Talk:Henryk Górecki

multiculturalism in poland??? it's a joke, right?
can polish monkeys explain why Prussian and Lithuanian land is in poland and none of Prussian left alive and only 5000 Lithuanians left??????? 1/3 of poland is ancient Lithuanian-Prussian land like silesia is ancient polish —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.218.116.185 (talk) 05:58, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

As i believe there is no monkey in Poland (try looking in africa). Your pagan prussians were killed about XI century by German Teutonic Order which took their lands as their own. Poland later was given this area as a recompensation for II WW, and for eastern teritories taken away by USSR. There is no Lithuanian land in current Poland. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.192.104.90 (talk) 10:48, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Picture
Didn't there used to be a picture of the composer in this article? The edit summaries in the history don't suggest a copyright removal.--shtove 23:33, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

There should be a citation on the photo. USC's Polish Music Center website has the exact same photo, and attributes the picture to Maja Trochimczyk. I think whoever put up the photo should say where they got it, or add that it was a photo taken by Trochimczyk.--escobar2 16:10, 29 July 2006 (CST)
 * The picture I referred to was a sketch - take a look at the history page c.October 2005.--Shtove 22:53, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree and have credited the photo to Maja Trochimczyk --Coil00 01:36, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Academy of Music in Katowice
Was Gorecki a graduate of this academy? The article on the academy (both pl and en) claim that he was. Cheers. Stan J. Klimas (talk) 20:57, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Sound files
I see the usual icons are not present here. When I click on the sound files, it starts downloading them (which I don't really want). Is there a reason for this, I wonder? -- Klein zach  02:29, 15 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Here, using IE7, when I click on the "Listen" link, IE7 asks me whether I want to download and save the file or open it; when I select "Open", IE7 downloads the .ogg file and plays it in Media Player Classic. Note that to play an .ogg file every browser needs to download the file first, one way or another. I suspect that a browser's reaction to clicking an .ogg file is highly dependent on the user's local configuration. Michael Bednarek (talk) 12:08, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Reference formats
Please stop imposing your own preferences on an article that has long been worked on. You are near 3RR, as am I, and it is just silly. If you want to add content feel free, but just.stop.this. Ceoil (talk) 01:56, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Nothing to do with my preferences (which are quite different, I assure you), and I have been working on this article for some time, myself. The problem has to do with inconsistent citation styles, and the majority are and have been author-date, which is why there is a Bibliography.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 01:59, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Its a work in progress, can you bear with me, I'm off to bed now (early start ), but it would take about 10 minutes and 1 edit to bring cosistency, along the lines of The Garden of Earthly Delights. One edit per . is a bit much, in fairness. Ceoil (talk) 02:02, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
 * It is indeed a work in progress (as are all articles on Wikipedia), and this discussion really belongs on the Talk:Henryk Górecki page, where I am moving it.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 02:11, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Now, the point is that Wikipedia policy is to have consistency of reference formats (I think we agree on this as a goal, in any case). Wikipedia does not have a preference for one format over another and, in cases where inconsistency arises, the format first established is to take preference. In this case, reference citations were first added at 04:21 on 31 May 2007 by anonymous editor 83.12.152.170. These were in author-date citation format, in footnotes. It is to this format I am attempting to turn some subsequently added citations, which are in various conflicting formats. FWIW, my own preference is for the University of Chicago Press in-text author-date citation format, but I am respecting Wikipedia policy and guidelines in deferring to the first editor's choice.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 02:22, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Post scriptum: In the interest of civility, I am suspending work on this matter until a discussion has been possible. If there are valid reasons for overriding the first editor's format decision, then I am willing to listen.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 02:26, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
