Talk:Symphony No. 2 (Brian)

	Symphony No. 2 (Brian) has been listed as one of the Music good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones Date Process Result March 3, 2025 Good article nominee Not listed March 26, 2025 Good article nominee Listed
Current status: Good article

This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Articles for creation This article was reviewed by member(s) of WikiProject Articles for creation. The project works to allow users to contribute quality articles and media files to the encyclopedia and track their progress as they are developed. To participate, please visit the project page for more information.Articles for creationWikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creationTemplate:WikiProject Articles for creationAfC This article was accepted from this draft on 13 September 2024 by reviewer Garsh2 (talk · contribs). Music of the United Kingdom (inactive) This article is within the scope of WikiProject Music of the United Kingdom, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.Music of the United KingdomWikipedia:WikiProject Music of the United KingdomTemplate:WikiProject Music of the United KingdomMusic of the United Kingdom Classical music: Compositions This article is within the scope of WikiProject Classical music, which aims to improve, expand, copy edit, and maintain all articles related to classical music, that are not covered by other classical music related projects. Please read the guidelines for writing and maintaining articles. To participate, you can edit this article or visit the project page for more details.Classical musicWikipedia:WikiProject Classical musicTemplate:WikiProject Classical musicClassical music This article is supported by Compositions task force.

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)[reply]

Reviewer: Tim riley (talk · contribs) 12:44, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality:

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

2. 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:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   B. Focused:

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

6. 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.

7. 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)[reply]

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 SL93 talk 23:08, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Engraving of Götz von Berlichingen

• ... that at various times Havergal Brian both claimed and denied his Symphony No. 2 described German knight Götz von Berlichingen (pictured) as portrayed by Goethe's drama?

• Source: "the four movements are associated in the composer's mind with various aspects of the character of Götz. The first, his resolution; the second, his domestic piety and love of his children; the third, the smell of battle; and the fourth, his death".

https://archive.org/details/in.ernet.dli.2015.60219/page/n145/mode/2up

"While denying that Symphony No. 2 had any detailed programme, Brian at first drew attention to the earliest of Goethe's dramas, Götz von Berlichingen (1771-73), as a primary inspiration."

https://www.naxos.com/MainSite/BlurbsReviews/?itemcode=8.570506&catnum=570506&filetype=AboutThisRecording&language=English

"According to musicologist Malcolm MacDonald, Brian’s reasons for denying this connection and for wishing his work to be viewed as 'pure music' were based on 'his anxiety lest those works with a known inspiration in literature be vulnerable to facile misinterpretation from people who look no further in music than for a programme. Brian never wrote programme music in that sense'.

MacDonald, Malcolm (1974). The Symphonies of Havergal Brian: Symphonies 1-12. Vol. 1. London: Kahn and Averill. ISBN 9780900707285.

• • ALT1: ... that the third movement of Havergal Brian's Symphony No. 2 calls for 16 horns? Source: "horns: 6 in I and II, 16 in III, 8 in IV" https://www.havergalbrian.org/works/symphony-2.php
  • ALT2: ... that Havergal Brian's Symphony No. 2 was inspired by a German knight (pictured) famous for the expression "lick my ass"? Source: "The Second Symphony also takes its inspiration, and arguably its context, from Goethe, this time Götz von Berlichingen." https://www.havergalbrian.org/articles/sym2_goetz1.php
  • Reviewed:

Improved to Good Article status by NeoGaze (talk). Number of QPQs required: 0. Nominator has fewer than 5 past nominations.

NeoGaze (talk) 10:46, 26 March 2025 (UTC).[reply]

• @NeoGaze: Not reviewing but having an image of Brian diverts attention from the bolded article, which is no good per WP:DYKDIVERT. Yeshivish613 (talk) 23:57, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Yeshivish613: The image is used in the article, but I can see your point, so I substituted it with an engraving of the knight (also used in the article). It probably fits better with the first and third hooks. For the second hook no picture would be really necessary. NeoGaze (talk) 08:01, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Reviewing... Flibirigit (talk) 21:55, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

General: Article is new enough and long enough
New enough: Long enough:

Policy compliance:

• Adequate sourcing: - ?
• Neutral:
• Free of copyright violations, plagiarism, and close paraphrasing: - ?

Hook eligibility:

• Cited: - ?
• Interesting:

Image: Image is freely licensed, used in the article, and clear at 100px.
Freely licensed: Used in article: Clear at 100px:

QPQ: None required.

Overall: The article achieved GA status on March 26, and was nominated for DYK on the same day. Length is adequate. Sourcing is good, but the first paragraph in the "Form" section is unclear as to its source. In the inspiration section, there is a lengthy quote by MacDonald, but only a few phrases are in quotation marks instead of the whole passage. This might work better as a blockquote to be clear on the source and that it is a quote, otherwise it infringes on plagiarism. The article appears neutral in tone. The proposed hooks ALT0 and ALT2 are interesting, but I cannot verify them. Where exactly are they cited in the article? ALT1 does not seem like it would be interesting to a broad audience, since the average will not know that 16 horns is unusual for a symphony. All images used in the article are in the public domain on the Commons. The nominated image is clear at a low resolution, used in the article, and enhances the hook. QPQ is not required for this nomination. Overall this will be an interesting nomination, but some concerns are outstanding. Flibirigit (talk) 22:29, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Flibirigit: I solved the first two issues you have brought. Now on the sources, for ALT0 I will try to explain things better.

