Talk:Air and Simple Gifts

Weezer
Just a note, not really relevant to the article as such, but the instrument choices are the same as Messiaen's "Quartet for the End of Time".

meanwhile, can we keep the Weezer reference out of this? it's utterly irrelevant.

Acroyear (talk) 18:08, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

A bit more
If someone can find another reference or something, enough to add a tiny bit (just a sentence or two would probably do), this article would be a good candidate for Did you know, to be featured on the main page. Politizer talk / contribs 00:05, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
 * looks like Grsz took care of it :) Politizer talk / contribs 00:12, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I nominated it; the entry is here if anyone wants to see. Politizer talk / contribs 00:20, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Description
I figure this page is going to be getting high traffic by curious people, so I added a little description/analysis of the piece (by ear, of course). If anyone would like to contribute/trim down (up?), please do. Things that may be worth adding are the precise number of variations, maybe even description of each one individually.

Falstaft 19:22, 20 January 2009


 * Thanks for your contributions. It would help if you could dig up a source to corroborate what you've about the piece.  I'm not a music expert so I don't know much about it, but I believe some of the analysis might be considered "original research" under Wikipedia policy; if you can find another source saying the same thing, that would help. Politizer talk / contribs 00:27, 21 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your concern, Politizer. I'll add another, more technically oriented source. However, we're probably not going to get a thorough analysis elsewhere at this early stage. I'm a music theorist by trade, so I'll try to get something published on the piece some day though!


 * Falstaft

With atleast a very very basic grasp of the concepts, I can atleast vouch that it seems correct. I'm sure a source can be acquired before too long.  Grsz  11  00:35, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Image
I'm terrible with the image policies, so can somebody find an acceptable one?  Grsz  11  00:48, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Can't find anything free on Flickr yet...I imagine the best we can do for now is put up an image of John Williams (there are several at that article). Does anyone on WP have a friend who was at the inauguration and might have a photo (even a photo of the crowd looking at the Jumbotron would be ok) they're willing to release for us? Politizer talk / contribs 00:55, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
 * A feed of the performance should be available (by request) directly from the White House under the cc-by-3.0 license. ˉˉanetode╦╩ 00:04, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
 * There's already a YouTube link to the performance itself...although a feed might be useful if that link goes dead. But, if the feed is under CC, does that mean we could take a screenshot of it to use as an image for the article?  (I'm not clear on the CC-by-3.0 guidelines.) Politizer talk / contribs 00:07, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, all frames in the video can be modified and redistributed under the same license provided correct attribution. The problem is that while I'm pretty certain that the youtube videos were taken from a White House broadcast, none of them directly attribute authorship. If there's a paper/internet trail that connects these videos to the White House &/or the CC copyright, then we're in the clear. ˉˉanetode╦╩ 01:56, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Oops, yeah, I meant a screenshot of the White House video, not the youtube one. Sorry about the confusion. Politizer talk / contribs 02:16, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Could you please post a link to the White House video of the performance, so far I've only found a video of the inauguration speech itself. ˉˉanetode╦╩ 02:55, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't have any link to that...the only video I've seen is the Youtube one (included in the External links section of the article). Politizer talk / contribs 02:59, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
 * NM, found it at http://www.pic2009.org/page/content/live. I'll upload a few pics and save the video for future conversion to .ogg. ˉˉanetode╦╩ 03:07, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Awesome! I think this will be on the main page in 10 hours or so (through DYK), so if there are pictures up by then that would be great! Politizer talk / contribs 03:11, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

barnstar to the lot of you.
Seriously, nice job to all who've worked on this article. It's outstanding and prompt. Great DYK nomination... Thanks! Hobit (talk) 02:46, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

"song" misnomer
I'm not really sure the song box info calling this a "song by" [names of performers] is correct. They premiered the work, but the piece is not by them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.247.248.66 (talk • contribs)


 * I believe it's typical to list the artists who performed the song like that, and the composer below. In any case, in the future if you think an infobox is inaccurate, please correct it or discuss it at Talk&mdash;don't just remove it. Politizer talk / contribs 06:20, 21 January 2009 (UTC)