 * The idea that the first editor to add a ref; in this case, though long gone; should only decide the reference formats makes me think that you are either one of the most dry editor (v good) or stupid (v bad) editors I have met in a dizzy arena of very dry and very very stupd editors. Either way you make my head spin, and tbh I strongly supsect the latter explanation. So Im done with you and have moved work to user space where I can avoide reverted your child like one edit per single . in peace.   . Outstanding work really, adding them dots. What was it again you were trying to punctuate?  Ceoil (talk) 23:51, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I take it, then, that you reject Wiklipedia policy. In which case, what can I say?—Jerome Kohl (talk) 07:20, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
 * You can take it, then, I ask that what policy? Being misinformed and a wonk is a dangerous and unfortunuate combination. The policy (actually its a guideline) as I understand it is that the style preferences of the major editors should be respected as long as they are consistent. I wrote the majority of this page,, all you ever did was make life difficult for others an impose a sytle that you your self dislike, out of defference for an ip that made a total of 1 edit, ever. And "what can I say" is a classic fall back on a half truth based defence by people who have no mind of their own to construct an argument in their defence (I dont mean you, its just an observation). And less of the pretentious Post scriptum nonsence please. Ceoil (talk) 20:05, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
 * You are correct, it is a guideline, rather than apolicy. I misspoke. The specific guidelines may be found at several places: in general form at MoS and MoS, and with particular reference to citations at Citing_sources. The specific guideline regarding resolution of conflicting formats or styles is found at Manual_of_Style. With all the respect due to a major contributor, the guideline appears designed to provide an arbitrary but impersonal means of resolving such inconsistencies in an environment that does not favor one style over another. I may add that it is not true that I "dislike" the style of reference used in this article (namely, footnotes), merely that I prefer another one (in-text author-date citations). I'm sure I have no idea of the meaning of the colloquialism you appear to be using to describe me, but it does sound to me like a possible breach of civility. I hope I have persuaded you that I am not in addition misinformed.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 21:58, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
 * You did more than 'misspoke'. You have reverted multiple times because you think we should format cites on the basis of some, ok, 'guideline' that the ips stylistic preferance is law. Fine, but the result is I have been forced into userspace, and now progress on the article has become forked. Wouldn't it be just great if we just dropped this and worked together; you obviously have good knowledge and are enthuastic, and I see most of your edits are sound. What a shame for us to squabble over this when we both clearly have the article's best interests at heart, when we could instead be working on its content. I'd like to get this to FAC again by mid January; if you want to work with me and achieve that, I would appreciate it very much. Ceoil (talk) 00:56, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't understand half of what you are saying ("forced into userspace", "progress has been forked"), but I am pleased that you understand we are on the same side, as it were, and this is beginning to sound more civil. As to the format of references, if you have good arguments for why these should be changed to something other than they are at present, please, please state them. (I have asked before, after all.)—Jerome Kohl (talk) 04:47, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Ok, by user space I mean i am working on the refs here, I had to move there because when I tried to work on thim here you reverted me each time. By forked I mean that as we are both working on seperate articles our effort is split, and it might be difficult to merge the two. I perfer the ref format in the link above as it is cleaner, clearer, less intrusive and for me easy to follow. I'm not doe yet but the idea is that the publication date is only in a ref if the aurthor has two or more titles in the biblo. Also, I think the biblo should include books only, journals etc would appear in the notes only. Ceoil (talk) 15:37, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for explaining the jargon. I understand what you are saying now. In the version in the link, I see not one but at least three reference formats: (1) author-date format of the type initiated in this article by the anonymous Polish editor (citations 2 and are examples), (2) author-alone format (no year; citations 1 and 4 are examples), and (3) full-bibliographical footnote format (citation 7 is an example). Your rationale for mixing (1) and (2) is essentially what is done where (2) alone is the norm. This format is an informal one seldom found in formal scholarly writing. Splitting book and article references in the way you suggest is entirely nonstandard, if for no other reason than that some publications are regarded as being simultaneously a journal and a series of books (Contemporary Music Review is a good example). In addition, short-title subsequent references cannot be distinguished from one another, so the reader cannot know whether to look for the full reference in the Bibliography, or further back in the footnotes.
