Talk:Pictures at an Exhibition/Archive 1

Album tag
[note about this page being a part of WikiProject Albums deleted]


 * It is? Well it shouldn't be. This article is about the piece of music by Mussorgsky. The aritcle about the ELP record should probably be at Pictures at an Exhibition (album). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Camembert (talk • contribs) 14:04, 25 March 2004 (UTC)


 * Oh, and it is, so I'll move the note there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Camembert (talk • contribs) 14:05, 25 March 2004 (UTC)


 * That's my fault for not actually checking the page is what it should be. I've fixed the link from List of albums. - Lee  (talk)  17:28, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Rimsky-Korsakov's orchestral arrangement?
I'm not an expert but I never heard of Rimsky-Korsakov's orchestral arrangement of the Pictures. And I didn't find any Russian source mentioning it. --Yms 09:17, 25 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I can confirm that you're right: there isn't any such arangement. Whoever added that to the list was wrong, and the entry should be deleted. Rimsky made an *edition* of the *original piano solo* (which was the first to be published), but he never orchestrated the piece.  Pf --Pfistermeister 14:09, 25 May 2006


 * Hm, what is the source for that? The chronological index of Mussorgsky's works gives Rimsky-Korsakov credit for the orchestration of two movements (Il vecchio Castello and Limoges), adding the note "score unpublished" (Ernst Kuhn: Chronologisches Verzeichnis der musikalischen Werke Modest Mussorgskys. In: Modest Mussorgsky: Zugänge zu Leben und Werk. Berlin, Kuhn 1995, ISBN 3-928864-11-4). --FordPrefect42 22:29, 26 May 2006 (UTC)


 * According to, Rimsky-Korsakov re-orchestrated Limoges and partially two other pieces (not Castello) after the first rehearlsal of Tushmalov's work. I think, it should be mentioned in the Tushmalov entry. --Yms 17:21, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Russian titles
I put a lot of Russian titles into this article, but it was unnecessary, because only few of the pieces were originally given Russian titles. Before I remove them (leaving only the few), I'm interested in anybody's opinion if they are really needed here. (After all, they can be found in the Russian article.) --Yms 16:06, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I want to keep the titles into the article, because they are original Russian names, and not everyone can read Russian.

F r e  d  d  i  e  18:18, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

@ Freddie: the Russian titles are not the originals! It is quite important for the comprehension of the opus, that Musorgsky himself assigned titles in various languages to the movements (French, Latin, Italian, Polish, Russian, Yiddish). Only three movements have titles in Russian (Ballet of the unhatched chicks, Baba-Yaga, The gate of Kiev). These titles should be given Cyrillic first, since they are the originals. --FordPrefect42 19:55, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
 * We had the same discussion on german Wikipedia. Have a look at the table of titles in de:Bilder einer Ausstellung, it may be a model for this article too.


 * Exactly. I made a mistake when I put them all here, I'll remove them now. --Yms 17:22, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Adding more pictures of the score sheets
Over the course of the last few days I created these pictures:

http://dave.blackmole.de/muetze/tdue/Ausstellung.html

(Click the pictures, they are only thumbnails!)

I have no Idea if they can add to the article in its present form at all, but seeing as there already is a shorter excerpt from the promenade (which I optimized, by the way) and I have too much time on my hands, I created images of the first few bars of all ten main pieces, the first, and the last promenade. I would welcome a discussion on a way to enhance the article with these pictures, but I would not at all mind not seeing them on the page. If somebody has any suggestions on how to change then, I would also appreciate it.

The pictures are completely made by me and I will release them into the GFDL if appropriate.

I made a similar post on the German equivalent of this page, de:Diskussion:Bilder einer Ausstellung, to which I have contributed in the past.

Mütze 16:25, 9 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Honestly, I don't see excepts of every picture being all that importent, since they're self-contained pieces and thus...well it just seems clutterful. Certainly the Prominade melody is importent on the other hand. The Russian page which is apparently a feature article there has the Prominade, and what looks like a pic of the manuscript of Gnomus. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ 16:14, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Splitting out the arrangements
Anyone think it's a good idea to make the arrangements lists on (one) split off page? As there are lots more that still aren't there (I believe I can add a couple I have CDs of), it'll get pretty long eventually. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ 19:03, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Shostakovich orchestration?
I recall hearing a performance by the Syracuse Symphony of Pictures on the radio back in the mid 80's that was announced as having been an orchestration by Shostakovich. I taped the performance but have since lost the microcassette. I've looked everywhere to find any reference to a Shostakovich orchestration and have come up completely empty. Is there any evidence at all of a Shostakovich orchestration? And if so, is there any recording of it?
 * Very doubtful. Shostakovich DID orchestrate Songs and Dances of Death, and apparenly arranged part of Khovanshchina for a film (and now looking at the article, did the version normally preformed today), but there's no indication anywhere I've ever seen that he did anything with pictures. I imagine either the announcer got it wrong, or your misremembering Stokowski or someone else's name. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ 22:58, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

