Talk:Dmitri Shostakovich

Featured article review needed
Of all composer FAs, this article is probably the worst in shape. It was last reviewed in 2007 and it hasn't been taken care of since. Honestly, anyone quickly skimming through the article can quickly tell that it isn't worthy of being featured. Wretchskull (talk) 12:55, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
 * The most critical issue issue is sourcing. Some pages are missing, and there are multiple CN tags present, though there should be far more. Some paragraphs rely on a single inline citation. The entire "Recorded legacy" section is an example.
 * The "Early career" and "Later life, and death" sections both display elements of "list of events" rather than prose. They are also dull and monotone.
 * The "Self-quotations" and "Orthodoxy and revisionism" sections seem to partially coincide. There is no mention of the DSCH theme in the first section, but it is mentioned in the latter section. Shouldn't the DSCH image be moved to "Self-quotations"?
 * Although not as necessary, it probably wouldn't hurt to have a few more images.

Who named the eighth symphony the "Stalingrad Symphony"?
Many thanks for tidying up the material around the seventh and eighth symphonies. I want to challenge one change, and given it involves multilingual sources, it seemed better to do it on the talkpage rather than via edit summaries. The issue is who tried to call the Eighth symphony the "Stalingrad". CurryTime7-24 cited Khentova's second volume on Shostakovich p. 193 to say that the name was applied in the Western press, contradicting an earlier sourced assertion I had put in that the Soviet authorities had encouraged that nickname. Khentova vol. 2 PDF is available here. "В уже наметившейся исторической перспективе, рассматривая две симфонии как единство, за ними закрепляли наименования: Седьмую называли «Ленинградская блокада», Восьмую — «Сталинградская симфония»."

"In the historical perspective already noted, taking the two symphonies as a whole, they were given names: The Seventh was called the "Siege of Leningrad" and the eighth the "Stalingrad Symphony"."

Although the discussion is about the playing of the symphony in the west and its reception there, I'm not sure that necessarily means that it was western media that gave the names. I note that this page from Radio Orfey says "такое название ей дали власти" ("such was the name given it by the powers-that-be"), in addition to the source I originally cited, which says:

"Conversely, the Eighth, less popular and dedicated to Mravinsky, resisted an attempt of the Soviet cultural authorities to lable it as Stalingrad Symphony and escaped an official narrativization. The tag did not stick because the Party was disappointed with the music and inclined to regard it as another fit of Shostakovich's formalism. (Delazari, Ivan (2020). Musical Stimulacra: Literary Narrative and the Urge to Listen. Taylor & Francis. ISBN 9781000327809.)"

(Apologies for no page reference, only the e-book is available on google books.)

I'm guessing that the Radio Orfey website is also a reliable source for this. Is it OK to change back to say the Soviet authorities initially wanted to call the eighth the "Stalingrad"? OsFish (talk) 06:18, 27 April 2022 (UTC)


 * Hi, OsFish! Khentova brought up that "Stalingrad" nickname within the context of her retelling the diverging fates of each symphony's reception in the West. The passage immediately preceding the one you quoted above states: "На материале этих исполнений в английской и американской печати Восьмую симфонию характеризовали почти исключи тельно в прямом сопоставлении с Седьмой. (Based upon these performances [in the West], the English and American press characterized the Eighth Symphony almost exclusively in direct comparisons to the Seventh.)" Although she doesn't state directly that the nickname originated in the West, the context of her remarks imply it. Skimming through the second volume of her Shostakovich biography, I could find no confirmation that Soviet authorities had devised this nickname. No mention of the nickname is found in the books by Danilievich and Luk'yanova. Edison Denisov's foreword in the 1981 complete works edition of the symphony also does not mention the "Stalingrad" nickname. Finally, Derek C. Hulme in his Dmitri Shostakovich: A Catalogue, Bibliography, and Discography states on page 230 in the entry for the Eighth: "Subtitle: Christened the 'Stalingrad Symphony' after its American premiere." —CurryTime7-24 (talk) 19:03, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
 * "Stalingrad" certainly hasn't been a strongly established name for the Eighth, but it does get mentioned even today. Further sources that do mention it tell a similar story to the ones I already found: that it was initially nicknamed the "Stalingrad symphony" by Soviet authorities/critics who wanted to will into existence a repeat of the seventh's suitably martial-heroic tone, but that the Eighth ultimately wasn't it, and indeed, contributed to Shostakovich's condemnation (Zhdanov etc.) For example, from Iain MacDonald in The New Shostakovich p. 167:
 * "Premiered in Moscow in November, the Symphony No. 8 in C minor, Opus 65, was immediately controversial. Seemingly the second instalment of a symphonic war trilogy, the most obvious thing about it was its blatant and virtually unalleviated tone of black tragedy. Even by the relatively relaxed standards of the early forties, tragedy was anathema to Socialist Realism - particularly at a time when the People were officially deemed to require nothing but uplift or light entertainment. With the Leningrad still thundering around the world, the Soviet authorities had been expecting another major propaganda piece: a Victory symphony which would blazon the exploits of Stalinism and the Soviet nation to the ends of the earth. First performed in the echo of the Germans' massive defeat at Kursk and the Red Army's recapture of Kiev and Smolensk, Shostakovich's Eighth, with its brooding catastrophism and depressive sense of doubt, rang a very dissonant - not to say dissident - note."


