Talk:Concerto in D (Stravinsky)

Premiere details

The Paul Sacher Foundation website confirms that all three works (the Stravinsky, the Honegger and the Martinu) were premiered at the same concert, which took place on 21 January 1947. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 20:04, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Any idea why White, Walsh (in the New Grove), and Gritten (in the Cambridge Companion) all say the 27th? I suppose that Walsh and Gritten may have relied on White instead of checking their facts independently. Although not perfect, White is generally very reliable. Is it possible that the Sacher Stiftung may have made a mistake?—Jerome Kohl (talk) 22:23, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

All things are possible. Even my lexicomusicological hero Saint Nicolas Slonimsky made a few bloopers. Maybe we need to find contemporary reports, reviews of the actual concert(s) and see just exactly what was performed when. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 22:41, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have already checked the archives of Die Zeit, which go back to January 1946, with no result. The Times is an obvious place to try, since they used to regularly report on important musical events on the continent in those days. One thought has occurred to me: I believe that Eric Walter White was an American, and if he was reading the date of that concert from a handwritten document in a European hand, he may have mistaken a figure 1 for a 7, since he might not automatically have looked for a stroke across the stem, and to an American eye a European figure 1 (which usually has a long upstroke) looks very like a 7. However, this is even worse than original research—it is nothing but empty speculation.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 22:58, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

But a theory that has the ring of truth, to my ears.

The Basle Chamber Orchestra's first performance was on 21 January 1927. Its 10th birthday concert was on 21 January 1937. It would be odd if its 20th birthday concert was on any day other than 21 January 1947. If the anniversary fell on an inconvenient day of the week, it might have been moved to a day or two either side. But 6 days later? Unlikely. That's not proof of anything, of course. And there's the possibility they gave concerts on both the 21st and 27th January that year. This site seems very detailed and meticulous, and confirms all three works were premiered on 21 January 1947. However, it in turn relies on data from the Paul Sacher Foundation. Imo, the PSF has more claims to being the horse's mouth about these details than any secondary reference. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 23:38, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) No luck with the Times. I have found a book, Symphony of Dreams: The Conductor and Patron Paul Sacher, by Lesley Stephenson (with Don Weed), Zurich: Rüffer and Rub, 2002 (reprinted 2003 by Scarecrow Press), which seems to confirm the 21 January 1947 date for the Concerto in D. However, I don't think this is independent of the Sacher Stiftung website, since the layout and use of abbreviations suggest that the website has taken their list directly out of the appendix to this book. Still, considering that the concert on 21 January was the 20th-anniversary concert of the Basler Kammerorchester, it seems unlikely that Sacher would have held back the Stravinsky for another concert six days later. FWIW, 21 January was a Tuesday in 1947, so the 27th was a Monday. Neither weekday seems particularly auspicious for presenting a concert, unless the date is significant, and the 21st appears to have been the anniversary of the orchestra's first concert (though their 50th-anniversary concert was given on 20 January 1977—a Thursday). I am perfectly willing myself to accept that the correct date is 21 January 1947, but how are we to deal with the conflicting data from three sources of sufficient stature that they really cannot be ignored?—Jerome Kohl (talk) 23:46, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, until and unless we find incontrovertible evidence for either date - and that would be something like a poster for the concert showing the date, or a review published a day or two later - I suppose we can't just dismiss any reliable source. Maybe we just say "January 1947" in the text, and have a footnote that explains we're not sure whether it was the 21st or the 27th, due to conflicting sources. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 01:12, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see what advantage there is in hiding such a comment in a footnote. If we can't figure out a way of explaining this honestly in the text, then we should stand aside and wait for an editor who is capable of doing so to come along and do the job for us. The big issue in any case is whether or not Honegger and Martinů were on the same programme. There is no controversy that both of their works were performed on the 20th-anniversary concert on 21 January—the only doubt involves Stravinsky's concerto. What a pity that Robert Craft was not yet on hand to give us an hour-by-hour account—complete with photographs—of what Stravinsky did, waking and sleeping, along with every Stravinsky-related event where the composers was not physically present.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 04:57, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I really don't think there's anything dishonest or cowardly about using a footnote to convey information. But I'm happy to let other interested parties have a say before we do anything. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 05:13, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, many years ago I was given some advice by an experienced author/editor: "If something is worth keeping in an article, it belongs in the main text. If you are thinking of relegating it to a footnote, it cannot be very important and should be deleted altogether, because it will only be distracting the reader with trivia." I believe firmly in this position, and have yet to see a convincing argument against it.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 05:51, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please permit me to violently disagree with that advice, which seems to be an argument for completely abolishing footnotes altogether. All the great non-fiction literature of the world has footnotes, and they have an honourable history. Also, it has nothing to do with "hiding" anything. You hide information by not mentioning it at all, and filling in information gaps with fluff, bluster and waffle. By no means is it the case that the content of footnotes is always trivial. If it's truly trivial information, we shouldn't be including it in our articles at all, anywhere. This present matter of chronological uncertainty combined with uncertainty about which, if either, of the other 2 works was also premiered on the same occasion, is by no means trivial, yet to cover it fully seems to be too much for a lede para. It could certainly go into the article text proper, after the lede, but this article (at least insofar as these details are concerned) is all lede at the moment. That to me seems a more pressing issue than whether the conflicting dates should appear in a footnote or in the article proper. Maybe if we structured the article more appropriately, the solution would reveal itself naturally. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 07:46, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You have my permission to disagree as violently as you like with the advice of my honoured mentor, and with my position. That is your right. I do however agree wholeheartedly that it is an argument for abolishing footnotes altogether. I also agree that this article currently has the appearance of a

polywog: all head and practically nothing else. It is particularly ludicrous to have a list of the movements with absolutely nothing at all about their form or content. I suspect (from what I know about this work) that there is little remarkable to tell of its history, apart from the faintly comical confusion over its premiere date, but there is certainly material out there upon which to build a fuller picture. Eric Walter White has proven a little unreliable on the date (and it is probable that the corroborating sources simply took over White's error uncritically), so perhaps we should treat with due caution what he has to say about the music itself, but it is a place to start. Unfortunately, the Concerto in D is often treated as a poor relation of the Dumbarton Oaks Concerto, and so gets much less attention from scholars. Still, has any editor here yet made a serious search of the literature? I know I haven't, so it is high time to do something. I'll race you to the finish line!—Jerome Kohl (talk) 16:28, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply

]