The Old Castle
Shouldn't the piece "The Old Castle" be a part of the arrangement? I am, by the way, no music expert and am not the one to write the add-in... Kazak 08:44, 12 December 2005 (UTC)


 * It's there. See: "Il vecchio castello (Italian, The Old Castle)." -- Dwheeler 04:56, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Speaking of Il vecchio castillo, I would like to see a citation from whoever put up that it was based off a painting of a troubadour. When I did research on this particular movement, I found no such insinuation from any source. Some posited that it may have come from a picture of an Italian castle, as Hartmann was in Italy in his younger days. Plus, the pamphlet for the first "complete works" gallery showing of Hartmann's works doesn't give a painting called "Il vecchio castillo" or anythting about a troubadour. If there is a definitive source on this, cite and keep it in. If not, please either put more exact information up or delete the sentence about the original painting.Anderfreude 17:33, 3 March 2007 (UTC)


 * See the reference at the top of the "Movements of the Suite" section. Stasov is the source of the description, which he apparently heard from the composer. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.121.160.145 (talk • contribs) 07:59, 3 July 2008

Cleanup 2007
25-March-2007: I have carefully revised the article "Pictures at an Exhibition" to use indented asterisk-bullets for the movements, unbolded the movement titles, linked several years, italicized TV/film titles, and adjusted punctuation. The article contains highly detailed text, so I revised the article multiple times to pin-point each iteration of changes. Reading the previous Talk topics, I see the article was heavily debated all during 2006, so I was very careful, during cleanup, to preserve the myriad text details of the existing article. -Wikid77 07:21, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Adam Berces' version for synth
I'm just interested, that where can I listen to that version of the masterpiece... Do somebody happen to know? — Preceding unsigned comment added by MetalBlack (talk • contribs) 14:30, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Symphonic poem?
I have never heard the piece described this way, and find it very unlikely a way for MM to have labeled it. Is there any verifiable source for calling the suite this? If not then that reference should go. --Wspencer11 (talk to me...) 00:19, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I was going to revert it myself as soon as I thought it, but I think it COULD be seen as a symphonic poem for piano (like Vítězslav Novák's Pan). I agree that perhaps a source calling it that should be found. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ 01:10, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Meter for Great Gate of Kiev?
This might seem silly, but does anyone know what the meter is for “The Great Gate of Kiev”? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.87.123.103 (talk) 17:18, 26 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Allegro alla breve, 4/4 time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.121.164.177 (talk • contribs) 09:21, 3 July 2008

Fair use rationale for Image:AtariSelftestAV.png
Image:AtariSelftestAV.png 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 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 lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, 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) 03:54, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Round 1
Why, in the description of the piece, is the title "Con [sic!] mortuis in lingua mortua"? Freddie 15:34, 19 February 2006 (UTC)


 * IIRC, Mussorgsky himself gave these pieces their titles in various languages, but was not fluent in all of them. I believe that in this case, "Con" really is what the composer used as the title, but that it's not actually correct for the language.  See the references for more.  -- Dwheeler 04:52, 20 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Actually, Mussorgsky didn't know Latin at all, so he didn't even try to write anything final there and just left a note along the lines of "Please insert Latin text: With the dead in a language of the dead" which the publishers correctly translated as cum mortuis in lingua mortua. The widespread variant con ... neither reflects Mussorgsky's intention nor is it correct in any meaning of the word. I will adjust that. Mütze 02:16, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Sic is inserted because it makes note of the error ("con").


 * Indeed so; and as the person who inserted it I thank you for noticing! So far as the other contributor's attempt to have 'con' replaced by 'cum' is concerned, it really ought to be acknowledged that the wrong-but-faithful 'con' is respected in both the Pavel Lamm 'Complete Edition' score and Schandert's recent 'Vienna Urtext'. That's what they call the movement, and that ought to settle the issue: Wikipedia's job is not start an argument with the principal scholarly editions of a work -- particularly when a mere 'sic' takes care of the problem.