 * "Behind the scenes, Stalin's cultural apparatchiks were doubtless furious - yet they could do nothing. Temporarily the world's most famous artist, Shostakovich was beyond their reach and would continue to be so until Western radio stations tired of scheduling his Seventh Symphony. Putting a brave face on it, they floated the idea that Shostakovich's Eighth was a musical memorial to the dead of Stalingrad - and, though never adopted outside Russia, the 'Stalingrad symphony' tag is still current there fifty years later, notwithstanding the composer's disinclination to approve it."


 * Weickhardt, G. G. (2004). Dictatorship and Music: How Russian Music Survived the Soviet Regime. Russian History, 31(1/2), 121-141. : "The Eighth Symphony was initially interpreted by Soviet critics as another war symphony, and it even bore the subtitle "Stalingrad" for a short period."
 * Notes by a Duke University musicologist: "His Eighth Symphony, written in the aftermath of Stalin’s defeat of the Nazis, was given the name 'Stalingrad Symphony' by the Soviet government (notwithstanding its less-than-optimistic sound, which disappointed those who had hoped Shostakovich would create another propaganda work)."
 * Basically, everyone who specifically names the originator of the title names the Soviet authorities. It makes more sense to me that Russian language sources would still mention it if it had been a domestically attributed name than if it had been a shortlived nickname in the American press. OsFish (talk) 10:06, 28 April 2022 (UTC)
 * MacDonald's The New Shostakovich is a polemic that often plays very loose with the facts, as was pointed out in Malcolm Hamrick Brown's review. His claim that not only did the "Stalingrad" nickname originate in the USSR, but that it caught on nowhere else is one of many factual errors in his book. Tellingly, neither Laurel Fay nor Pauline Fairclough cite the work as a reference in their respective (and respected) biographies of Shostakovich. (The former is still the authoritative English-language biographical resource on the composer even twenty years after its publication.) CBS Russia correspondent Bill Downs—who had attended the Eighth's premiere, was the first Westerner to write about the music, helped to negotiate its Western premiere, and transported the score from the USSR to the US—would've been a great source to confirm the origin of the "Stalingrad" nickname. But according to this article from January 31, 1944, he says no such thing. The closest he comes is saying that Russians described the Seventh as being "retreat music," the Eighth as "advance music," and the forthcoming Ninth as "victory music." I also direct you to page 292 of the published correspondence between Shostakovich and Ivan Sollertinsky, which has a reproduction of the poster advertising the Eighth's world premiere. The nickname "Stalingrad" does not appear on it.
 * The evidence is that wherever the nickname "Stalingrad" may have originated from, it was at least not Russia. This is confirmed in Hulme's authoritative catalogue, which was published in cooperation with Shostakovich's widow and the guardians of the composer's archives. Unfortunately, study of Shostakovich's life and art is clouded by a lot of tantalizing speculations and rumors which, while seemingly plausible, turn out to be false. This doesn't stop them from being widely circulated, even by trusted sources, unfortunately. —CurryTime7-24 (talk) 21:09, 28 April 2022 (UTC)
 * As to the 9th being "victory music", it's not just the Beethoven tradition that might lead someone to think so; there's been a recording of sketches Shostakovich was working on for a never-completed version of the 9th that would have been more "victorious" in feel, until he abandoned them, and it's at least conceivable that he mentioned them to someone while he was working on them... as to "Stalingrad" getting mentioned even today, without some idea of the original source that's still not as compelling yet. (Forsyth in his book on orchestration mentions, in his section on the "phagotus" a false idea as to the origin of the bassoon that was repeated in book after book with, he half-jokes, the original misspellings etc. intact from the first author who made the mistake.) ELSchissel (talk) 15:09, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

