Wikipedia:Peer review/Sonatas and Interludes/archive1

Sonatas and Interludes

Sonatas and Interludes is one of John Cage's major works for prepared piano. I've been working on articles on his compositions for some time. I've listed this particular article for peer review because there's a passage here about the nested proportions technique, which is kind of difficult to explain briefly without using the score. The latter is not available: not only because the work is just some 60 years old, but also because to illustrate the technique I'd need a score of an entire sonata from the set, and thats clearly not fair use. So I did my best to explain the technique and I'm not sure about how well I did it. I asked for comments on the talk page of the classical music wikiproject, and earlier asked for comments about my Cage articles on the talk page of John Cage, but so far noone responded, and I take it that few people are interested.

The passage in question is in Analysis->Structure, right under the big table. I'm afraid at least some basic knowledge of music notation and/or music theory is needed.

And if anyone would be so kind to review the entire article, I'd be very grateful.

Thanks,

Jashiin (talk) 12:04, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Seegoon

Sorry, but I like minimalist music and I still have no idea what any of that meant. Mind you, it's hardly intended for the layman, so maybe my dimwittedness is irrelevant. But lo! Here is some non-useless input:

"The purpose of music, according to Sarabhai's teacher in India, was "to sober and quiet the mind, thus rendering it susceptible to divine influences,"" - citation needed.
Reference 17 is the wrong side of punctuation.

Generally the prose is superlative; I breezed through the article with great interest. I'd say it lacks a section on what the piece itself influenced, but sourcing such information would be a drag, to say the least. And a picture, somewhere, would add some flavour. But I'm hardly setting you down the path of FA-ness with this sage advice. Best of luck with it all. Seegoon (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 05:00, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the review! I've fixed reference 17 and added references for the quote you mentioned. I'll think about adding an Influence section; trouble is that after Cage almost noone wrote anything major for prepared piano. Jashiin (talk) 11:58, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've added a graph explaining the proportions - could you look at that explanation again and tell me whether it is any clearer now, with a graph? Thanks in advance. Jashiin (talk) 10:41, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Awadewit

What a delightful article! I have played classical piano for 25 years, so perhaps the article was easier for me to follow than most people. I have just a few comments.

The lead needs to be a summary of the article per WP:LEAD. It needs to reference all of the major sections of the article and be a mini-article just in case a reader doesn't go on. Imagine someone reading it who is just clicking from another article.

I didn't really think about it; I was under the impression that the lead has to be one, maximum two paragraphs for an article of this size (21k). I'll try to work on it, but its kind of difficult to reference all sections in just one short paragraph..

I think you can make a longer paragraph or even two paragraphs. The point is not rigid adherence to the one-paragraph rule, but a good introduction to the article, right? Awadewit | talk 21:28, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Are there available images of Cage or a prepared piano? The article looks a bit plain without any images.
What about audio clips from the piece?

Unfortunately, no Cage photographs qualify for fair use (they're all less than 50 years old..), and audio clips are, to my knowledge, forbidden to use because the score is readily available and anyone can create a recording. I might be wrong, but this thing happened a while ago in Johann Sebastian Bach (see Talk:Johann_Sebastian_Bach/archive_3#Unfree_audio_removal). Personally, I'd love to add a couple of audio clips from good commercial recordings. As for pictures of a prepared piano, I was unable to find a free one.

However, I'm thinking of adding a couple of bits from the actual score, since images of that kind are permitted (see actual pages scanned in Olivier Messiaen, which is a FA). I'm thinking a part of the table of preparations and an exceprt from one of the pieces in Cage's handwriting. Would that improve matters?

Yes, that does sound like a nice addition. I am not well-versed in the copyright of audio clips. I have just heard them on other classical and popular music pages, so I thought it would be a nice addition here, if it were possible. Awadewit | talk 21:28, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you care about the WP:MOS niceties, I noticed some tiny deviations, but these were truly minor - WP:MOSQUOTE and WP:MOS-L (on the date links).

Could you point out exactly which parts of the article do not conform to those parts of the MoS? I tried fixing certain small bits I found (see my latest edit), but I'm not sure if those bits are the ones you meant.

Usually single years are not linked and usually punctuation comes after the quotation when what is being quoted is not a full sentence (perhaps this is at WP:PUNC). Awadewit | talk 21:28, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It appears that Cage was fully aware of the implications of this: certain sonatas feature interplay between two versions of one note, others place special emphasis on particular notes, still others are very dependent on particular note combinations, etc. - spell out your meaning for the reader - "etc" requires the reader to have knowledge - they are coming to the article for the knowledge
The sonatas have very little to do with the standard definition of the sonata form (there are no primary or secondary themes, development sections, recapitulation, etc.) - again

Fixed both passages: removed the "etc." from the first (decided I've already mentioned all there was to mention and added "etc." as a nice touch :), briefly explained the sonata form (see the same edit.) Is this better?

Yes. Awadewit | talk 21:28, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Very well-written. I understood the description of the piece, but I see the previous reviewer did not. Cage is difficult to explain without technical terms. Perhaps explaining one sonata in detail with a chart? I hope this is helpful. Awadewit | talk 07:23, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your comments! I'll try my best to make a chart - trouble is, the only chart I saw explaining this technique was in fact so complex that I couldn't figure it out even though I understand the technique :) Jashiin (talk) 12:20, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that doesn't sound like it would help, then, does it? That was my only idea on that front. Sorry. This is a difficult piece to explain. Awadewit | talk 21:28, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've made a graph of Sonata III, which is explained in the article - could you look at it and tell me whether it improves matters? Thanks. I've also addressed other points (ie. expanded the lead, added an audio example, etc.). Jashiin (talk) 10:40, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style. If you would find such a review helpful, please click here. Thanks, APR _t 12:42, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]