 * For the rest, I want to point out that the aforementioned contributor also once tried to replace the article's 'Schmuÿle' with 'Schmuyle' -- in defiance of the fact that the diaeresis over the 'y' stems from Mussorgsky's manuscript itself. Presumably he simply doesn't know the sources as well as he thinks he does.  Pf


 * I think that we, Wikipedia editors, while not adding our own information and not conducting original research, can make our own editorial decisions about which version of this phrase should be taken. These decisions may be different from editors' decisions in other publications, especially if they themselves also differ.
 * We are discussing here the titles of the pieces. The information about Mussorgsky's manuscript is interesting too and it should be mentioned, but it's not his manuscript that is in focus of this article, it's the suite itself. We know the facts that Mussorgsky: a) clearly wanted to give this Latin title to his piece, b) wrote the incorrect phrase, c) didn't know Latin quite well. Obviously it's only the fact that "Pictures" were not published during his lifetime may prevent publishers from writing the correct phrase in all editions. There is simply no place for doubt that the author did NOT intend to give his piece a title in "wrong" Latin. So the title of the piece is "Cum mortuis in lingua mortua". Google somewhat confirms it: vs . --Yms 12:53, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
 * He did not intend to, but he did... It's like talking to a six year old (this is not intended to be a violation of WP:NPA): "I didn't intend to get that math question wrong!" I've heard that as an excuse so many times (note that I'm not a teacher) it's not funny anymore. Fr e ddie Message? 01:19, 8 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Again, the focus in this section is on the piece titles, it's not its task to copy Mussorgsky's manuscript. The mistake in manuscript is mentioned later, so it's excessive to make it twice. --Yms 04:08, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
 * on your analogy with the math question: are we here to test Mussorgsky's latin and give him school grades? Most editors just fix it silently. --Yms 04:11, 8 July 2006 (UTC)


 * It is *completely untrue* to say that 'most editors just fix it silently'. Apart from the 2002 Boosey and Hawkes corrected reprint of the original 1929 engraving of Ravel's orchestration, I've never seen *any* published edition that changes 'Con' to 'Cum' -- and I've seen a lot of editions in my time. Pfistermeister.


 * The very accurate 1975 "Urtext"-edition by Christoph Hellmundt, Edition Peters (Frankfurt, E.P. 9585) has the title corrected to 'cum'. In the critical notes, Hellmundt states: "Cum mortuis in lingua mortua. Überschrift fehlt in A. An ihrer Stelle notierte Mussorgski mit Bleistift: 'NB. Lateinischer Text: mit den Toten in einer toten Sprache'." ("Cum mortuis in lungua mortua. Title is missing in the autograph. Instead, Mussorgsky notes with pencil: 'PS. Latin Text: With the dead in a dead language'.") --FordPrefect42 21:52, 8 July 2006 (UTC)


 * One example is not 'most editors', however much you personally might like Hellmundt's edition. Lamm's edition (the first proper critical edition) has 'Con' -- as does Schandert's 'Urtext' edition of *1984*. So there's *two* that contradict your one. Plus, your translation of Hellmundt's statement does not reflect the ambiguous meaning of 'fehlen': the verb means 'to err' as well as 'to be absent' -- and you have not so far posted your scan of the original manuscript page. And if Hellmundt's edition is, as you say, 'very accurate', kindly also tell us why it *gets the rhythms all wrong* at the start of '"Samuel" Goldenberg und "Schmuyle"'... We want to know.  Pfistermeister


 * It wasn't me who was talking about 'most editors'. I was simply contradicting your "never any published edition". Concerning 'fehlen' I guess you got it wrong. 'To err' means 'irren', not 'fehlen'. You can use 'fehlen' in terms of 'to fail' or 'to do wrong', but only with a person as subject, never referring to a thing or a concept. But I would better quote Hellmundt's own translation, I just don't have it at hand right now. – I was telling you before, why I was hesitating to post the scan here, but you still did not bother to ask me for the file. Okay then, I uploaded it to wiki commons, I hope there will be no copyright problem. See for yourself, here it is: [[Image:Catacombae.PNG|200px]] --FordPrefect42 23:18, 8 July 2006 (UTC)


 * OK, I stroke out these words... --Yms 01:38, 9 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Meanwhile I had the chance to look up the facsimile edition of Mussorgsky's manuscript: there is no Latin title given there! Just Mussorgsky's cyrillic pencil notes, obviously demanding for a Latin title. So, whatever is the source for the incorrect "con", it is not the manuscript! If the mistranslation comes from the editor or the publisher of the first edition, there is no need to retain it. (If anybody wants to check this, contact me by wiki-mail for a scan of the mentioned page.) --FordPrefect42 08:40, 8 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Very nice! Then, another question: how does the word Bydło look in the manuscript? Did Mussorgsky cross the letter l? (I don't think so. I guess, it even may be written in Cyrillic letters too.) --Yms 11:30, 8 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Bydło is indeed clearly written with the Polish Ł|"ł"-letter, marking the title as Polish beyond any doubt. --FordPrefect42 13:53, 8 July 2006 (UTC)


 * There's a big problem here, regarding the fight over 'Con...' and 'Cum...'. On the one hand, I have before me Michael Russ's Cambridge University Press book -- in which he talks about what Mussorgsky wrote in the manuscript, even saying what's written in pencil and what isn't. And Russ, a reputable scholar writing for this academic imprint, *blames the bad latin explicitly on Mussorgsky*. On the other hand, we have a determined attempt to impose 'Cum...' by a pseudonymous contributor who alleges without proof that he's 'had the chance to look up the manuscript', and who has no hesitation in sending snippy messages to me in spite of the fact that I'm sticking *entirely* to the published critical literature. Something needs sorting out here. I think posting the promised 'scan' to the page itself is called for.   Pfistermeister.


