Talk:The Firebird

DTH Firebird
The Dance Theatre of Harlem's Firebird is reset in the Caribbean and considered (at least by DTH) to be a completely independent work credited to Taras; should this be indicated here, in John Taras and in Dance Theatre of Harlem? — Robert Greer (talk) 23:41, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Tschaikovsky vs. Tchaikovsky
It is NYCB practice since the days of Balanchine to spell the composer's name as "Tschaikovsky". —Preceding unsigned comment added by Robertgreer (talk • contribs) 22:32, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Are you sure about that? There are two transliterations commonly used in English-language contexts. One is from French, "Tchaikovsky", the other from German, "Tschaikowsky". Each is internally consistent, based on orthographical standards of those two languages. The one you say has been used by the New York City Ballet would be a cross between the two.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 04:14, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
 * You are right about the eccentricity of City Ballet's orthography vs. the accepted transliterations — the French best reflects the pronunciation of Чайковский (I had three years of Russian in high school and spent my first two years of college living off-campus in "Russian House" before giving myself over to Scandinavian studies.) But Balanchine studied in St. Petersburg, had his own ideas about the proper English spelling of the composer's name — among many other things — and who am I to argue with Mr. B.! He was Georgian by birth, not Russian, and it may be that he pronounced "Tchaikovsky" with more sibilance than would have been the case of a Muscovite (this is idle speculation on my part.) If one "Googles" Tschaikovsky, Tchaikovsky and Tschaikowsky on site:NYCBallet.com one finds 237, 27 and zero hits, respectively; versus 127,000, 6,500,000 and 908,000 if one "Googles" the Internet at large, so the French "Tchaikovsky" is dominant. But NYCB programs always, and I do mean always, spell it "Tschaikovsky". Robert Greer (talk) 16:20, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
 * How very interesting. I would have thought that any Russian would have strongly preferred the French transliteration, full stop. As to the better reflection of the Russian pronunciation, that depends entirely on the linguistic orientation of the reader, of course, but I must presume you mean to an English speaker. (Italians variously use Ciacovschi, Ciajcovschij, etc., and the Italian Wikipedia somewhat idiosyncratically gives Čajkovskij; Hungarian transliterates as Csajkovszkij; Dutch as Tsjaikovski, etc.) The Library of Congress once decreed that the preferred English transliteration should be Chaikovskii, and this is still consistently used for most other bearers of this surname, but tradition won out in the case of the composer. What I do not understand is what bearing this has on the present article—or was there once something pertinent that has in the meantime been removed?—Jerome Kohl (talk) 18:43, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, I was referring to readers of English Wikipedia who are native speakers of English and have no Russian. The problem with the German spelling is that most Americans do not pronounce Volkswagen correctly; think what they'd do with Tschaikowsky! The Cyrillic letter Ч is officially transliterated as CH, but it is anatomically impossible to pronounce CH without preceeding it with a T (the result will be SH instead; and this is true whether the CH is at the beginning, in the middle, or at the end of an utterance.) English orthography does not require (or allow) TCH at the begining of a word but does in the middle or at the end (it's necessary of course to spell it with TCH in French.) Robert Greer (talk) 20:20, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Tschaikovsky vs. Tchaikovsky
"How should the name of the composer of the music for “Serenade” be spelled? Most Westerners now spell it Tchaikovsky, but City Ballet took up, during Balanchine’s lifetime, the spelling Tschaikovsky. Why? Because that’s how the composer spelled it when he was in New York in 1891. (My thanks to the reader who sent me a copy of his Carnegie Hall autograph from the Pierpont Morgan Library.)"


 * NY Times article by Alastair Macaulay, June 1, 2007

Opus Number anyone?
[I didn't write this headline, btw - I found it here in glorious isolation!] To the best of my knowledge, though Stravinsky gave some of his early works Opus numbers, The Firebird never had one. Alfietucker (talk) 11:25, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Lyadov and The Firebird
The article recounts the usual story that Liadov lost his commission because he was too slow to get composing. But this is contradicted by what has been written in the Anatoly Lyadov article, and, it has to be said, Richard Taruskin's quite thorough investigation of the story seems to suggest that Lyadov never accepted the commission in the first place, despite Diaghilev's hope, and so the story that he 'lost' it is a bit of gossip put about to save Diaghilev's face. I'll consider rewriting the circumstances in this article accordingly. Alfietucker (talk) 11:25, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Genre
The box at the head of the article categorised Firebird as a neoclassical ballet. AFAIK neoclassical ballet simply hadn't been invented when Stravinsky and Fokine created this ballet, and indeed it totally does not match the description given in the Wikipedia article. I have therefore re-categorised it as "neonationalist ballet", since it is a product of the late 19th-/early 20th-century Russian neo-national cultural movement which several of Diaghilev's early ballets (e.g. adaptations of Tamara and Scheherazade) were consciously part of. Alfietucker (talk) 07:41, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