"In 1948, Shostakovich acquired a book of Jewish folk songs"
I can understand - I suppose and sort of and reluctantly - not mentioning Mieczyslaw Weinberg at all anywhere else in the article but perhaps, unless there isn't definite evidence that it was Weinberg who provided this, he might be mentioned here. ELSchissel (talk) 22:00, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I'll look up the Shostakovich material I have at home to see whether Weinberg provided this book. However, I think he and a lot of other composers could definitely be mentioned in a new section that discusses Shostakovich's influence as a composer and teacher. I'm surprised no such section already exists. —CurryTime7-24 (talk) 22:19, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

Unassessed
Following the demotion from FA, this article is now unassessed. Is that right? How should i\t be assessed? -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 01:12, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

Modernist?
I added the Modernist Music footer template, since Shostakovich is included there, but was reverted because "Shostakovich is not a modernist". I'm a layman in this respect but was just looking to create consistency - according to this List of modernist composers, Shostakovich is a modernist composer (as is Prokofiev, Stravinsky and several other Russians). So can we include the template or not? Khuft (talk) 18:05, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
 * No. Shostakovich himself inveighed against musical modernism repeatedly, both in private and public statements. Below are a few examples:

"I should like to discuss the question of avant-garde music […] This militant trend is based on a destructive attitude towards music. Could the ideological essence of avant-garde music be made any clearer than it was by one of its gurus, who proclaimed: “Music against man!” Avant-gardism is an attempt—doomed from the outset—to achieve a new quality in music merely by rejecting norms and rules that have evolved over the ages. It is a crass theoretical delusion […] (Dmitry Shostakovich: About Himself and his Times, p. 287)"

"We Soviet artists should be happy, for that man, who is building the bright communist future, is beside us. […] How could we forget about our wide audience—the people for whom art is created? […] There are certain phenomena in Western art which are innovatory in name, but are in fact directed against man, or at best ignore him. I am thinking of the work of the most militant representatives of the so-called avant-garde music. (Dmitry Shostakovich: About Himself and his Times, p. 333)"

"The general picture of 20th-century music shows an unprecedented stratification: at the one extreme there is the refined and usually artificial fabric of modernism; at the other there is the vulgarity of the “culture industry.” […] While at the one extreme the evaluation of music is left to a mistrustful, irritable intellect; at the other, it is reduced to coarse physiology, primitive fashion. (Dmitry Shostakovich: About Himself and his Times, p. 335)"

"By the way, I got into a slightly tricky situation with [Pierre Boulez] at a banquet: imagine the arch-apostle of modernism coming up to me, seizing my hand and kissing it! I was so taken aback I didn't manage to snatch it away in time. (Story of a Friendship: The Letters of Dmitry Shostakovich to Isaak Glikman, 1941–1975; p. 193)"

Shostakovich’s own modernist period was very brief: lasting roughly from 1926–1928. Later in life he was also not above openly criticizing younger composers for their modernistic tendencies. The incident with Edison Denisov’s The Sun of the Incas may be the best known, but Rodion Shchedrin and even Shostakovich’s favorite student Boris Tishchenko were occasional targets. —CurryTime7-24 (talk) 19:05, 6 September 2022 (UTC)


 * Many thanks for taking the time for the detailed response. Appreciate it. I get the feeling that the template that got me into this rabbit hole (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Modernism_(music)) may in general be incorrect itself... Supposedly it's based on List of modernist composers, but I saw you (and User:Smerus, who reverted my edit here) have been going through that list. Might give it a few days to see where the List is by then, and re-check the template afterwards. Khuft (talk) 19:27, 6 September 2022 (UTC)


