at Carnegie Hall? Yes; I have clarified that passage. Let me know if that works. —CurryTime7-24 (talk) 21:58, 25 July 2023 (UTC) Lookes sorted. AM Donald Ogden Stewart was master of ceremonies for the concert, whose the audience included Andrey Gromyko - seems irrelevant, as it doesn’t relate the the music. As the Lubin article notes, the sonata had attracted an unusual amount of attention because of the recent international furor over Shostakovich's Symphony No. 7. Because of that and the general nature of the occasion, mentions of attending dignitaries seems germane to the sonata's reception history. Compare with the article for Mahler's Symphony No. 8, which is FA; it also makes similar mentions of dignitaries who attended its world premiere. —CurryTime7-24 (talk) 21:59, 25 July 2023 (UTC) Understood. AM

In the Soviet Union
Link critical (Critic); musicologist. Done! —CurryTime7-24 (talk) 22:04, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

In the United States

• Reading through this section, it seems to be mainly about the response to the work’s premiere in the US, and as such is imo excessively detailed. I would remove the quotes, and reduce the remaining text substantially, perhaps by half.
• Vera Brodsky is a duplicate link (amend to 'Brodsky' and unlink).
• CBS; American Russian Institute are also duplicate links.
• The last paragraph duplicates text from a previous section (see the comment about this).
• In 1945 (in the caption) – seems misplaced.
• The image of Brodsky is not needed, as it seems to be purely decorative.
  • I removed the repeated passage. Please give me a few hours to rewrite that section; it needs a little work. —CurryTime7-24 (talk) 22:10, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

Later appraisals
Link texture (Texture (music)). Done! —CurryTime7-24 (talk) 22:24, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

Shostakovich's personal opinions

• write an Eighth Symphony instead – he wasn’t aware of the work that is linked, as it wasn’t written until afterwards, so I wouldn’t link it here.
  • Please give me a day or two to dig out my copies of the new collected works edition of the Eighth's orchestral and piano scores. If I recall correctly, he may have already begun sketching it around this time. —CurryTime7-24 (talk) 22:35, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
• opinions (in the title) – 'opinion' sounds better imo.
  • Done! —CurryTime7-24 (talk) 22:35, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
• fluctuated – a value fluctuates, not an opinion, so this word needs to be replaced.
  • Done! —CurryTime7-24 (talk) 22:35, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
• Shaginyan's own opinion is given in a section about the opinions of the composer, so strictly speaking, it belongs somewhere else (or perhaps in a note).
  • Let me move her remarks to the "In the Soviet Union" sub-section. —CurryTime7-24 (talk) 22:35, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
• But in early 1973 – avoid But at the beginning of a sentence.
  • Done! —CurryTime7-24 (talk) 22:35, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

References; Sources

• Link Cambridge University Press for the sake of consistency.
  • Done! —CurryTime7-24 (talk) 00:34, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
• Your citation style is not consistent (see WP:CITESTYLE), as there are publications listed in the Sources section and also within the References section.
  • Thank you for pointing that out. I rewrote this article two years ago, then augmented it with new sources earlier this year. In the interim, I had become a much more experienced user of Wikipedia, which may account for the discrepancies you noticed. Please give me a day or so to properly fix these. —CurryTime7-24 (talk) 00:34, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
• Consider using this tool to ensure your ISBNs are written in a consistent way.
  • Noted. Let me get to it tomorrow. —CurryTime7-24 (talk) 00:34, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
• Ref 32 (Данилевич) needs to be transliterated (MOS:ROMANIZATION). Ditto Khentova (in the Sources section (Also, it's 'volume 2', not T.2).
  • Done! —CurryTime7-24 (talk) 00:34, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
• There is a url available for Fay here.
• Link Oxnard Press-Courier (note correct spelling).
  • Done! —CurryTime7-24 (talk) 00:34, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
• There is a URL here for Glikman.
  • Before I add the URLs, is it OK to include these? Both books are very much still under copyright. Fay's book, for example, doesn't go into public domain until 2095. —CurryTime7-24 (talk) 00:34, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

Adding URLs in this way is not an issue, presumably as it encourages the books to be read/bought, and the text in the article to be checked for accuracy. All the articles I have got to FA include such URLs, and it's a common feature of many other articles across Wikipedia. However, as it's not a GA requirement, it's up to you if you want to put them in. Amitchell125 (talk) 06:45, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

