Talk:The Oceanides

Infobox usage and editing on Sibelius tone poems
Hello, fellow Sibelian and welcome to the wonderful world of the Sibelius tone poems! I am sure we are of one mind: the 13 Sibelius examples in this form represent, along with his seven symphonies and the violin concerto, the height of his orchestral powers. As such, I have taken the liberty over the last year of giving some of these tone poems (namely, The Wood Nymph and The Oceanides) the expanded treatment I think they deserve.

As part of this expansion project, I have added infoboxes onto each of the tone poem pages (save for Finlandia and  Luonnotar and two that don't yet exist, The Dryad and Pan and Echo) to assist our readers in having the most important information about each piece at their fingertips. I feel that standardization of infobox information and form is something we should strive to maintain among these pieces, and as such, I suggest that any changes be agreed to by the community. If you're interested, I have the following opinions:


 * 1) Let's keep the picture of Sibelius the same for all his compositions, so as to create the feel of 'articles in a series'
 * 2) Let's have the opening title be the name in English (unless the native title is more famous, e.g., En saga)
 * 3) Let's include 'native name' or 'English name' below the picture if the piece goes by more than one name
 * 4) Let's have the form (e.g., tone poem) appear up-top next to the composer's name
 * 5) Let's include the average duration
 * 6) Let's have the caption under the image of Sibelius be "The composer in 1913"
 * 7) Let's keep the dates of composition/revision (important for some pieces, e.g., the Fifth Symphony, consistent with List of compositions by Jean Sibelius
 * 8) Let's have each infobox include information on 'movements', even if it is only one; this provides standardization among pieces.

Okay, thanks for reading! If you are so inclined to add the infobox to the seven symphonies (or the four tone poems mentioned above) or some of his incidental music, please be my guest. My focus, for now, is on the tone poems.

Sgvrfjs (talk) 18:22, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Note: I have included this message on the talk pages of each of the existing tone poems that have infoboxes.


 * Thank you. If you think any of you wishes are left open, talk on the template talk of infobox musical composition. I am more inclined to use different images, such as the composer about the time of the composition, but would not fight over that ;) - I don't think we have to repeat that a symphony is a symphony right below the title, but to keep the information in the additional "form" parameter is a good idea, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:56, 27 June 2015 (UTC)


 * @ Hi, Nikkimaria. I wanted to, first of all, thank you for your work on editing and paring down the composition infoboxes I have placed on the Sibelius tone poems, as well as for your contributions to Wikipedia more generally. My irrational fear of editing wars has until now prevented me from popping my head out of my hole, but I thought it might be constructive to involve you in the discussion and I had earlier had on the standardization and usage of infoboxes in the Sibelius realm. :) We have no need to rehash the debate points of the past, so let's cut to the chase. In my mind, the three of us have what appear to be different initial opinions for these boxes: you seem to emphasize economy, I worship consistency between like-pages, whereas Gerda has a fondness for "granularity." But I think it is likely that more unites us than it at first appears and we can probably work together towards a happy middle ground that expresses essential information in a consistent manner. Take, for example, your edit to The Oceanides: I actually agree with and appreciate your elimination of GENRE = orchestral and MOVEMENTS = 1, and I admit that before your edit, I couldn't recognize that this information was extra and failed to make the box economical. In my mind, CATALOGUE = Op., NATIVE NAME, DURATION, DATE (including revisions), and the three pieces of information under PREMIERE are the essential pieces of information (although maybe on multi-movement works, MOVEMENTS should be retained). I am a little ambivalent on PERIOD's necessity, but could probably agree that it, too, is superfluous. So, having accepted your careful edits, I was disinclined to reopen the discussion until the thing I value (and I recognize it's probably a losing battle), consistency between like-pages, was regrettably not maintained after you continued on to other tone poem pages. For example, in Tapiola, you also eliminated DURATION, which I am very much opposed to deleting. My point is, maybe we can together work, with Gerda if she likes, on a happy middle ground. I propose following your example on ''The Oceanides":


 * type=Tone poem
 * name=The Oceanides
 * image=Jean sibelius.jpg
 * caption=The composer in 1913
 * border=Yes
 * native_name=Aallottaret
 * composer=Jean Sibelius
 * catalogue=Op. 73
 * composed=1913–1914 (r. 1914)
 * duration=10 minutes
 * premiere_date=June 4, 1914
 * premiere_location=Norfolk, Connecticut
 * premiere_conductor=Jean Sibelius