 * Citation 18 is as good an illustration as I could ask for to show how awkward this time-honored format is when used in web media (as opposed to print media). It gives the full bibliographical information for the article (which is necessary, of course), but fails to pinpoint the page with the citation on it (this can easily be fixed, by adding "citation on [page number]", the usual method in the print media). However, should a new reference to a different page in this article be added later, the normal procedure is to shorten the reference (in this case, perhaps to "Perlez, 'Górecki'"" or just to "Perlez" and the page number. This is fine if the new entry occurs after the original one but, if it occurs before, then the full entry must be moved there, and the original reduced to short-title form. If on the other hand the original reference (and the matter being cited in the text) is deleted in a later edit, then the editor must take care not to leave short-title references to the same work, but rather to find the earliest one and expand it to full-biblio form. For this reason, the short-title convention normal to print media cannot safely be used, and it becomes necessary to repeat the entire bibliographical data at each entry. There is also the awkward fact that items you cite in full-footnote form are not included in the Bibliography, so the reader cannot at a glance see all of the relevant literature. This all is, I think, eloquent testimony in support of consistent citation formats, and I cannot agree that your proposal is cleaner, clearer and less intrusive. It may be easier to follow for you, but it certainly is not for me nor, I suspect, is it for most readers.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 19:33, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Ok I conceed, you got me ;). I'm going to switch the article in my user space to you preferered style ie year of publication in each ref, and journal extracts included in the biblo. I'll fight you though on 171 vs. p.171.. If you are happy with this I will do the work and copy over my updated version to the main space article. Ceoil (talk) 21:05, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure under these circumstances what it is your version has got that I have not already put into the notes and bibliography—apart from the unnecessary but perfectly acceptable use of the abbreviation for "page" (particularly unnecessary in this variant of the format, where the year is enclosed in parentheses). Do please remember to put a space between the period and the page number, however, to avoid making it look like a decimal fraction.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 21:23, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Now that you have put your revised citations into the article, I have some questions for you. First, I thought we were agreed that articles (what you call "journal extracts") should be included in the bibliography along with everything else. Second, what is your reasoning behind the eccentric handling of inclusive page numbers in the bibliography (I thought you wanted to use the abbreviation(s) for "page(s)" in such cases, rather than just the numerals)? There are half a dozen standard reference/bibliography formats described in WP:MOS. Which of them are you trying to emulate here?—Jerome Kohl (talk) 01:20, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Will try and fix these. Are you happy with the section of the First I selected for the sample; I was quite unsure. Ceoil (talk) 17:31, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
 * The selection you have chosen represents the sparse, post-Webernian texture fairly well but, to be honest, I do not know the First Symphony, so I cannot say whether some other segment might be a better choice. However, the great difficulty with representing this style in a short "sound bite" is that it tends to vary widely section by section, and the effect of the whole is dependent on the kaleidoscopic juxtaposition of these varied sections. This is a very different thing from the Third Symphony, for example, where each movement consists of one basic texture, and the differences in character of the movements are not drastic.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 20:08, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
 * For sure, it was difficult to choose. In the end I went with a pasasge that was self contained and made some sence as a 29 second burst, and to be honest that I like (I dont like most of the First). Ceoil (talk) 23:13, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I've been adding content. Ceoil (talk) 21:24, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Once we have agreed and moved past this, would you be on for working together on resolving this issues at FAC, and trash through which areas in the article need work or expansion, and help finding more book sources? It would be a shame and a waste if two editors with shared interests can't get along and work together. I don't know about you but I work better when collaborating, and apart from the mess above (I admit shared blame, and apologise), you seem like a capable and knowedgable guy. Working with a musicologist and music theorist would be an honour, frankly. Ceoil (talk) 16:22, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I would be very pleased to do so.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 19:33, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
 * For a start, what do you think about replacing the Lerchenmusik sample with an excerpt from the First Symphone? I think then we have samples from each of his three broad phases (modernism, transitional and miminalist) ? Ceoil (talk) 17:11, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, I think that would give a more balanced picture of his work. BTW, I notice that only one of the three sound samples (the Miserere) identifies the recording from which the (fair-use) sample was taken. Further, I see that in the Górecki article (as opposed to the Miserere and Symphony No. 2 articles), someone has replaced the "info" links with this notice: NonFreeImageRemoved.svg As I am sure you are aware, a serious problem exists with free-use on Wikipedia. Free use is more easily claimed under US copyright law than it is elsewhere in the world and, though Wikipedia is US based, it is accessible everywhere. The source of the Miserere, Nonesuch Records, as a US-based company, is more defensible to use under free-use provisions of copyright law than recordings owned by companies based in other countries (Kontrapunkt, Philips, or Koch-Schwann, for example).—Jerome Kohl (talk) 19:33, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I'll try and fix this. By the way, I think as Miserere (Górecki) has it own page with the sound file included, and Lerchenmusik does not, probably we should loose the Miserere file instead. Ceoil (talk) 21:15, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Liner notes from David Drew
The liner notes accompanying the London Sinfonietta recording of Symphony No. 3 are by British critic David Drew and contain a few pieces of information which may be useful: Kablammo (talk) 00:31, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Górecki’s First Symphony (1959) "expressed (he has said) something of the sense of a new start—both in his own life (it was, among other things, the year of his marriage) and in Poland itself." This last comment alludes to the "thaw" of the late 1950s, which proved short-lived.