 * Many thanks CurryTime7-24 for responding so swiftly to Khuft 's query. I agree entirely with your assessment of Shostakovich vs. modernism.--Smerus (talk) 20:19, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 23:37, 7 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Prokofiev shostakovich khachaturian.jpg

Infobox?
I’ve noticed that a lot of biography articles have an Infobox detailing all the various minutiae surrounding a composer’s life or achievements. While the various awards conferred upon Shostakovich are mentioned in the summary, would placing them along with information about his family into a separate Infobox be of any help for readers of the article in the future? Trumpetguy19 (talk) 13:59, 16 May 2023 (UTC)


 * The awards list is quite long for that purpose, and family less key. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:54, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

Legacy: Influence without citation
In the legacy section, the text of the second paragraph begins "Shostakovich's influence on later composers outside the former Soviet Union has been relatively slight." There is no citation for this. 174.87.204.74 (talk) 22:47, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

New infobox
So it seems classical music infoboxes are officially a thing now, but there still seems to be debate about what to include in them. The recent infobox for Pyotr Ilyich Tchaikovsky has been a template for subsequent ones. The information it displays was the result of consensus compromise pertaining specifically to Tchaikovsky's life and career. So no mention of his legal spouse, for example. With Shostakovich, however, such information is non-controversial. So why hide who his wives were or where he's buried if the parameter to display them exists? Compare with Yuri Olesha, Alexander Solzhenitsyn, and Anna Akhmatova. —CurryTime7-24 (talk) 01:56, 2 August 2023 (UTC)


 * "The parameter exists" != "the parameter must be used". Why do you believe these are key details when they aren't in what you refer to as a template? Why devote most of the space to what is not significant about this subject? Nikkimaria (talk) 02:05, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Sorry for my delayed reply. Haven't been around the past day or so.
 * A lot of readers who come to Wikipedia, perhaps most, are interested in personal details like who a subject married, where they're buried, how many children they had, etc. Such things might seem trivial to you or me, but other people are genuinely curious to know about them. So why not display the non-controversial information they want to see? Especially since the purpose of the project is accessibility of information to a wide audience. —CurryTime7-24 (talk) 19:17, 5 August 2023 (UTC)


 * On the one hand readers may be genuinely curious about other personal details like his favourite game or favourite author, so why not include all of that? The answer is because on the other hand the template is meant to provide what are the key facts about the subject, and none of those are that. They are still available in the article body for anyone looking for them. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:56, 5 August 2023 (UTC)
 * To be fair, comparing a subject's favorite hobbies, snacks, weather, etc. to pertinent details about their biography is stretching the point a wee bit. :)
 * I'm agnostic about infoboxes, although thanks to Gerda Arendt I typically include them in articles I create. That being said, if they're to be included in composer articles, as long as they include non-controversial information from the body and is cited from reputable sources, why all the secrecy? —CurryTime7-24 (talk) 21:15, 5 August 2023 (UTC)


 * Any detail that is included in the article is (in theory at least) pertinent to their biography, and both the ones I mention are. But the relevant guideline is clear that we shouldn't be looking to include everything we can - not because they are somehow secret, but because adding more details makes the template less effective. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:21, 5 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Well, not really. There are no parameters for "favorite game" or "favorite brand of chicken strips", whereas there are for spouses, burial place, children, and so on.
 * The above guidelines are also open to interpretation. They do not specifically say "don't include x and y" or some such. What the guidelines actually warn against is overloading the infobox to the point it supplants the article itself. In an article of this size, there is no way that including a select number of pertinent biographical details could remotely threaten to create such a scenario. —CurryTime7-24 (talk) 21:56, 5 August 2023 (UTC)


 * They do specifically say "exclude any unnecessary content", and I see no reason to believe burial place is more necessary than an influencing author. Again, just because a parameter exists, does not mean it must be filled. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:19, 5 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Again, the guideline is up to interpretation. I appreciate your opinion and understand where you're coming from, but I disagree with your interpretation. :) So let us settle this via an RfC instead. —CurryTime7-24 (talk) 23:14, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

RfC: Infobox
What information should be included or excluded from the infobox? —CurryTime7-24 (talk) 23:35, 5 August 2023 (UTC)