 * But including movements when the piece if >1 (e.g., the Lemminkäinen Suite); I agree with eliminating PERIOD and GENRE from all tone poems. I am opposed to placing orchestral with type and think it should just say tone poem; will all three (orchestral, tone poem, and Jean Sibelius) on one line, it looks aesthetically too cramped. Thoughts? Thank you again for your participation in this project! Respectfully and constructively yours, Sgvrfjs (talk) 16:13, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Hi Sgvrfjs, I think it's important to adapt the infobox to the needs and content of the particular article. For example, in Tapiola, the duration parameter presented a specific number but the article text provides a range - the specific number was within that range, true, but suggested what seems to be false precision. In The Wood Nymph, conversely, not only does the number match between text and infobox (though unsourced in both places - that's something to be addressed), but also the significance of this number to the topic is indicated. Thus, if properly sourced, it is a good addition to Wood Nymph, but far less essential and even potentially misleading in Tapiola. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:14, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Notable recording
One of the most notable recodings of The Oceanides (all three versions of the work) is included in the 2003 album BIS-CD-1445 Rondo of the Waves with Osmo Vänskä conducting the Lahti Symphony Orchestra. See, for example, the review by Andrew Clements of the Guardian who calls it the best album of the year as well as the very positive Gramophone magazine review. See also the Google translation of which also mentions acclaim by Matthew Rye of the Daily Telegraph. I think it should be included in the table, perhaps with appropriate comments in the text.--Ipigott (talk) 09:13, 14 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your comment! So, first of all (and just to make sure we are on the same page), the text currently reads, "To date, the only recordings of the Yale version (7:25) and the pre-Oceanides suite (7:17) are by Osmo Vänskä and the Lahti Symphony Orchestra under the BIS label (BIS-CD-1445, Rondo of the Waves)." Moreover, the information about the final version appears in the table (with the appropriate citation of the CD you mentioned). The reason I did not also place the information about the Yale version and the suite in the table is because I considered it best a table for final version recordings only, so as to avoid any confusion on the part of the reader. So, I am a bit reluctant to add this information still to the table, although I wouldn't mind hearing your case. Third, I agree that it is a TREMENDOUS CD :), and I have no problem with adding the praise and accolades you noted to the paragraph under Discography. If you want to take a stab at the new sentences, then be my guest. Otherwise, once I have had time to read the reviews you cite, I can add them myself sometime this week. But thanks for finding these cites! Also, I like your addition of translating Aallottaret, but I almost always see this (in the books we have cited below) as "Spirits of the Waves" rather than "water nymphs." I double check, though.


 * Fourth, this also seems like this is a good place to discuss our English usage (and bring in ): are we doing American or British English? I defer of course to your knowledge, but my quick reading of MoS led me to the following understanding: where MoS permits either American or British English, use the latter if the article clearly relates to that country and use the former if vica versa. Well, Sibelius is neither country's property :( So, as a U.S. writer, I obviously expanded the stub using the English I use. I obviously don't really care what we decide on, but (with the article under GA consideration) we probably should go for consistency; reading Tim's review of one of Gerda's pieces, he seemed to stress that inconsistencies in formatting and grammar could lead to a reject. And we have been, however well-intentioned, collectively introducing inconsistencies: some but not all dates switched to European style; some by not all ." and ," switched to ". and ", ; some by not all programme switched to program and switched back to programme (all in 48 hours!). I mean, if we start changing color to colour then I'm really going to fall out of my seat laughing... Just seems to be a lot of quibbling that is making our collective lives harder. Thoughts? As always, thanks for your guidance and good will! :D Sgvrfjs (talk) 17:35, 14 July 2015 (UTC)


 * I said before that if you go for consistency, you will be unhappy ;) - European dates for a European composer seems "natural" to me, and is what we had for Nielsen, - but it doesn't have to go with British English, if you ask me, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:31, 14 July 2015 (UTC)