On hold

I'm putting the article on hold for a week until 27 July 29 July to allow time for the issues raised to be addressed. Regards, Amitchell125 (talk) 17:38, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for reviewing! I will answer and edit according to your recommendations starting Friday or Saturday (PDT). Just have some loose ends with a new article that I need to tie off first. —CurryTime7-24 (talk) 18:14, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

Haven't forgotten this, but it's been a busy few days. Will return to address everything in a few hours. Thank you for your patience and review. —CurryTime7-24 (talk) 17:26, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

@Amitchell125: I made a number of changes according to your recommendations and also have some questions. Also, may I please request an extension until July 29 (PDT)? It's been an eventful week. —CurryTime7-24 (talk) 19:45, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

No worries. Amitchell125 (talk) 06:18, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

I've started going through, crossing out issues that have been sorted, and marking with a small red cross (N) those that haven't. Amitchell125 (talk) 06:27, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

GA Review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

This review is transcluded from Talk:Piano Sonata No. 2 (Shostakovich)/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: MyCatIsAChonk (talk · contribs) 00:30, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

Didn't know this nom existed! I found it, of all places, on the talk page of the nominator of todays TFA- was looking for an old DYK hook and found your comment on the last GA review. How disappointing- happy to pick it back up! MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 00:30, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

CurryTime7-24, excellent work, just a few comments below. I'm currently reading Fay's biography, and it's a fantastic book- truly a fascinating figure. Very nice work on this article! MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 01:01, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

Thank you! As fine as Fay is, it wasn't until I learned Russian that I realized her bio is basically a gloss of Sofia Khentova's two-volume biography from the mid-80s. Simon Morrison is currently at work on a biography. My hope is that he accomplishes for Shostakovich in English what Alan Walker did for Liszt, Henry-Louis de La Grange did for Mahler, and Stephen Walsh did for Stravinsky. Fingers crossed! —CurryTime7-24 (talk) 19:09, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

Didn't know that about the book- I'll say, I'm impressed you know Russian and drew that comparison! This article is good to go for GA- great work! MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 19:42, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	Add Template:Use American English or otherwise appropriate Watch out for false titles- particularly looking at Critic and friend Ivan Sollertinsky... and the following sentence But in early 1973, he told pianist and composer... - false title, and I'd replace "But" with "Regardless" or "Nonetheless"- makes it sound more encyclopedic Musicologist David Haas likened it to a waltz,[13] while musicologist and pianist Sofia Moshevich said the movement... - false titles Donald Ogden Stewart was master of ceremonies... - missing "the" before master? Remove wl from critical Prose is clear and free of typos
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	No fiction, words to watch, or lists- lead is well-written. No MOS violations present.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.	Refs are placed in a proper "References" section.
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).	Is classicstoday.com reliable? All citations are to reliable sources; most books, but some are reliable websites too
	2c. it contains no original research.	I don't see a need for a spotcheck- besides, most sources are offline, so I can confidently AGF. Article is well-cited, especially in the "Music" section- no OR visible.
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.	Earwig shows no violations.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	Addresses the background, music, premieres, and reception- all good.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	In my opinion, the reception section is quite overdetailed. Most of it is quoting critics at the time and then mentioning other critics who concur, but it all boils down to, "Some loved it, some thought it was meh". This could be summarized in two quotes and concurrent critics could be listed afterwards. I believe dividing reception between the USSR and US makes sense, but I think some of the reviews could be pruned. Of course, there very well may be justification for the many reviews- always open to discussion! Great work on the trimming- article stays focused throughout
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	No bias visible.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	No edit warring.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.	Images are properly PD tagged.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	I don't see how the photo of Zhdanov is very relevant if his doctrine is only mentioned in one sentence Images are relevant and properly captioned
	7. Overall assessment.

• Thank you so much for taking on this GA review! Sorry for my delayed reply. Been a busy week! Will reply to you in detail later tonight (PDT), after which I'll begin responding to your individual concerns and suggestions for the article. Thank you again! —CurryTime7-24 (talk) 19:58, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

Sorry again for the delay. Looking over your review now and will respond in detail imminently. Thank you for your patience! —CurryTime7-24 (talk) 18:22, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

• Re. 2b: To my knowledge, Classics Today is considered reliable for recording reviews. Jed Distler, the writer of this review, is an authority on piano performance and history. He has written for various publications, including Gramophone, as well as liner notes for various reissues of historical recordings (particularly for Sony Classical). —CurryTime7-24 (talk) 18:45, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

• OK, I just made some edits based on your review. Please let me know what you think and if any further adjustments are needed! —CurryTime7-24 (talk) 19:04, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.