Reginald Nettel states that the symphony had a program, which is not explicity stated by Brian (see source 1), then he later denies that the symphony describes the character (see MacDonald, Malcolm (1974). The Symphonies of Havergal Brian: Symphonies 1-12. Vol. 1. London: Kahn and Averill. ISBN 9780900707285.) In a 1969 CBC Radio interview he contradicts himself by describing the symphony as the "the Götz von Berlichingen" and saying that the finale depicted the death of the character (see source 2). The composer's last comment on the subject describes that he had in mind "Man in his cosmic loneliness: ambition, loves, battles, death" (see: https://www.naxos.com/MainSite/BlurbsReviews/?itemcode=8.570506&catnum=570506&filetype=AboutThisRecording&language=English)

Here is another source for ALT2: https://www.nybooks.com/articles/2017/12/21/super-goethe/ NeoGaze (talk) 08:15, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The response does not explain where exactly the hooks are cited in the article. In other words, point out which sentence(s) support the hook. Hooks must be easily verifiable as per WP:DYKCRIT. Best wishes. Flibirigit (talk) 11:41, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Flibirigit: For Alt0:"However, he contradicted himself when he was interviewed by the CBC Radio in 1969, during which he referred to Symphony No. 2 as 'the Götz von Berlichingen'"

Alt2 hook doesn't appear in the article itself. If that is precisely the issue, then just ignore it for consideration. NeoGaze (talk) 12:21, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have struck ALT2 accordingly. I struggle to verify ALT0 due to dissimilarity of the words in the hook and the corresponding text. The link to Götz von Berlichingen (Goethe) appears only in a section hat note, so it cannot be verified by a citation. There is no mention of Goethe in the same paragraph as the sentence supporting the hook. The only mention of Geothe is the same section is in reference to Faust, which further confuses anyone trying to verify the hook. Easily verifiable hooks have similar words, in one or two setences. I also suggest removing the word "would". I have no idea what is meant by "Brian would go on to attempt to"; it is too wordy. Enyclopedias are written in active voice, not passive. I recommend WP:FEW and WP:INTOTHEWOULDS as guidance. Flibirigit (talk) 14:10, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Flibirigit: I will rephrase that last part. Perhaps should I also modify the hook to better reflect the source? NeoGaze (talk) 14:41, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

New hooks are always welcome. Simplifying the corresponding text in the article is a good idea. Flibirigit (talk) 14:45, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Flibirigit: In the end I decided to create two new hooks.

• • ALT3:... that British composer Havergal Brian described his Symphony No. 2 as "Man in his cosmic loneliness: ambition, loves, battles, death"? Source: MacDonald, Malcolm (1997). "Booklet notes for the Marco Polo Recording (Rereleased on Naxos)". Naxos Records. Retrieved 26 February 2025.
  • ALT4:... that according to Reginald Nettel, the four movements of Havergal Brian's Symphony No. 2 represent different aspects of German knight Götz von Berlichingen? (pictured) Source: Nettel, Reginald (1947). Ordeal by music: the strange experience of Havergal Brian. Oxford University Press. p. 123.

I have struck ALT0 for not being easily verifiable. I remain open to proposed variants of the hook. ALT3 is interesting, mentioned in the article, properly cited and verified. ALT4 appears to be supported by two consecutive sentences in the article. Both sentences will need a citation directly at the end as per WP:DYKHFC. Also, ALT4 will need to be amended to remove the name of a non-notable person. It could reworded as "the four movements of the symphony were described as" or some variant. We could proceed with approving ALT3, or wait for changes to approve ALT4, or consider other hooks. Best wishes. Flibirigit (talk) 00:10, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Flibirigit: I further rewrote ALT4 to be supported by a single phrase from the source. I hope it is fine. NeoGaze (talk) 08:18, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• • ALT5:... that the four movements of Havergal Brian's Symphony No. 2 are associated with various aspects of the character of Götz von Berlichingen? (pictured) Source: Nettel, Reginald (1947). Ordeal by music: the strange experience of Havergal Brian. Oxford University Press. p. 123.

Please note, that instead of overwriting a hook, a new hook and new number should be listed. In other words, preserve the old hook, and start a new hook so the conversation can be followed by anyone. I've restored ALT4, and number a new ALT5. Flibirigit (talk) 11:13, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Flibirigit: Apologies, I didn't know that. ALT4 should be struck too then too, and if everything else is alright, we can proceed with ALTs 3 and 5NeoGaze (talk) 13:43, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have struck ALT4 accordingly. Will review ALT5 later today. Flibirigit (talk) 17:52, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have also struck ALT5, since it states the opinion of Nettel as if it were an established fact. The wording omits a qualifier like "described as" which is essential. I will continue with the remaining hooks, but will revisit the nomination if other hooks are proposed. Flibirigit (talk) 18:00, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Approving ALT3 and ALT1. As per my review above, ALT3 is interesting, mentioned, cited, and verified. ALT1 might not be interesting to a broad audience, but I will leave it to discretion of the promoter. ALT1 is mentioned, cited, and verified. Flibirigit (talk) 18:00, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Flibirigit: Thank you very much!