First performances
The section "Ballet performances" at present only talks about post-World War II productions in the US. Clearly there should be something here about the premiere 1910 production in Paris, and a clearer spelling out of its popular success. When I have time I may do this myself, but would be glad if someone else could beat me to it! Alfietucker (talk) 07:49, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Final appearance of the Firebird
The article states that at the end the Firebird makes one final, fleeting appearance. But I have seen three versions of the ballet and the bird is nowhere to be found in the final tableau. She simply disappears once Ivan shatters that giant egg.AlbertSM (talk) 15:58, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

agreed
I recently saw the Fokine — and have seen many times the Balanchine/Robbins, which does not even have an egg — and what you say is definitely the case. Do not be surprised though if somebody accuses us of original research for having gone to the theatre and actually having seen the ballet! — Robert Greer (talk) 16:18, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Gentlemen, you are quite right. I checked Cyril W. Beaumont's Complete Book of Ballets, an authoritative source since he was not only a ballet scholar but witnessed the premiere productions by the Ballets Russes, and there is absolutely no mention of the Firebird making her appearance in that scene: in fact he writes 'Köstchei, his court, and the Bird of Fire have vanished'. My guess is that whoever added her alleged appearance in the Wikipedia article was listening to the music, where indeed there is a hint of her music: I have reworded this accordingly. Alfietucker (talk) 13:43, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Under "Excerpts from the Firebird Suite" If someone would, please add: "The opening track of the 1973 live concert album, "Yessongs" uses an excerpt from Firebird Suite which blends into Siberian Khatru to open the show. The 1975 video of the same name does not contain the exerpt."

I checked the information at "yesworld" under catalog.

http://yesworld.com/catalog.aspx 129.71.204.146 (talk) 19:49, 21 March 2013 (UTC) Ed Toler, a reader. (I don't want to join, or have my IP address displayed.

Orchestration
I changed "double woodwind" to "quadruple woodwind" for the original ballet orchestration. The concert suites use double woodwind. PhilUK (talk) 12:18, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Genesis
I don't understand the sentence "Stravinsky used principle themes from works by Rimsky-Korsakov in his score." Even if "principle" is changed to the adjective "principal", it still doesn't make sense. If "principle" is omitted, I would like to see a citation to confirm this assertion. Maybe S and Rimsky-Korsakov just both used similar Russian folk-tunes. PhilUK (talk) 12:18, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm 99% sure that the sentence was written by someone who wasn't aware of the very specific definition "themes" has in writings about music. I've reworded accordingly, in light of the following two sentences. Alfietucker (talk) 14:56, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks, that's much better. PhilUK (talk) 21:05, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Me too I don't understand the ne that says Stravinsky what does it mean? 41.114.227.61 (talk) 11:22, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

Infernal Dance of King Koshchei and Green Hornet
The Infernal Dance of King Koshchei was used in the The Green Hornet (radio series) radio series, though somebody should document this before restoring it to the In popular culture section. — Robert Greer (talk) 01:07, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Elimination of recordings section?
I would like to ask other editors whether it would be advisable to eliminate the section on recordings of this score. Not only does it fail to add anything to the subject itself, but the inclusion of “selected recordings” seems highly arbitrary at best. It’s worse in the subsequent sections on the ballet’s suites and excerpts. Why mention Lori Singer (who?) as a “notable” recording of the excerpts from the work? Why mention an apparently commercially unavailable recording of the 1919 suite with Rozhdestvensky conducting? None of this seems encyclopedic or useful to me.

Then there are the references to now long out-of-print CDs, whose recordings have been since repackaged in other more available issues (the Columbia Stravinsky and DG Bernsteins with the IPO come to mind).

Before wiping these sections out, I would like to hear from other editors why these sections ought to stay. Or maybe others have ideas as to how to improve them? CurryTime7-24 (talk) 18:38, 6 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Weak Support - I like the idea of a Notable Recordings section, but because picking entries is so subjective (and because so many recordings have been made of the various versions of the Firebird), I'd support getting rid of the section if a consensus can't be reached on how to "fix" it. Noahfgodard (talk) 07:50, 17 February 2020 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your input. I'll be replacing that section shortly. CurryTime7-24 (talk) 21:15, 13 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Cleaned up the recordings section, making mention only of notable debut recordings in the discography of The Firebird. In addition I also trimmed up the section on the various suites, which was filled with a lot of unsourced material, much of it not relating to the section. Will add some sources for the things that remain in the next few days.CurryTime7-24 (talk) 22:25, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