 * The Second Symphony was "a full-throated answer" to the disillusion resulting from the end of that thaw.
 * Drew draws significance from the fact that both the composer’s birthplace and Katowice, where he studied music, are close to Oświęcim. The language is a little obscure, but suggests this proximity ("imbedded in his private landscape") was a factor in the project which became his Third Symphony.
 * Generally, info should be added from more scholarly sources that can be adduced from Groves or other such resources; in the event that a noted critic has provided such information in liner notes, they can usually be sourced originally to a more authoritative and encyclopedic source. Eusebeus (talk) 05:07, 19 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I think the first quote (which looks like a paraphrase) would be a valuable addition. Marek, T. & David Drew. "Górecki in Interview (1968) -- and 20 Years After." Tempo, no. 168 (March 1989): 25-29 would be a good place to look for it (not available to me).  Kablammo (talk) 13:04, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
 * The third point, if felt to be important, finds some support in this New York Times profile of the composer. Kablammo (talk) 13:32, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Online Resource Suggestion
There is a lecture & performance entirely on Gorecki by Professor Adrian Thomas and Chamber Domaine which is avaliable online (transcript, audio & video): http://www.gresham.ac.uk/event.asp?PageId=45&EventId=815  As Professor Thomas is one of the main experts on Gorecki quoted in this article, Chamber Domaine have just released a CD of Gorecki music and never-before-heard music was performed in the concert, it seems that this should certainly be linked, if not directly referenced in the article. (I only don't put it up myself as there is a possible conflict-of-interest as I am connected with Gresham College, where the lecture was given). Jamesfranklingresham (talk) 17:22, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
 * This is very interesting and usefull, thanks for sharing! Ceoil (talk) 18:13, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Boulez's picture
I think that the fact that Boulez was a friend of HG is not a reason to have his picture in the article. I suggest it is removed. Thank you--Karljoos (talk) 11:20, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree and have removed. Ceoil (talk) 17:27, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Changes in style
What is it that inspired Górecki to change from serialism and dissonance to holy minimalism, as this change was described in the article? Did something happen in the 1970's with either Górecki or the music world that motivated this change? I ask partly because of my own interest, and partly because I think that this information (if someone else knows) would be a great addition to the wikipedia entry. Thank you. --Pittsoc25 (talk) 17:34, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Circumstances of the composition of "Beatus Vir"
The article on "Beatus Vir" says the piece was commissionned by Karol Wojtyła for the 900th anniversary of the martyrdom of St. Stanisław, whereas this article says it was composed for the appointment of Karol Wojtyła. None of the statements have a reference. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.104.107.138 (talk) 05:22, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 one external links on Henryk Górecki. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.newyorker.com/culture/cultural-comment/cult-fame-discontents
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160304095501/http://www.theguardian.com/music/musicblog/video/2014/apr/14/philharmonic-orchaestra-video to http://www.theguardian.com/music/musicblog/video/2014/apr/14/philharmonic-orchaestra-video

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 08:28, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Henryk Górecki. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101226224921/http://gresham.ac.uk/event.asp?PageId=108&EventId=815 to http://www.gresham.ac.uk/event.asp?PageId=108&EventId=815

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 06:42, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Henryk Górecki. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.newyorker.com/culture/cultural-comment/cult-fame-discontents
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090814012656/http://pages.sbcglobal.net/jameswierzbicki/gorecki.htm to http://pages.sbcglobal.net/jameswierzbicki/gorecki.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120917102253/http://www.mahlerarchives.net/archives/ellisevocations.pdf to http://www.mahlerarchives.net/archives/ellisevocations.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 15:06, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Henryk Górecki. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090225123655/http://www.usc.edu/dept/polish_music/PMJ/issues.html to http://www.usc.edu/dept/polish_music/PMJ/issues.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 15:47, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Henryk Górecki. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160227073621/http://www.usc.edu/dept/polish_music/PMJ/issue/6.2.03/Gorecki1962.html to http://www.usc.edu/dept/polish_music/PMJ/issue/6.2.03/Gorecki1962.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 07:41, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

Gorecki's death
Henryk Gorecki passed away in 2010. I find it odd how there is no section about his death. Can someone please provide more detail? Amoymonarch (talk) 06:06, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
 * What's the matter with the current section headed "Death"?—Jerome Kohl (talk) 16:55, 23 July 2018 (UTC)