Talk:List of compositions by Dmitri Shostakovich

Miscellaneous comments

• Moved here from List of works by Shostakovich to bring some uniformity to Category:Compositions by composer. David Sneek 14:15, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

• Something slightly odd about Opus 99. As far as I can tell, the Shos vln conc #1 was originally Op 77, then re-written as Op 99. I amended the "Violin Concerto No. 1 (Shostakovich)" article to reflect this, but in checking here, something else is marked as Op 99. Someone with greater knowledge of Shostakovich should correct this; in the meantime, I can at least point out a possible problem. UPDATED: The previous statement is basically wrong (and I have corrected the Violin Conc no 1). I asked Onno van Rijen, whose list this is drawn from, and he replied:

"DSCH's Violin Concerto No. 1 is opus 77. This Concerto is composed between July 1947 and March 1948, though not released until 1955. This is the reason that it was originally issued as opus 99 (opus 77 was then allocated to Three Pieces for orchestra). So this Concerto was NOT rewritten."

• I have credited Rudolf Barshai with having arranged the op 110 and op118 quartets for string orchestra, because the implication was previously that Shostakovich had arranged them himself. However, I have not yet been able to find dates for the arrangements, so if someone them to hand, please drop them in. Andrew1984 18:39, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Using the translation "The Bright Stream", the 1934 comic ballet "The Limpid Stream" had its European premiere in 2003. It is beginning to look as if this is the preferred translation. Fusspot 10:56, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Orango and The Nose are described as “saterial” operas. What is this word? Is “satirical” meant?

Differences between opus 77 and opus 99

There actually is a very minor difference between the opus 77 and opus 99 versions. In the original opus 77, the opening of the Burlesca had the violin continuing to play without a stop over from the cadenza. During the rehearsals for the premiere, David Oistrakh asked Shostakovich to please give the violinist a rest between the cadenza and the Burlesca. Shostakovich happily complied and re-scored the opening of the finale for the winds and xylophone that we hear today. This became the "new" opus 99. This information is mentioned in Wilson's Shostakovich Remembered and Fay's Shostakovich: A Life.

Interesting, but I read this to mean that the piece as first performed is the later version. Was the op.77 version published before the premiere? Only in that case, I think, would it be recognized as a distinct version, as opposed to a stage of composition. (Oh, and please sign your posts!) JH(emendator) 21:54, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Shostakovich's Prelude XXI Bb Major (Allegro) - (Part of opus 87).ogg

Image:Shostakovich's Prelude XXI Bb Major (Allegro) - (Part of opus 87).ogg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 20:14, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Three 1939 Finnish works – or one, or two

• "Seven Finnish Folk Songs for soprano, tenor and small orchestra" (1939) is listed as Opus 56a.
• Another "Seven Finnish Folk Songs for soprano, tenor and small orchestra" (1939) is listed as a work without opus number.

Are these the same work, or different works with exactly the same title composed the same year? (unlikely, but possible, I guess).

• Now I’ve read about a "Suite on Finnish Folk Themes" for soprano, tenor and orchestra, which was discovered quite recently and had its FP in 2001. It was also written in 1939. Is this the same as either of the above, or is it an omission from our list? If it’s the same work, what explains the difference in the title, and how come Op. 56a got attached to it so quickly when it had been unknown to publishers, and the world at large, before 2001? -- JackofOz (talk) 05:11, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Folk Dances/Band music

A piece for concert band called Folk Dances attributed to Shostakovich seems to be popular. The edition I've seen says it's "edited" by one H. Robert Reynolds; it doesn't indicate that the piece has been transcribed. In any case, I don't see a listing of this work in any form in this article or, for that matter, a band music category. Is this list intended to be exhaustive? TheScotch (talk) 07:07, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

It is the 'Youth Dance' from Native Leningrad, Op. 63. I was curious for a long time about that one too. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 13:41, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Hey, thanks!....Armed with this information I was able to find the piece discussed briefly at various places on the web (mostly in performance program notes). There seems to be a difference of opinion about whether the piece uses real folk music. There is the following sentence repeated verbatim on various programs: "Shostakovich collected several native Russian dance tunes and carefully tied them together into this single composition." Then there is this from the Crane Wind Ensemble 4/18/12: "While the melodies used in 'Youth Dance' are reminiscent of folk tunes, Shostakovich's work is original." TheScotch (talk) 03:55, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Dances of the Dolls