Where is the music from the firebird
There is no music to hear because there is recordings but no sound files for the sutie 1919 1945 and first and ballet can you please add it 206.85.75.168 (talk) 22:23, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

In popular culture
I see my edit removing the "In popular culture" section has been reverted. CurryTime raised the point that the references to the work were trivial and not justified. I agree, and hence removed the section. If there are any concerns, I'm here to discuss the subject. MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 21:25, 3 July 2023 (UTC)


 * I wholly disagree. There are many references to notable entities. Kindly let CurryTime make his own arguments. There is no consensus for this removal. You can't claim consensus on behalf other editors. In line with WP:BRD you should not have reinstated your edit until consensus is achieved here. There may be many other editors who will wish to comment. 86.187.172.255 (talk) 21:39, 3 July 2023 (UTC)
 * The use at the opening ceremony of Sochi 2014 Winter Olympics, Frank Zappa and the orchestra hit samples were all suggested for the article's entry at DYK in March (see immediately above). 86.187.172.255 (talk) 21:47, 3 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Some may have been notable, but lacked citations (such as the one about Yes), which alone would have made their inclusion questionable. The main problem, which the "In popular culture" template addressed, is that it was basically just a list of stuff; there was no attempt to organize that material into something meaningful that could demonstrate how and why The Firebird was influential beyond classical music. I support @MyCatIsAChonk's choice to remove this section. If it were to be reincluded, it needs citations for everything mentioned in the section, which also needs to be rewritten so as to be something more than a list. —CurryTime7-24 (talk) 21:48, 3 July 2023 (UTC)
 * The repeated removal is wholly against process. It should be restored until consensus is achieved here. An WP:RfC might be more appropriate. 86.187.172.255 (talk) 22:01, 3 July 2023 (UTC)
 * You could write a separate article The Firebird in popular culture. When a composer's works or a piece's discography are not of high quality standard, we separate them. Compare BWV 56. With the section as it was, the article doesn't qualify for GA, - that's no matter of consensus. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:28, 3 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I agree that because it is a GA, quality concerns are of prime importance, and removing the section, perhaps rewriting it with cohesion, seems a valid approach. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:57, 3 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Um, the article passed GA on 23 March 2023 with the "In popular culture" section fully present? So I'm surprised that User:Chiswick Chap doesn't have something to say. If you remove it wholesale, the GA review will need to be re-run? 86.187.165.146 (talk) 17:48, 4 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I'll try to address all the points raised above. Firstly, I apologize for violating any guidelines related to reversion, I was not familiar with WP:BRD.
 * Secondly, my primary issue with including the section is the lack of organization. MOS:POPCULT states that things included in this section need to have independent coverage instead of mentions in larger works, and none of the features listed had that kind of coverage, except maybe the picture book. Additionally, take the other major Stravinsky ballet: The Rite of Spring. This article does not have an "In popular culture" section, but it does have "Influence and adaptations", a section that The Firebird could certainly use- expansion is necessary on my part (which is being discussed on my talk page if you're interested). Regardless, my main point is that The Rite 's mentioning of Fantasia is because the sources have in depth discussion about the Fantasia feature and Stravinsky's opinions of it - the things mentioned in The Firebird 's "In popular culture" did not have coverage like this.
 * Lastly, inclusion of the section through the GAN was entirely my fault and I should've removed it beforehand. Though, I am not familiar with any policy that states removal of content calls for a GAR. And, while the facts did make good hooks for DYK, it still doesn't prove they should be covered in the article. MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 20:09, 4 July 2023 (UTC)
 * What you say is all very reasonable. I really think you could have liaised first with Chiswick Chap about this. Let's see what he has to say. 86.187.165.146 (talk) 20:26, 4 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Ping for @Chiswick Chap MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 01:55, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

Well I'm glad a consensus has been reached, despite the edit-warring. The discussion of what other Stravinsky articles do or don't do (the old WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS or the nonexistent OTHERSTUFFDOESNTEXIST even) is not relevant; the MOS however is. We certainly can't put the section as it is back into the article now. I agree with Gerda that if anybody feels like resurrecting the material in a stand-alone article, that is perfectly feasible. I agree with Bill Nye that without it, the article remains a sound GA. All the best, Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:39, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

Episode Titles
I've noticed that the episode titles of the Firebird are incorrect in some places such as the Death of Kaschei. The actual name includes the awakening of Kastchei, his death, and profound darkness. Nickkontek (talk) 21:50, 10 January 2024 (UTC)


 * @Nickkontek, do you have a source for this? The current info reflects what's stated in the cited sources. MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 22:54, 10 January 2024 (UTC)