 * It doesn't have singing, therefore it's not a song. The automated infobox isn't appropriate in this case. The information contained therein can easily be incorporated in the body of the article. Darobsta (talk) 06:28, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Wait, what? It's not a song because it doesn't have words?  Grsz  11  14:03, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I suppose one could call it a composition, but "song" is acceptable for both vocal and non vocal musical works.
 * No, that's not correct. Musicians generally reserve the word "song" for a stand-alone composition with voice (usually solo).  Educated listeners do the same.  The generic word for a musical work is "piece".  This may seem like a bizarre distinction to some, or even pedantry/snobbery, but believe it or not it really grates on the ears of many to hear, say, a symphony (or, in this case, a quartet) referred to as "a song".  A song has singing in it.  --199.106.103.254 (talk) 20:51, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I would use "musical work." "Song" is a misnomer, and "piece" is too general. TJRC (talk) 05:31, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Classical musicians really do say "piece", not "musical work". "Piece" may sound general, but that's the word that's used.  --199.106.103.254 (talk) 16:25, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
 * The article is not directed at classical musicians. Whether they really do say "piece" is beside the point.  The opening sentence in the lede should be not be written as though classical musicians are the audience. TJRC (talk) 18:58, 27 January 2009 (UTC)


 * It's not just "classical musicians" it's educated people. Wikipedia is written in Standard English, not vernacular.  In vernacular English, everything is a "song".  Not so in Standard English.  "Song" should not be used to describe a wordless quartet, unless the composer specifically used the word (as in a "song without words").  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.46.240.131 (talk) 16:50, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
 * This is now fixed. The word "song" no longer appears in the article.  I don't think anyone disagrees with the issue here.  The problem is that current MP3-player user-interfaces currently use the word "Song" to denote a single MP3 file... which could mean a variety of different things depending on the genre.  This quirk is unfortunately making people's terminology a bit lazy (especially in areas of "genre crossover").  We'll just correct it each time it comes up. DavidRF (talk) 17:40, 4 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Just to be clear: I am not arguing for "song," which I agree is a misnomer. I am arguing against "piece," which is too generic.  My suggestion was "musical work," which is accurate, specific and clear. TJRC (talk) 19:41, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I now realize that this was a discussion of the word to use in the Infobox; I'd somehow thought we were talking about use in the lede. I have no problem with "piece" used in the work, once we're past the lede and context is established.  My only objection was to my misperception that it was the lede.  (To save everyone the trouble of looking: the lede uses "classical quartet," which I think is better than "song," "piece," or "musical work.") TJRC (talk) 19:59, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) I note that the trigger for this discussion was the use of Infobox Song, which by default labels a piece as a "Song"; and that template's deletion from the article. This could actually have been better addressed by overriding the "type" field. I've restored the infobox, with an appropriate override, and incorporated the image into it. Anyone see any issues with that? TJRC (talk) 19:56, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Looks fine to me. Personally I don't find the infobox very informative (see WP:Disinfoboxes), but it's not really hurting anything, either. Polit i zer talk / contribs 19:59, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Lord of the Dance
In addition to the Simple Gifts theme, there are definitely strains of the hymn "Lord of the Dance" towards the end of the piece. Stile4aly (talk) 15:57, 21 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Ah, ignore me... From the Simple Gifts page: "It should also be noted that the tune traditionally paired with these lyrics (see below) is also used in many hymnals for the song "Lord of the Dance"."  Stile4aly (talk) 15:59, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Reference problem
The reference numbered 4 doesn't actually offer the facts it is cited for. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Brkc (talk • contribs) 13:44, 22 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm pretty sure it does, in both cases. Can you elaborate on the problem? Politizer talk / contribs 14:02, 22 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Reference 4 is cited for the following information- "Williams based the piece on the familiar nineteenth century Shaker hymn "Simple Gifts," by Joseph Brackett." and "The piece is slightly under 4.5 minutes. It is structured in roughly three parts." The article cited, though, does not mention Brackett by name, gives a different indication of length of performance (albeit different by 1/2 a minute), and (according to sentence structure) presents the work in 4 segments. Brkc (talk) 19:57, 22 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Ref 4 does mention that the piece is based on "Simple Gifts," and I don't believe a ref is needed for the authorship of that work; it's referenced plenty in the Simple Gifts article. (If people do think there needs to be another reference for that here, you can take one of the refs from that article).  And, by my reading, the following paragraph does present the piece as being in 3 segments (I've added brackets):"'The composition arranged by Williams {begins with a soft introduction, played by Venezuelan-American pianist Gabriela Montero and Chinese-American cellist Yo-Yo Ma}. Moments later, {the violin, played by the Israeli-American Itzhak Perlman, enters with a sweet, pensive theme gliding over the lower voices}. {The cello then takes off and engages the violin in a lovely duet}.'" Politizer talk / contribs 20:14, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
 * nvm, I see what you mean about the "three sections" thing...there is more 2 paragraphs down. The NYT article (ref 6) divides it up in a more detailed way, as well.  The last paragraph of the article was originally written by one of the editors here as well-informed OR, basically (because it was minutes after the performance, so no sources were available yet) and  the sources were added later; if the sources don't match our editor's interpretation, I think the best solution is to have someone with musical training read the two sources (the newsday article and the NYT article) and write up a description of the piece that matches what's in the sources. Politizer talk / contribs 20:20, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Recording
Any news on whether there will be any recordings or releases or performances beyond the one at the inauguration? --Gwern (contribs) 21:43 22 January 2009 (GMT)
 * I hate to say it because it was so well performed, and such a moving event, but listening to it a few more times I have a hunch it may not be taken very seriously as classical music or become part of the repertoire. It's derivative and does not say much that the original hymn or the Copeland treatment didn't say many years ago.  Time will tell.  Wikidemon (talk) 21:53, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, it turns out that there's no reason it couldn't be released. =/ "Frigid Fingers Were Live but the Music Wasn’t". --Gwern (contribs) 04:00 23 January 2009 (GMT)