 * Match Pyotr Ilyich Tchaikovsky. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:59, 5 August 2023 (UTC)
 * That infobox was the result of compromise that resulted from biographical details unique to Tchaikovsky; namely, his sexual orientation and manner of death. No such issues exist with Shostakovich's personal life. —CurryTime7-24 (talk) 21:03, 6 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Then match Richard Wagner. It's not a unique outcome. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:06, 6 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Why not match Sergei Prokofiev? —CurryTime7-24 (talk) 21:17, 6 August 2023 (UTC)
 * The classical infobox page mentions an old discussion that could be relevant. CurryCity (talk) 04:02, 6 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank you. The consensus of that RfC has apparently shifted since infoboxes are gradually being added to classical music composer articles. A new one is overdue.
 * Also, I like your user name! —CurryTime7-24 (talk) 21:08, 6 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I believe that we don't need an RfC to decide which parameters to fill for this composer. We should perhaps rather think about classical composers in general, and about which influence an article's author(s) should have on the selection. We have an also old but good essay by Brianboulton, saying that often less is more. (One example: the coordinates of a resting place.) Another thought to be considered is that we have now a script that transforms an infobox into an image with caption, if a reader doesn't want to see an infobox, see Talk:Robert le diable. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:25, 6 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Include "Born - Died - Works", exclude the rest. From what I've seen at recent RfC's shoving infoboxes down our throats, these three seem to be the most popular/prevalent parameters to include. Isaidnoway (talk) 05:21, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I asked years ago, for Sibelius, how many RfCs we'd need to accept that composers are also people: conductors, pianists, husbands, fathers. I hoped the answer would be none. We had none in several years thereafter, but end of 2022, more new people seem to have looked at composers and wondered why they are different from other creative minds (Vincent van Gogh, Kafka). So my suggestion is to stick to the minimal Beethoven model, a 2015 compromise accepted as community consensus, whenever principal authors oppose an infobox, but be open to include more parameters (other names, education, other occupations, organizations for which the person was/is responsible, relatives that shape the biography, awards) if not, such as for Clara Schumann and Prokofiev. Please also read my comment above. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:53, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I agree with Gerda; the infoboxes at Van Gogh and Kafka should also be removed. Ceoil (talk) 09:39, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
 * What are you talking about? Gerda isn’t suggesting removing those? Dronebogus (talk) 15:22, 25 August 2023 (UTC)


 * None of the examples cited here are particularly over the top. Since there's no policy, the infobox parameters should be determined by the article itself. Since infoboxes are becoming more widely accepted this should be discussed by editors who understand the article. The question posed by this RfC is too broad to get a clear answer, but I would just recommend against extreme outcomes. Those who don't like infoboxes shouldn't retreat to "minimalist or nothing" stance and the infobox doesn't have to include everything because WP:OTHERSTUFF. Nemov (talk) 14:43, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I echo Nemov in that this RfC is too broad. My opinion, lean on major editors of this article to supply some opinions on the infobox (similar to what is being collected above), submit for peer review, and work for consensus. This hardly seems the right subject matter for RfC-level conflict resolution. Penguino35 (talk) 08:33, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

Page access
This page is almost impossible to access. It appears with a very large banner flag, a big blank graphic below it, which obscures most of the copy. 88.107.200.18 (talk) 04:18, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

RfC: Inclusion of Shostakovich's marriages in the infobox
Should a listing of Shostakovich's marriages with wedding and death/divorce years be included in the infobox? Please provide your choice of either Option 1 or Option 2 along with a brief statement explaining your choice in the "Survey" section below. —CurryTime7-24 (talk) 18:50, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

Option 1:
Marriages added with wedding and death/divorce years. Please see the revised infobox on the right.

Pro

 * Makes pertinent biographical information readily accessible to readers who would otherwise have to read through the article.

Con

 * May make infobox appear more cluttered.

Option 2:
Keep infobox status quo (i.e. no listing of Shostakovich's marriages).

Pro

 * Maintains succinctness of present infobox.

Con

 * May keep biographical information from being more easily accessible to readers.