 * As always, Gerda, you've stated it perfectly. I too like the European dates, and I am fine with the punctuation outside the quotation mark. But British spelling...seems unnecessary. Let's wait to hear from Ipigott, but either all the programs need to be programme or none of them. Thanks for your input! In my defense, I stupidly didn't know programme was British, which is why I used it earlier. But I agreed with Nikkimaria's alteration of these programmes to program. Especially if I didn't use colour! Sgvrfjs (talk) 00:55, 15 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Let me take these points one by one. I think the problem with the recording stems from the date given for it in the table (2000). As far as I can see, it was first released in March 2003 and I would have therefore expected it to be listed with that date in the table. As the date was missing, I simply thought it had been forgotten. If you have evidence that the recording was in fact made in 2000 then this requires and explanation but in any case I think it is important to list the release date of the CD. Forgive me for not spotting the record number in the introduction to the section. I think it would be helpful to give more background on the recording, given the acclaim it received.


 * On American vs British English, I'm afraid I cannot agree with Gerda that you can combine British dates with American prose - it's either one or the other, particularly if you are aiming for GA. Here we are dealing with a Finn who had close ties (especially for this piece) with the United States and I therefore suggest we go back to American dates and American spelling. After checking the editing history, I saw that both {u|Sgvrfjs}} and had worked on the dates and I therefore assumed both had opted for British English. I the light of the explanations above, I will now go through the article and re-establish American English although I would like to maintain some of my copy edits, particularly those in regard to whole uncapitalized sentences in brackets. I would even suggest that in many cases the brackets could simply be removed as the information they contain is important.--Ipigott (talk) 06:27, 15 July 2015 (UTC)


 * I now have time to expand on the translation of Aallottaret. I think "spirits of the waves" might indeed be preferable, especially if you can give sources. Aallot certainly comes from the Finnish for wave(s). Sibelius appears to have found the term in the Kalevala (see here where it is said to mean wave goddess. Water nymph is a less literal but perhaps a more natural English translation. A fuller explanation is given in Crawford's Preface to the Kalevala: "A general term for the other water-hosts living not only in the sea, but also in the rivers, lakes, cataracts, and fountains, is Ahtolaiset (inhabitants of Ahtola), 'Water-people,' 'People of the Foam and Billow,' 'Wellamo's Eternal People.' Of these, some have specific names; as Allotar (wave-goddess)..." I think Sibelius has used the Swedish form with the -et definite article suffix in his title. (Interestingly Skogsrået also comes from the Kalevala.) The Swedish encyclopaedia Nordisk Familjebok defines it as "böljernes mö" (maid of the waves) and I therefore believe it approximates to what we would call "The Water Nymph" but I certainly don't want to impose this if you can quote sources which translate it "Spirits of the Waves". As far as I can see, though, the Finnish title is singular rather than plural.--Ipigott (talk) 06:27, 15 July 2015 (UTC)


 * I think all your concerns have been addressed by my recent edits. 1) I added the review of The Guardian writer on the CD but could not access the Gramophone one; you can add it if you like. Also added the 2003 recording date for the suite and Yale version to the paragraph but not the the table; Vanska recorded the final version first in 2000. Double checked by looking at the liner notes for the CD (in my possession). Second, went with U.S. dates and spellings per your correct suggestion that the piece relates more to the U.S. than U.K. Indeed, earlier when trying to check on usage rights for The Music Shed pictures I loaded into Wikipedia, I corresponded with the woman in charge of the festival today, and she seemed very eager in using the completed Wikipedia piece in their archives or something. Hence, let's go with U.S. English. I have made the changes to the date and programme, but not to the ." vs. ". Third, I have found sourcing information for "Nymphs of the Waves" being the translation for Aallottaret; please see the new paragraphs I have added to the composition section. I hope we're good. For the time being, I need to put this piece aside, at least until the GA review. Thanks for your help!! Sgvrfjs (talk) 17:14, 15 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Thanks for going to all the trouble of restoring the dates and spellings. Just a couple of comments: I think it would be more good if you provide a source to your translation of "Nymphs of the waves" as I believe the original is singular rather plural. Second, I still don't understand why you want to maintain 2000 for the recording when you reference in the introduction clearly states "Physical Release: 03/2003". In any case, you should follow the normal method of referencing and not just include an internet link in the text. Perhaps you can provide an additional source giving the date of the actual concert or recording. I too need to move on to other things but this is an important point.--Ipigott (talk) 19:14, 15 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I provided the citations for a number of things, including your Kalevala reference and Nymphs of the Waves, cite in the paragraph under compositions. Also, While the CD Rondo of the Waves was released on 3/2003 as the source says, the liner notes indicate that the final version was recorded in 2000 for an earlier CD. Maybe it would be better then to link to that release for the Vanska in-table? Also, I'm not sure what the proper way to cite the CD information is, whether in text or in the table. Can you kindly provide a link to instructions? Thanks :) Sgvrfjs (talk) 19:49, 15 July 2015 (UTC)