Relevance?
How exactly does the line "Copland's Lincoln Portrait was supposed to be featured in a pre-inauguration concert by the National Symphony Orchestra for Dwight Eisenhower in 1953, but was pulled from the performance when a Republican congressman from Illinois suggested Copland was too liberal, and perhaps a Communist sympathizer." relate to the subject of Air and Simple Gifts? A history of Copland's pieces in presidental inaugurations is really not appropriate in this article. It is interesting, but has absolutely no pertinence to the William's composition, while Copland has a connection, this song does not. I want to remove it, but wanted other thoughts first. Cheers! Scapler (talk) 22:59, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree that the relevance is not explained, but maybe it is there. It goes to the circumstances surrounding the commission and the artistic choices.  Obama admires Lincoln and identifies with him.  There may be a connection between that, and Williams re-conceiving a Copland piece.  That's all speculation - I think we would need a source that mentions that connection for us to make it here.  Wikidemon (talk) 23:05, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
 * (ec) Removing it would be fine with me. I think when the article was started we pretty much put in whatever we could find; now that the article has grown a little, it's probably not necessary. Politizer talk / contribs 23:06, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I added it last week to push it over the minimum DYK criteria. Marginally relevant, and perfectly okay to drop.  Grsz  11  03:58, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

I have deleted it, I most say I am impressed by the amount of information you guys brought together so quickly! Keep up the good work! Scapler (talk) 05:01, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Composition or Arrangement
Recent edits are calling into question whether or not this is a composition or an arrangement. Can we get a formal decision on this one way or the other? We all know he didn't write "Simple Gifts" but many compositions are fantasies and/or variations upon folk themes... that doesn't take away the writing credit from the composer. To me, "arrangement" implies that the exact piece was pre-existing with different scoring. Is that the case here? Thanks. DavidRF (talk) 00:58, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not a music expert, but I have assumed it's a composition because, as you said, it's not just a mix of existing works. Sure, he appropriated some stuff, but what he created is still a new work.  But take my opinion with a grain of salt, I don't really know anything. r ʨ anaɢ talk/contribs 01:13, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Taking an already existing theme and using it in a song does not make it a simple arrangement. Brahms is generally referred to as the composer of the Hungarian Dances, despite the fact that he only came up with three of the themes, where the rest were borrowed themes from Hungarian folk dances. Cheers! Scapler (talk) 12:49, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
 * That's what I thought. I'd like to change the word in the lead sentence back to "composed" but thought I should air the issue out here to break the edit/revert cycle.  Is there some sort of catalogue or opus number we can cite to "prove" its a composition?  Thanks. DavidRF (talk) 17:37, 12 April 2009 (UTC)