Survey

 * Option 2 improves focus. For non-stats-heavy subjects like this one, if something doesn't warrant inclusion in the lead it will rarely warrant inclusion here. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:01, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Option 1 per nom. The infobox is not supposed to repeat (only) the lead but to help people find things that interest them, and family is one of those things, - places of birth and death are others. The infobox would still not be cluttered. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:19, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
 * People may be interested in any number of things, from his favourite football club to quotes from critics. If that was our criteria for what to list, it would absolutely be cluttered. But that isn't - its purpose is rather to summarize only what is key. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:40, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
 * It is telling that a "spouse" paramater exists for infoboxes, but none (to my knowledge) for "favorite soccer team" or "critical blurbs". —CurryTime7-24 (talk) 19:51, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
 * That a parameter exists /= it has to be used. What is used should be dependent on the article and consensus. TarnishedPathtalk 01:29, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
 * That's why I suggest we use Template:infobox classical composer. It is minimal, excluding silly stuff like "favourite [sp] soccer team" or potentially huge items like "instruments played" etc. Plus the template was designed for this sort of situation specifically. — Iadmc  ♫ talk  15:40, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Option 3: Who cares?. Was an RFC for this really necessary? Couldn't such a minor editorial decision be determined on the talk page? My opinion on this... I don't care. It's not meaningfully hurting anything being in the info box. It's also not meaningfully adding anything because it's content one could get in the article elsewhere. It's an entirely superficial decision.4meter4 (talk) 19:22, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
 * For answers to your questions, please see the inconclusive results of a previous discussion on this same issue from last year. —CurryTime7-24 (talk) 19:43, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
 * @ You had two editors participating in that discussion. RFCs are for topics with entrenched divisions among many edtitors, not for settling minor disputes among a small group of editors. Per WP:RFCBEFORE, you should have proceeded to getting relevant WikiProjects involved before taking it to an RFC, or gone through the Third opinion process. It looks like you skipped both of those steps. Next time something like this comes up, I suggest placing neutral notifications about a talk page discussion at relevant wikiproject pages. You did that for this RFC, so I know you could have done that for the earlier simple talk page discussion on the infobox at this article. An RFC should not be the first place you go to get more people involved in a talk page discussion. Best.4meter4 (talk) 20:02, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I respect your work and we've messaged pleasantly, I think, in the past. I'm disappointed by your bad faith assumptions about me. On top of the personal issues that have occurred to me this year, it's these sort of interactions that discourage me from resuming more active participation in Wikipedia. —CurryTime7-24 (talk) 22:12, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Sigh. @ I don’t think I am being rude or acting in bad faith. I am pointing out that you didn’t follow WP:RFCBEFORE. For that reason alone, this RFC probably should be closed for procedural reasons. We have community guidelines for how to run an RFC for a reason. It’s not my fault that you didn’t follow the guidelines at the RFC policy page. Anybody coming here is going to immediately see 1. That you didn’t follow RFC guidelines and procedures as outlined at WP:RFCBEFORE. 2. That when it was pointed out to you, you shot the messenger rather than accepting a valid problem. Accusing me of acting in bad faith when I called you out for not following RFC procedure doesn’t make you look good.4meter4 (talk) 22:47, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
 * The people interested in this article care. It is not unusual to have RfCs on many issues, some minor. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 13:15, 28 May 2024 (UTC)


 * Option 1 clearly. It is exactly the kind of information that belongs in an infobox.Trumpetrep (talk) 22:08, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Option 1 For a biography of this size having this information in the infobox is helpful. The children are mentioned so I don't see what the problem is with mentioning the marriages. It's a rather small infobox so this addition seems reasonable. Nemov (talk) 01:52, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Option 1 per Gerda, Trumpetrep and Nemov this is basic bio info that doesn't needlessly clutter.Pincrete (talk) 03:39, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Option 1 The example shown above doesn't look cluttered with the additoinal information. As stated by others it is basic biographical information which may aid readers in obtaining information faster and not making them read the whole article if they don't wish to. Tar<b style="color:#ff7070;">nis</b><b style="color:#ffa0a0;">hed</b><b style="color:#420000;">Path</b><b style="color:#bd4004;">talk</b> 04:52, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Option 1 While I disagree with the "Option 3" commenter, I have to admit that I see no valid reason to exclude this elementary biographical information from the infobox. Figureofnine (talk • contribs)  13:17, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Option 1 (summoned by no-one) . Consistency. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:24, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Option 1 I agree with reasons given by others. Such information is included in many other infoboxes that seem to not over-clutter the info box in this case. LoneOmega (talk) 16:11, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Option 4 Use the composer infobox

as this will obviate a lot of problems. It is deliberately simple and will not allow "infobox bloat". There is plenty scope though as you can see. Otherwise, since the spouses are not notable other than being married to Dimitri, Option 2: remove the spouses. — Iadmc  ♫ talk  09:19, 1 June 2024 (UTC)


