Wikipedia:Peer review/Tchaikovsky and the Belyayev circle/archive1

Tchaikovsky and the Belyayev circle
This peer review discussion has been closed. This article is a sequel to Tchaikovsky and the Five, which was recently listed as FA. Like its predecessor, it is on a topic known about Russian classical music but seldom duscussed in detail in the West; unlike its predecessor, it talks about a later, more positive relationship Pyotr Ilyich Tchaikovsky had with his peers, one that was mutually beneficial in terms of artistic growth. I've listed this article for peer review because I have taken it as far as possible on my own in terms of scope and quality of writing. I really need input on how this article can be improved and taken to FA quality. Please note: Alt text has not been provided for all images because the images used in the article are still being finalized. Thanks very much for your attention, and I look forward to your comments. BTW, special thanks to Brianboulton for his encouraging me to create this article, and to Ruhrfisch for the very cool lead image, which he provided. Jonyungk (talk) 18:14, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Crimsonfox's Comments


 * Lots of additives such as "also" and "moreover" - These should be removed where possible and reworded if necessary.
 * Big block quotes need quote marks This was wrong, sorry.  Cr im so nF ox  talk 01:00, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
 * "but due to the Russianness of the art itself." - Is Russianness a term?
 * "{When these arrangements did not arise as planned, Tchaikovsky made urgent covert attempts to make good on his promises, especially to Rimsky-Korsakov, whom he now called "an outstanding figure ... worthy of every respect)" - This doesn't need the parenthesis, it's long enough and not note-like for them.
 * "relationship with Rimsky-Korsakov had gone through a number of changes" - "number of" isn't needed.
 * "Tchaikovsky with some suspicion" - "some" redundant
 * ", and found much to enjoy in their music, as well" - "as well" redundant"
 * He wrote to Nadezhda von Meck that while he found Cui to be "an individual deeply hateful to me ... this in no way hinders me from respecting or loving such representatives of the school as Balakirev, Rimsky-Korsakov, Lyadov, Glazunov, or from considering myself flattered to appear on the concert platform beside them. This confession showed a wholehearted willingness for Tchaikovsky to have his music heard alongside that of the nationalists. - No closing quote marks
 * "over the Five with a seeming generosity—"seeming" because, while he remained" - Repetition of "seeming", no need for the second one
 * "Another lettter to Kruglikov goes even further" - "even" isn't needed
 * "To a point, the Belyayev circle continued from where The Five stopped. However, " - "to a point" and "However" both convey the meaning that it was different at some point, one of these should go.
 * "(Kuchka, short for Moguchaya kuchka or "Mighty Handful", was another name for The Five.) " - I would say move this bracket to where it first says "Kuchka" and remove the "Kuchka" from the bracket and the full stop. Punctuation should be outside the bracket unless there is more than one sentence inside it. Or take it completely out of brackets and have it as a statement itself.
 * "Tchaikovsky, in fact, planned to conduct Rachmaninoff's tone poem The Rock" - "in fact" seems redundant

I really enjoyed reading the article and wasn't expecting it so I hope my comments help. Browser crashed first time trying to submit this so I may have missed some things I originally put, I'll have another quick check later.  Cr im so nF ox  talk 03:39, 30 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Glad you enjoyed the article, and thank you for your comments, most of which I have incorporated into the article. Jonyungk (talk) 15:23, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Very quick response, noticed one other thing "Another lettter to Kruglikov goes further" - "lettter" has 3 "t"s  Cr im so nF ox  talk 20:16, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for pointing this out. Fixed "lettter" plus another typo in the same section. Jonyungk (talk) 21:16, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Brianboulton comments:-

I have so far been concentrating on the lead. As written I think attention is needed in a number of areas, mainly:-
 * Getting rid of "treading water" sentences or phrases (those which merely reemphasise what's just been said, rather than moving things along). Examples are ""Before this visit Tchaikovsky had spent much time keeping in touch with Rimsky-Korsakov and those around him" and "of the country".
 * Removing significant overlinking, e.g. "timber", "Russia", "orchestra" etc
 * Grammatical and other tweaks to maintain the prose flow
 * Some rephrasing for clarity.

As a result I have formulated a slightly shorter lead which is given below. However, I am still confused by the third paragraph, even though I've modified it slightly. Is it saying that the two main legacies of Russian music—Saint Petersburg and Moscow—were supplemented by a third, perhaps more unifying legacy, that derived from Tchaikovsky's association with the Belyayev circle and of which Rachmaninov and the others mentioned are representative? That's how I read it but I may be wrong - it needs further clarification.


 * This paragraph has been a probem for me, as the legacy section in itself is confusing and may need some rethinking. The third legacy, as personified by Arensky, waffled in influence from R-K to Tchaikovsky and took on elements of both composers' works. Taruskin states there was only one legacy for Russian classical music&mdash;the one for the Belyayev circle&mdash;and that legacy was eventually all-encompassing. To an extent this is true, but it leaves out Arensky, Taneyev and Rachmaninoff, not to mention the modernists such as Scriabin and later Shostakovich. As simple as it would be to stick to the Belyayev circle and how its exposure to Tchaikovsky and his music expanded its horizons to some point, I'm wondering if that would be over-narrowing the picture. Your thoughts? Jonyungk (talk) 17:31, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not an expert on Russian music, but I will read the legacy section and then suggest an appropriate wording for the lead. Brianboulton (talk) 14:46, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I've rewritten much of the Legacy section, simplifying it to Tchaikovsky's influence on the Belyayev composers and streamlining from there. I've also rewritten the third paragraph of the lead section accordingly. I'm looking forward to your comments on the effectiveness of this approach. Jonyungk (talk) 07:06, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