 * I have checked Michael Russ' excellent monography myself (as well as the other published critical literature), and I must say his book is no help at all in this particular question. Russ does not say that the incorrect "Con mortuis ..." is taken from the manuscript. He indeed blames the erroneous title to Mussorgsky's weak Latin, but does not tell us, where the title derives from. I am somewhat reluctant to actually *post* the scan here, because the facsimile edition, from which I copied it, might copyrighted material. But, as mentioned before, I'd be happy to share it with anybody who demands it. --FordPrefect42 15:40, 8 July 2006 (UTC) BTW: who has started being snippy in the first place?


 * Well this is quite the debate isn't it? Personally, I think it's something akin to trying to 'correct' the spelling of someone's name simply because her parents chose a different spelling than the normal. Yes, the Latin might be wrong, but if Mussorgsky /named/ it a certain way, we should go with that. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ 16:17, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
 * You are wrong, because the point (that I want to make) is, that Mussorgsky did not name it that way at all, he just asked for a correct Latin title. The point that you are making holds e.g. for the Tuileries movement, which Mussorgsky erroneously entiteled Tuilleries (with double "L") in his manuscript. --FordPrefect42 16:34, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Mussorgsky might suggest the Latin title in one of his letters to Stassov. --Yms 19:40, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Absolutely true. Since it is not in the autograph, this is the only remaining way that the title might be Mussorgsky's own words after all. There is a famous letter to Sassov from June 1874, in which Mussorgsky explains the titles. Unfortunately, the sources at my hand quote only parts of this letter. Has anybody the complete text? --FordPrefect42 21:52, 8 July 2006 (UTC) — PS @Yms: did you receive the scans?
 * Yes, both emails, thank you very much! --Yms 01:38, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Round 2
Someone has anonymously revived the con vs. cum debate. Not so fast buddy! First, notice from the above that this is a contoversial issue. So don't think you can slip this edit by without some justification. Identify yourself and provide a rationale. I believe the image provided above places the burden of proof on the "con" camp. If, as you claim, Mussorgsky himself wrote "con mortuis", then prove it. The image above bears out the claim that the composer merely mentioned a Latin text twice in Russian, but did not provide one. Therefore, regardless of the argument that dozens of publishers, editors, and perhaps even musicologists have accepted the erroneous "con" as fact, the truth is the composer was not responsible. If you have a letter, document, or manuscript of his which uses "con", produce it!. Provide an authority. Footnote it. Post a facsimile. Support your argument. Ivan Velikii (talk) 04:15, 22 November 2007 (UTC)


 * The following three facts have been established beyond doubt (anybody correct me if I am in error).
 * 1) Mussorgsky's manuscript indicates his wish (in Russian) for a Latin title for the movement "With the Dead in a Dead Language". He does not attempt a Latin translation in the manuscript (see the facsimile above).
 * 2) The "Con" in "Con mortuis in lingua mortua", found in many published editions of the work, is an error. That is, "con" is Italian, not Latin. The correct Latin translation is "Cum mortuis in lingua mortua".
 * 3) No mention of the erroneous "con" can be found in any of the composer's manuscripts, documents, or letters. (This may not be a fact, but no one comes forward with a refutation, they always fall back on "published scores", all of which date from several years after the composer's death).
 * Now if these three facts are true, then no amount of explanation supporting the erroneous "con" is needed. It doesn't matter how respected the source of the error is. The title as it has historically been given ("con") is supplied in the article. The title as it would be correctly translated ("cum") is given in the article. No responsibility has yet been determined for the error, and until that issue is resolved, there is no need to address it in the article. Any attempts to pin this error on Mussorgsky need proof. Case closed. Who disagrees? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.121.164.177 (talk) 08:44, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Ravel's "version"
Is it properly termed an "orchestration" or an "arrangement"? The Ravel page uses both. If the terms are not interchangeable in the case of this work, the text would benefit from an edit accordingly. -- Deborahjay (talk) 15:23, 27 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Ravel made some well known alterations to the piano version for reasons of artistic license and/or suitability to orchestra instrumentation, so "arrangment" might be a more proper word than "orchestration." But the Ravel is commonly called an "orchestration," and in fact, the Boosey & Hawkes edition of Mussorgsky/Ravel does say "Orchestrated by Maurice Ravel" in the title block. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pojohla (talk • contribs) 23:13, 4 May 2008 (UTC)