 * There are a lot fewer parameters in the composer box, by the way. It just happens that those used in the person box above are allowed in the composer box, too! Hence they are identical. — Iadmc  ♫ talk  09:37, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Use Template:Infobox classical composer please. My very best wishes (talk) 21:24, 1 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Option 1 has the necessary info without needless clutter.ADifferentMan (talk) 22:04, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Weak Option 1 - (Here from WP:RFC/A) I would say that this may not necessarily needd an RFC, and that WP:BRD system would have probably found these edits un-altered. MaximusEditor (talk) 16:13, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Option 1 or 4: I don't have a preference, but I do think that if his children are listed, his marriages should be in the infobox as well. Unnamed anon (talk) 19:25, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

Waltz No. 2
There are so many of his pieces mentioned in the article, why isn't the second waltz brought up anywhere? Was this done on purpose? I have no doubt it's by far his most famous work. Wikieditor662 (talk) 00:17, 12 July 2024 (UTC)


 * That seems quite doubtful - do you have sourcing to support that? Nikkimaria (talk) 00:32, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
 * To support the fact that Waltz no. 2 is the most famous piece of his if he wrote it?
 * Other than anecdotal evidence, If you look him up and search by view count, the first 13 videos that come up are of the second waltz - with the most viewed one having 90 million views. The second most viewed video, the first waltz, has only 5.1 million views. On spotify you have a very similar story.
 * I understand that this can't count as a citation on wikipedia, but at least we should mention the waltz in the article somewhere, no? Wikieditor662 (talk) 01:51, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
 * A couple issues. As Nikkimaria said, you need to cite some quality sources to confirm your assertion. The other thing is that the "Waltz No. 2" may not even be entirely by Shostakovich. According to the cited sources at Suite for Variety Orchestra No. 1, it is arranged by Levon Atovmyan, who often permitted himself great liberties with only tacit approval by Shostakovich. —CurryTime7-24 (talk) 01:08, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
 * If it's not by him, then we should mention that in the article, the way that Adagio in G was mentioned in Albinoni's page despite the fact that it was mostly misattributed to him, same with with Caccini and ave maria. Is there anything else I am missing? Wikieditor662 (talk) 01:53, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
 * It's a little more complicated than that and, at any rate, anecdotal evidence is not good enough. —CurryTime7-24 (talk) 02:16, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I never said that anecdotal evidence is enough. If you're talking about my response to Nikkimaria, I specifically stated that I know it doesn't count as a citation.
 * I'm saying whatever the experts said about the second Waltz should be whatever we write on here, there's no reason to not mention it at all. Wikieditor662 (talk) 03:14, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
 * The "Waltz II" was a throw-away cue for a film potboiler that was reused in a once obscure arrangement that, apparently, was not performed until about over 30 years after the fact; well after both composer and arranger (and possible co-composer) died. Neither Shostakovich nor Atovmyan seem to have mentioned the piece in their personal papers.
 * Shostakovich composed in a wide array of genres, including popular songs for which he is, arguably, more famous for in some countries than the "Waltz II", which was only a certified hit in one country (and in only a single recording)—hardly representative of anything.
 * Classical composers are not pop singers who are sometimes defined by one hit. At best, the "Waltz II" can probably be mentioned in a meaningful sub-section about Shostakovich's legacy (no trivial MOS:POPCULT mentions). Otherwise, it had no importance on his life or career (or Atovmyan's, for that matter). —CurryTime7-24 (talk) 04:17, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Hi, do you have a source for his information? I'll need one in order to add it to the legacy section Wikieditor662 (talk) 13:44, 12 July 2024 (UTC)