 * As I have said before, I think it would be best to give the release date in the table but if you wish to give an explanation you can use a note. There are examples in the Claudia Cardinale article on which I have also been working.--Ipigott (talk) 20:14, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Hi, Ipigott. In my haste, I think my writing has perhaps been less than clear, and if so, I apologize. Please allow me a second chance to explain the decisions I made when constructing the discography table. 1) In the table, all recording are of the final version of The Oceanides. So as to avoid confusion, the intermediate versions recorded by Vanska in 2003 are left out. The list is, to my knowledge (after extensive online research), more or less, complete. 2) The dates that appear in the third column are to the best of my knowledge all dates of first recording rather than dates of CD release. Why my preference for the former over the latter? In my mind, date of recording is more important because it shows when the recording first appeared, and thus, when this particular interpretation of The Oceanides first became a part of the 'discussion' (by which I mean was available for listeners and even subsequent conductors to hear). Even more importantly, consider the example of Sir Adrian Boult. The recording date is 1936 (first recording ever, and on a LP), whereas the CD that we can today purchase the recording on was released in 2007. To my mind, the more essential date is clearly 1936 rather than 2007. 3) Following this logic, then, and for consistency purposes in a table, I listed the dates of first recording for all conductors. 4) Vanska first recorded the final version of The Oceanides in 2000, and the CD was released that year. Later, in 2003, this recording was re-released on the Rondo of the Waves CD we have been focused on, as an accompaniment to the interminate version recordings from 2003. 5) You might disagree and think the release date is still more important, to which I would only counter with one other point that I'm sure you're obviously well aware of: release dates in classical music are in my mind pretty meaningless because a single recording might be reissued and reissued and reissued a handful of times. Thus, any release date listed in the table would be arbitrary. 6) Which leads me to my final point: perhaps you are on board with using the date of first recording in the table, but don't like how the links I provided to the CD sometimes doesn't contain this recording date. To this point I concede that I just sought to find a CD a given recording was on, rather than its first issue. I didn't have the time or the resources to dig that deep. 7) The AVAILABLE ON column, then, merely is designed to give the reader a CD upon which to find the recording, not necessarily its first. 8) Perhaps you'd rather me provide a link for the Vanska final version to the CD from 2000 rather than the 2003 release. If this would solve the problem, I am happy to do so. 9) For clarity purposes, I have altered the title of column three in the table from YEAR to RECORDED, so that it is obvious to readers that the years listed are not for the CD release. Again, I apologize if I still have not addressed your concerns; the weaknesses of comprehension are entirely my own fault, but please know that I have tried to be accommodating and a team-player. Happy editing! :) Sgvrfjs (talk) 07:14, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on The Oceanides. 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/20150620000801/http://www.classicsonline.com/catalogue/product.aspx?pid=1971657 to http://www.classicsonline.com/catalogue/product.aspx?pid=1971657
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150620004409/http://www.classicsonline.com/catalogue/product.aspx?pid=2030089 to http://www.classicsonline.com/catalogue/product.aspx?pid=2030089

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) 04:37, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on The Oceanides. 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/20150619222159/https://www.pristineclassical.com/pasc205.html to https://www.pristineclassical.com/pasc205.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) 07:31, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

Duration
I appreciate your preference to add Dahlström's value, but being reliably sourced is not the only consideration - that value contradicts the rest of the article, including your own discography table. It appears to be a case of false precision. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:58, 4 February 2024 (UTC)


 * Okay, thank you. Removing it is preferable to the contradictory tag. ~ Silence of Järvenpää 04:21, 8 February 2024 (UTC)