 * (I dunno how I missed this...twice) Ravel's alternations are pretty minor, comparatively, from everything I know. A few of the issues is more related to the fact he was going off Rimsky-Korsakov's edition than anything he changed himself. Orchestration is the best term, really. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 21:00, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Formatting of the Movement List section
Am I the only one who gets terrible formatting in the movement list section? When by browser window is unmaximized, movements 2, 5, and 9 wrap after only a few words. However, even with maximizing, the audio sample boxes are seemingly randomly placed, and offset the text of the article randomly as well, so that there is no clear formatting: paragraphs are shrunken, sometimes preceded by the audio sample boxes, sometimes preceding them; the boxes thus fail to align with each other, and occasionally induce some significant whitespace.

I am running Firefox 2.x on Windows XP. I realize it isn't the latest version, but if someone could test Firefox 3.x and let me know what the results are, I'd appreciate it. Note: This issue also occurs on K-Meleon, although it does not occur on IE7 or Google Chrome. Perhaps it's my fault for not upgrading, but I was under the impression that Wikipedia was trying to avoid too much fancy formatting. 76.236.183.53 (talk) 22:34, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Bydlo's solo is for euphonium?
I thought that the Ravel's orchestration of this piece always used the tuba as the solo part. I've never heard that the euphonium was used for it. Correct me if I'm wrong. Ultrabasurero 01:51, 24 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't have the score handy, so I can't confirm either way. However, the current text makes sense on a quick look. This entry about Ravel's arrangement says the following: "The baritone tuba solo is set over a heavy hooves-and-wheels ostinato in the bass as the oxcart approaches and passes."  A baritone tuba is not the "tuba" that most people know; that's usually called a "baritone", and it has the same range as a euphonium.  (I know this, I play all three).   A tuba solo could not be easily heard over an ostinato in the bass; a Euphonium would make sense, since it would typically be played an octave higher (euphoniums and tubas overlap in range, but they have a different timbre and "natural" range).  -- Dwheeler 05:03, 24 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I've not seen the score either, but I always heard reference to Ravel calling for a "tenor tuba" (i.e., a baritone horn/euphonium) to play the part. The instrument would have been around back then, though normally not employed in orchestral work. I find it hard to imagine a regular tuba being intended -- the part ascends several times to a g-sharp above the staff (in bass clef) which, though not unplayable, is awfully high for a tuba. I wonder whether the "tenor tuba" was actually called for, or if that is just a modern convenience given the range?  (Much as most modern performances use a piccolo trumpet for the high muted part in the "Two Jews" movement, for ease of range and security of attack, even though the instrument did not exist in Ravel's day...) StanislavJ 23:42, 5 June 2006 (UTC)


 * The score calls for "tuba" and I believe Ravel's intention was to make the melody sound as awkward and heavy as possible. I am not a brass player but apparently many players do use a smaller instrument of one kind or another despite Ravel's instruction. I have always felt it sounds best on the tuba precisely because of that awkward feel. Of course, as the years have gone by I have gotten less and less fond of the Ravel version because it's too polished, too French-sounding; the Gorchakov really does the original better justice in my view. --Wspencer11 (talk to me...) 15:36, 13 October 2006 (UTC)


 * When we performed the piece, our Euphonium player played the part saying that it was written for tenor tuba. This instrument is obsolete.  It is now replaced by the Euphonium in almost all cases.  From what I've seen, it's in the same class as the Clarinet in C; if you have one, great but most clarinetists just transpose.  Clarinet Hawk (talk) 05:15, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Clarinet Choir?
Are we sure that the clarinet choir version exists? I've never heard of it, and a google search only provides this page (and sites that have copied it verbatim). I've been looking for it because my clarinet studio thought it might be fun to perform, but as of right now, I'm working on my own transcription because this one is nowhere to be found. Clarinet Hawk (talk) 05:12, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
 * It's often impossible to know just what exists. I mean, I made an orchestration of the 1st Promenade myself, so it 'exists', though of course it's not something that'd go in here. It could very well be someone played a transcription made by someone in the group, or the director or who knows. Remove it if you think it's not extant. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 16:56, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

The use of Lang templates
I removed the various 'lang' templates (lang-ru, etc.) from the movement titles, as they are intended to be used when the enclosed text is of the given language, not for translations from said language. Hopefully my change is more clear that the given text following a link to the language is the translation into English. For more details on the use of the lang tag, see Template:Lang. – Matty (talk) 21:05, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Djong Victorin Yu
The article lists an arrangement by Djong Victorin Yu: "Djong Victorin Yu (1993; amended Ravel version)". However, as far as I can find, he has pretty much just conducted (and recorded) it. As many conductors have done, I assume he made minor editorial chanegs, but absent any documentation, I wouldn't suggest listing this as a separate arrangement.