Dances of the Dolls appears in the list of Piano Works as 1952 with no Opus number. In the chronological list it does not appear, but there is a piece in the right position with a different name: Seven Doll's Faces - I guess this is probably the same work. I have a published copy named Dances of the Dolls, which also has seven movements, so is Seven Doll's Faces incorrect or just an alternative? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rogerclarinet (talk • contribs)

Sounds like they are probably alternative translations of the same thing. Are there in fact seven dances in your copy of Dances of the Dolls? --Deskford (talk) 12:43, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

Yes, 7 dances. Lyrical Waltz, Gavotte, Romance, Polka, Waltz-Scherzo, Hurdy-Gurdy, Dance. Published by Boosey & Hawkes (19356).--Rogerclarinet (talk) 16:02, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

The equivalent article on the Russian Wikipedia lists only one work that seems to match, «Семь танцев кукол» (1952). I recognise "seven", "dance" and "doll" in the three words, but I can't remember enough about Russian case endings to work out how exactly to translate into English. --Deskford (talk) 12:55, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

кукол is in the genitive case, equivalent to the possessive case in English ("doll's"). It is more accurately translated as seven doll's dances or seven dances of the dolls.

side note: танцев is in the genitive case but only because the number "7" "семь" requires it to it has nothing to do with the possessiveness 112.213.213.212 (talk) 08:04, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

References

Lead section

List articles should not start with "This is a list..." - see MOS:REDUNDANCY. It should be obvious that a first sentence that simply restates the article title is no use to anyone.

In addition, anyone who speaks English knows that "based off of" is grammatically incorrect.

I found both those problems in this article, and I fixed them. User:Melodia, editing in bad faith, undid my edit, and has refused to respond to a simple request for an explanation. So I wish to record here their disruptive, frankly despicable behaviour. I undid their revert, and the problems are no longer present. I hope in the future, User:Melodia will not engage in such bad faith behaviour. Sankura (talk) 13:45, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

Sankura, thanks for your edits. It would be very helpful for everyone if you could please tone down your combative language. We're all working towards the same goal here; no need for division here. I also undid your revision of the article's header if only because it appears that at least a majority of composition list articles do not follow your example. I'm not against your ideas, but it would be helpful if you could please explain why this page needs to replicate the header from the composer's main article, when other lists don't. Perhaps you can rewrite the header in such a way that would be more relevant to this article. Some examples here, here, here, and here. Please let me know if I can be of some help. CurryTime7-24 (talk) 16:50, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

Someone undid my edit for no reason and than responded with breathtaking rudeness when I questioned them about it. If you find my tone "combative", you're not seeing the situation clearly.

As for your revert, in which you also restored the grammatical error, you appear to have misunderstood my edit entirely. The lead section that I added did not replicate the header from the composer's main article. Please explain why you think "This is a list of compositions by Dmitri Shostakovich." is a better lead section than what I had produced. Sankura (talk) 07:53, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

Having received no response, I once again replaced the useless stub with the actual informative lead that I had produced before. Sankura (talk) 10:51, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

Reverted your edit. Again, I’m not opposed to you changing the header. I agree that it needs to be changed. But all you did was insert a biographical header more appropriate to an article on the composer himself, rather than an article which lists out his works. I shared some examples with you of similar pages which you could base you own work off of (oops, on). Instead of pouting or berating others, I would very kindly invite you to engage with us in a collaborative process on this matter. Certainly I would be glad to help you in any way possible. CurryTime7-24 (talk) 21:50, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

It is clear that you still have not read the lead that I created. You have repeatedly mischaracterised it. Your first revert, putting back the hopelessly inadequate "this is a list", was simply disruptive. And now you are disrupting again. My lead says a) who Shostakovich was, and b) what works he produced. What exactly is your problem with that? Sankura (talk) 23:43, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

This isn't a biography of Shostakovich. No other article listing the works of a particular composer lazily copies the header from the composer's main article. The fact that you mention a "The Second Waltz" from The First Echelon would also suggest you know very little about the article you're seeking to take control of without cooperation from others who may be more knowledgeable in the subject. Shostakovich never wrote any such work. There is a "Waltz No. 2" in his Suite for Variety Orchestra; in that form it is better known and significantly different than the original in the aforementioned film. CurryTime7-24 (talk) 01:02, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

You have repeatedly misrepresented my edit here, and I see you've done that elsewhere as well now. You're also now making personal attacks. Clearly, you simply do not understand what I actually did. You have not bothered to read the text I added. You have replaced it repeatedly just purely to be disruptive, first of all with text that was obviously hopelessly inadequate, and now with text that you haven't bothered to format properly and which does not sensibly introduce the topic.