This is consistent with the body of the article, which says "Although Ravel's version has often been recorded, a number of conductors have made their own changes to the scoring, including Arturo Toscanini, Nicolai Golovanov and Djong Victorin Yu." Note Toscanini and Golovanov do not have arrangements listed.

Unless anyone can substantiate the Yu arrangement, I plan on deleting it. TJRC (talk) 17:31, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

The CD on which Djong Victorin Yu recorded "Pictures at an Exhibition" (IMP Masters MCD 82) with the Philharmonia Orchestra in 1993 states, on both label and inlay card: Mussorgsky-Ravel-Yu. This accounts for it being so listed. However, the booklet notes inside give no indication of what the changes were that the conductor made to the published score. Philipson55 (talk) 23:20, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Stokowski's version
I remember reading some years ago that Stokowski's was actually done by Lucien Caillet. Any confirmation anywhere? --Wspencer11 (talk to me...) 15:38, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Doubtful, considering Caillet did his own verion. That may where the confusion stems from. I do seem to remember reading somewhere or another that Caillet did ghost-orchestrate some of Stokowski's transciptions, but nothing about Pictures specifically, nor is it something I've seen come up enough to really believe it. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ 16:18, 13 October 2006 (UTC)


 * See under the Discussion section for Leopold Stokowski where the Cailliet situation is clarified. He'd been a copyist for Stokowski in the 1920s and early '30s, making good inked copies of Stokowski's transcriptions by working from his pencilled manuscripts, for use in concerts and recordings. But when Stokowski resigned his position in 1936, Ormandy took over and Cailliet then made orchestral arrangements solely for him, including Pictures at an Exhibition in 1937, ceasing to work for Stokowski altogether. Stokowski continued to work out his contract as Ormandy's co-conductor but with his Philadelphia commitments each season vastly reduced. He made his own version of Pictures at an Exhibition right at the end of his association with the Philadelphia Orchestra (it was first played in 1939) but it owed nothing to any participation on the part of Lucien Cailliet. (Source: Oliver Daniel's Stokowski: A Counterpoint of View published 1982). Ormandy recorded the Cailliet arrangement in 1937, and Stokowski recorded his version in 1939, on 78s with the Philadelphia Orchestra. Both have been reissued on CD and bear few similarities. Philipson55 (talk) 06:32, 9 April 2011 (UTC) Philipson55


 * We now have a separate article for Pictures at an Exhibition (Stokowski orchestration). --   Jack of Oz   [your turn]  06:58, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Incorrect title?
As I understand it, the correct title of the work is Pictures FROM An Exhibition, not "At" An Exhibition. Granted, the latter is more commonly used (and in some ways fits better with the character of the piece, which depicts a viewer actually walking around a gallery) but given that it's incorrect, surely the title of the article should be changed to the correct version. The alteration might surprise some readers but a paragraph could easily be added to clear up any confusion. In short, correctness ought to trump convenience. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brooklyn Eagle (talk • contribs) 00:41, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Not all works in other languages are translated in a scientifically literal way into English. See In the Steppes of Central Asia, whose Russian title В средней Азии simply means "In Central Asia".  We acknowledge that in the article, just as we acknowledge the Russian title of this work translates literally as "from" rather than "at".  But "from an exhibition" is Russian idiom at work.  Our corresponding idiom is "at an exhibition".  --   Jack of Oz   [your turn]  01:54, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Also, per WP:COMMONNAME, Wikipedia "uses the name which [sic] is most frequently used to refer to the subject in English-language reliable sources." In this case "at" is used far more frequently than "from," regardless of the exactness of the translation. TJRC (talk) 18:29, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Tradition ist Schlamperei &mdash; Gustav Mahler — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.39.178.94 (talk) 23:49, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Pictures "at" an Exhibition is actually the correct title. In a discussion of the work the title "Pictures from an Exhibition of Viktor Hartmann" was used once but in subsequent letters from Mussorgsky himself to his friend Vladimir Stasov he referred to it as "Pictures at an Exhibition". The translation from Russian to English is clear and the use of "From" is incidental and not found in letters from Mussorgsky. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 160.2.73.176 (talk) 20:43, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

English version
The earliest version used the word "honor" (at least), so per WP:ENGVAR the article should probably use American English, despite British English having been more prominent in the recent edit. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 02:33, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Arrangements for other forces - citations?
Trying to follow up on the Ellington version - can't verify this version. Can I contact the contributor? SHOULD the citation be present? --Cbgroves2001 (talk) 02:23, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Douglas Gamley
No mention of his version for male-voice choir and orchestra. Eroica (talk) 15:15, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

English titles
As this is English Wikipedia and the movements all have well known English titles, the section headings for the movements should be in English. This does not mean that we should drop other language titles. Martin Hogbin (talk) 09:36, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Some history of the English names would be useful. Did they come from the French? Were they given by Ravel? Martin Hogbin (talk) 09:55, 20 July 2014 (UTC)


 * In principle I agree with you, and of course the relevant guidelines insist on using English titles when they are in common use, but the example you just changed is to a translation I have never come across. As far as I am aware, that movement is always called "Gnomus", never "A Gnome" or "The Gnome". This is also the case with "Bydło", but the "Ballet of the Unhatched Chicks", "The Hut on Birds' Legs (Baba Yaga)", "Catacombs" and, especially, "The Great Gate of Kiev" (astonishingly, not even offered as an alternative to the literal translation of the Russian title here) are almost always given in English (as is the title of the whole work), in English-language writing. The names were not given by Ravel, but rather appear in Mussorgsky's original score for the piano. I assume the varying languages (French, Italian, Latin, German, Polish, and Russian) come from the titles given to the Hartmann paintings in the catalogue from the exhibition Mussorgsky attended.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 21:06, 20 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Thanks for correcting my error. Should we change the titles to English then. Martin Hogbin (talk) 21:36, 20 July 2014 (UTC)


 * From the past history of this article, I would guess this will meet with some resistance. I suggest waiting for a day or two to see whether something resembling consensus develops, or if objections are raised. If no one else has anything to say, then by all means go ahead. I've just checked the original 1886 edition (which of course was not prepared by Mussorgsky himself), which I was half expecting to find was bilingual (many Russian scores from that period are printed in both Russian and French), but this is true only for the preface. The score itself uses mainly Italian tempo and expression markings, and the movement titles are given in the various languages we see in this article (none are in English, of course). I have not seen the facsimile edition of Mussorgsky's manuscript, so I cannot say whether the titles in the published piano score conform to what he wrote.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 21:48, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
 * OK let us wait and see what happens. Martin Hogbin (talk) 00:01, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
 * It might also be a good idea to link back to this earlier discussion for reference purposes.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 00:14, 21 July 2014 (UTC)


 * I am not suggesting that we remove all the Russian titles, just that we make the English titles the main ones. Martin Hogbin (talk) 18:14, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
 * As no one has commented I have made the changes. Martin Hogbin (talk) 08:28, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

ALL arrangements?
From the article: "An attempt at a complete listing of non-orchestral arrangements of Pictures at an Exhibition is made here:" -- now, I'm not the foremost expert on the piece, but I have made it one of my...personal wants...to have as many recorded arrangements (to an extent, I only have one brass quintet, etc) of the piece as I can. Now, I honestly have no idea how many there are, the the list that's there is really pretty small compared to what's out there. In fact, I just got two seperate Wind Ensemble ones today -- none are on the list. There's also at least two ones for accordian (two and three), Russinan instruments, a 'piano concerto rearrangement', etc. etc. So I wonder, should this whole section be rearranged, or maybe a seperate page be made, and work be done to really MAKE a good large list? ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ 16:40, 22 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Why not just leave the list in the convenient place it is and simply add your own discoveries to it? Doesn't that seem to you to be the least troublesome option...?   Pf.

May I recommend the use of a sorting table for this section? Captpossum (talk) 13:51, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Copyright status of the recording (all movements)
The recording used by Wikipedia (via the commons) is of Maurice Ravel's orchestration, which is a recording of a rather poor performance by the Skidmore College Orchestra made available on MusOpen. While the sound recording itself may well be public domain or released under a free-access license such as Creative Commons, the 1922 orchestration by Maurice Ravel (1875-1937) is definitely not public domain in the United States due to the fact that it was first published in 1929 by Edition Russe de Musique and duly renewed 28 years later, which means Ravel's orchestration (the work actually recorded) remains under copyright in the United States until January 1, 2025 (95 years from first publication - read Wikipedia's own article on US copyright law if you doubt this). I am frankly rather amazed that the attorneys from Boosey and Hawkes (who administer the copyright in the USA) and ASCAP (who administers the performance and broadcast rights) have not hammered Wikipedia about this issue. We explain the case in some detail over at IMSLP. There is no orchestration of Pictures apart from the incomplete one made by Mikhail Tushmalov which is unambiguously free in the USA. As an almost textbook example of the absurdity of US copyright law, Ravel's orchestration is actually now free in most countries, as he died over 70 years ago. It might not be free in his native France however thanks to France's odd war-time extension to their normal 70-pma term, which extends it up to life-plus-85, except those rare composers like the organist Jehan Alain (d.1940), who was actually killed in action fighting the invading German army and thus entitled to a life-plus-100 year term.