I'll say it again. The text I added says a) who Shostakovich was, and b) what works he produced. What exactly is your problem with that? Sankura (talk) 13:16, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

You merely copied and pasted the header from the composer's main article onto this one. The header ought to explain something about this article in question: namely the numbering of his works, the span of his documented career, idiosyncrasies in Shostakovich's numbering of his own music, etc. I've read your explanations and have told you repeatedly that I agree with you, but copying and pasting a header from elsewhere (complete with uncorrected factual inaccuracies) is not the way to solve this matter. A number of examples from other composer's composition list articles was shared with you in order to help you write an appropriate header, but you either ignored or didn't notice them. Once again I kindly ask that that you please refrain from combative language and assume good faith of your fellow editors, instead of berating them and assuming that their contributions are some kind of personal vendetta against you. We're all working together here. Your unnecessarily aggressive tone with Melodia and myself are very unhelpful.CurryTime7-24 (talk) 18:28, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

No, I did not "merely" do that. You are misrepresenting me over and over again, and you are making personal attacks. You are clearly entirely incapable of understanding what my edit did. It's time you grow up and find something better to do with your time than editing disruptively. Sankura (talk) 21:26, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

Sankura, I agree with CurryTime7-24. WP:SALLEAD states A stand-alone list should begin with a lead section that summarizes its content, provides any necessary background information, gives encyclopedic context, links to other relevant articles, and makes direct statements about the criteria by which members of the list were selected, unless inclusion criteria are unambiguously clear from the article title. This introductory material is especially important for lists that feature little or no other non-list prose in their article body. Even when the selection criteria might seem obvious to some, an explicit standard is often helpful to both readers, to understand the scope, and other editors, to reduce the tendency to include trivial or off-topic entries. I added bold to emphasize the lead in this list article needs to summary this list, which I believe is the same point that CurryTime7-24 is trying to make. Copying the lead from the composer's biography doesn't introduce the reader to THIS list, or explain what it includes and why. Schazjmd (talk) 23:21, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

I DID NOT COPY THE LEAD SECTION FROM THE COMPOSER'S BIOGRAPHY. GOT THAT? Sankura (talk) 23:22, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

Sankura, no need to yell. Whether it's copied or not (your edit summary when you first added it implies that it was), you need to work with other editors to get consensus on an improved lead for the article. Schazjmd (talk) 23:24, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

Sankura has been CU blocked Meters (talk) 23:31, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

I agree with Schazjmd. The lead of this article should be an intro to this list, not a bio of the composer. Meters (talk) 23:34, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

Who was arguing that it should be a bio of the composer? 109.144.19.43 (talk) 14:34, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

Quite a straightforward question, and yet nobody is able to answer it? 109.144.20.199 (talk) 19:09, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

OK, well if everybody is suddenly too shy to speak, I'll answer the question for you. Nobody argued that the lead should be a bio of the composer, and at no point was it a bio of the composer. What I see here is three people falsely accusing an editor of something they did not do. It looks like coordinated trolling to me. The silence in response to my simple question spoke volumes. 109.144.26.99 (talk) 18:41, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

The continued silence confirms that this was coordinated trolling. That really is shocking, and despicable. 109.144.209.189 (talk) 14:26, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

So you decided it would be productive to replace a substantive lead section with "This is a list". That was a spectacularly dumb way to behave. Then you decided to indulge in a little coordinated trolling. Now you've once again restored a lead section of such low quality that it doesn't even comply with the most basic requirements. You also made deliberately false accusations of vandalism against me. And of course you are childishly sticking your fingers in your ears and ignoring this discussion. What are you, like twelve years old or something? 109.144.21.12 (talk) 18:50, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

Keeping arrangements/suites

Taking it to WT:CM to ge a more broad discussion on the topic for composer lists in general. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 19:06, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

Ordering of opus numbers

Just in case anybody was wondering, the new default ordering of works, which has some later opus numbers preceding earlier ones, is not an error. I'm in the process of expanding and revising the table of compositions according to the new work list edited by Gerard McBurney, who lists in chronological, not opus number order. —CurryTime7-24 (talk) 22:02, 25 April 2023 (UTC)