There are always two levels of copyright to be addressed when dealing with recordings:
 * 1) The copyright status of the work being recorded; and
 * 2) The copyright status of the recording itself.

We have already researched this title quite thoroughly on IMSLP (where I am the chief copyright admin), so there is really no reason for you to re-invent the wheel here. Unless you can make a convincing fair-use argument under Title 17's very limited terms of "fair use" of copyrighted material (which I really doubt is possible), I strongly recommend you remove the recordings from USA access and limit it to those territories where it is actually free (most of the planet, actually). You will note that we don't have it at IMSLP - even though we could (since IMSLP is hosted in Canada). It's not a very convincing recording of the Ravel orchestration (which really only performable by a very fine, professional or near-professional level orchestra) and Mussorgsky's piece was originally composed for piano. Carolus (talk) 21:40, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Poor recording?
Is it just me, or is the orchestra featured in the sample files an under-10 organization? They sound pretty terrible! Or is it just the recording? 79.193.88.214 (talk) 20:59, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree! There are many better recordings of this work- how did this one get up here and whose is it?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.47.22.101 (talk) 02:56, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
 * We can only use free versions, which unsurprisingly are often pretty crappy. If you can find a better one that fits WP's rules, feel free to contribute it. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 03:09, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
 * No offense intended, but I can't help but feel that the article would be better off without this performance. It's not specifically good. Twang (talk) 18:33, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
 * See my comment below. Not only was the Skidmore College Orchestra not up to the level of taking on Ravel's very demanding orchestration, but the orchestration recording is under copyright in the United States until January 1, 2025. Carolus (talk) 21:56, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

ELP
No mention of Emerson, Lake and Palmers version then? Wikipedia hates Prog rock ?

2A02:C7F:DA66:C400:DA5:BA96:C20B:269C (talk) 13:44, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Pictures at an Exhibition. 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/20141106181251/http://andrej-hoteev.com/discography.html to http://andrej-hoteev.com/discography.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) 04:36, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

Images
I've given the images a spit and polish, as requested. 7 out of 12 done, the rest to follow... nagualdesign 05:10, 10 January 2018 (UTC)


 * 2 more done (9 out of 12). Not sure what can be done, if anything, with the others. nagualdesign 02:41, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

6. Samuel Goldenberg und Schmuyle
Shouldn't the language be German instead of Yiddish? "Und" (the word in the first edition) is definitely German.Bmwilcox (talk) 16:30, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Isn't "und" (also "un", "unt") Yiddish, too? -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 02:10, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

Movement names
The names should be given in the original languages, since Musorgsky quite clearly intended to have a mixture of languages in the titles. The only argument might be for the Russian titles to be translated, since this is pretty common practice. (For Musorgsky it would certainly have been a "default"; in my experienced, those are the titles that are often translated to the writer's language. For example, in English publications, in my experience their titles are often translated to English; but the Henle edition gives those titles in German, since they are a German publisher.) Double sharp (talk) 08:21, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

Merge
I don't understand why Pictures at an Exhibition (Stokowski orchestration) warrants its own article. Ravel's orchestration, for example, simply redirects to this article, and nearly all of the information in the article on Stokowski's verion is unreferenced. Does anyone oppose a merge of that article into this one? Noahfgodard (talk) 05:47, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
 * This article is already quite long, and the Stokowski article itself is rather extensive. I think a merge would be detrimental to both. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 05:54, 25 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Oppose. Stokowski's arrangement is independently notable, and if it were to be merged into this one, either much of its content would need to (or end up being) pointlessly cut; or it would be WP:UNDUE in the context of the piece itself.
 * The Stokowski article could be improved, with add'l references, for example, but merge is not a substitute for cleanup any more than AFD is.
 * It's really just the musical equivalent of having a different article for a novel and a movie based on the novel. The derivative work has a notable life of its own. TJRC (talk) 17:43, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Good points; I agree that the Stokowski arrangement should have its own article, assuming some of its content can be verified (I'll look for some sources). That being said, if WP:UNDUE is a concern, I think maybe the Ravel version should get its own article, seeing as it takes up so much of this article (and is certainly notable, perhaps more so than Stokowski's version). Noahfgodard (talk) 14:57, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree that the Ravel work should have its own article. It is, as you say, even more independently notable than Stokowski's. (Even if he did butcher it by changing the all-important last four notes of "Goldenberg" and dropping the important promenade after it, among other things.) TJRC (talk) 15:25, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, I also agree. I created the redirect for the Ravel version, but it really does need its own article now. --  Jack of Oz   [pleasantries]  08:53, 27 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Oppose (Ravel's arrangement butchered nothing imo...) This one and Ravel's are both independently notable. In fact this article must be one of few arrangement articles that exist on WP, when many more deserve to. Aza24 (talk) 08:32, 27 August 2020 (UTC)