"In November 1887, Pyotr Ilyich Tchaikovsky arrived in Saint Petersburg, Russia, to attend the Russian Symphony Concerts, a series devoted exclusively to music of Russian composers. Among works featured were the first complete performance of the final version of Tchaikovsky's First Symphony, and the premiere of the revised version of Nikolai Rimsky-Korsakov's Third Symphony. Rimsky-Korsakov, with Alexander Glazunov, Anatoly Lyadov and several other nationalistically-minded composers and musicians, had formed a group called the Belyayev circle. This group was named after timber merchant Mitrofan Belyayev, an amateur musician who became an influential music patron and publisher after he had taken an interest in Glazunov's work. During Tchaikovsky's visit to Saint Petersburg he spent much time in the company of these men; as a result, the somewhat fraught relationship he had previously endured with the nationalistic composer group known collectively as The Five would eventually meld into something more harmonious. This relationship would last until Tchaikovsky's death in late 1893."
 * Suggested revised lead:-

"By 1887, Tchaikovsky was firmly established as one of the leading composers in Russia. A favorite of Tsar Alexander III, he was widely regarded as a national treasure. He was in demand as a guest conductor in Russia and Western Europe, and in 1890 would visit the United States in the same capacity. By contrast, the fortunes of The Five had waned, and the group had long since dispersed. Modest Mussorgsky, who had remained the most antipathetic of the group toward Tchaikovsky and his music, was dead, as was Alexander Borodin. César Cui, the composer and critic who continued to write negative reviews of Tchaikovsky's music, was seen by the composer as merely a critical irritant. Mily Balakirev, the former leader of the group, lived in isolation and was confined to the musical sidelines. Of The Five, only Rimsky-Korsakov remained fully active as a composer. Now a professor of musical composition and orchestration at the Saint Petersburg Conservatory, he had become a firm believer in the Western-based compositional training that had been once frowned upon by the group."

"Tchaikovsky's friendship with Glazunov, Lyadov and Rimsky-Korsakov gave him increased confidence in his own abilities as a composer. However, there remained friction between composers based in Saint Petersburg, then the political and cultural capital of Russia, and those based in Moscow, which also boasted a music conservatory at which Tchaikovsky had formerly taught. Because of this inter-city rivalry, two distinct Russian musical legacies emerged together with a third, less distinct one, from the members of the Belyayev circle. Among those influenced by Tchaikovsky in Moscow were Sergei Rachmaninoff and Sergei Taneyev. Anton Arensky, a former pupil of Rimsky-Korsakov, also received musical advice and encouragement from Tchaikovsky; his works varied in influence between these two men."


 * This revision is a definite improvement, which I will incorporate into the article. Thanks very much. Jonyungk (talk) 17:31, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

One minor point in the first paragraph: which is more correct, "a group called the Belyayev circle" or "a group which became known as the Belyayev circle"?


 * This is a good question. I would personally lean toward "a group called the Belyayev circle" since that was what R-K called it in his autobiography and how I have seen it referred to in other texts. However, I am open to suggestions. Jonyungk (talk) 17:31, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

If you can respond on these points, I'll continue my review into the body of the article. Brianboulton (talk) 16:40, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Continuing:-
 * Tchaikovsky
 * "...the sometimes sensitive relations with various members of the staff." Unclear: should this be "among" various members of staff, or "between Taneyev and various members of staff"?
 * Changed to "among". Jonyungk (talk) 19:40, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
 * "Tchaikovsky also promoted Russian music in his own compositions as well as a guest conductor." Not quite grammatical. The required sense, I believe, is "Tchaikovsky promoted Russian music both in his own compositions and in his role as a guest conductor."
 * Done. Jonyungk (talk) 19:40, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
 * On the whole, this section seems a bit isolated and lacking direction. As well as telling us what Tchaikovsky was up to, I feel it should (a) mention his relationship with R-K and (b) make some reference to the Belyayev circle. Thus, instead of standing in isolation, the section would meld gracefully into the text that follows.
 * In other words, you sound like you're talking about melding and reorganizing at least a good part of the first three sections, since they talk about the Belyayev circle and Tchaikovksy's relations with R-K, am I right? Jonyungk (talk) 19:40, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I have done some shifting along these lines, along with some of the Glazunov material, to allow a progression of material along the lines I think you re suggesting. Please let me know how this looks to you. Thanks. Jonyungk (talk) 00:24, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Belyayev and his circle
 * "Because of their cultural and political orientation, they were more likely than the aristocracy to support native talent, and were more inclined to support nationalist artists over cosmopolitan ones." This should be briefly explained; what was the cultural and political orientation that would make them likely to act in this way?
 * They came from the working class rather than the aristocracy, were liberal politically and Slavophilic in musical and artistic preferences. Jonyungk (talk) 19:40, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Perhaps Liszt does not need the qualifying description "famed Hungarian composer and pianist" - there is only one Liszt.
 * What about people who may read the article and not know who Liszt is? Jonyungk (talk) 19:40, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
 * They can use the link. Though as a general rule articles should be self-contained and not dependent on links to be comprehensible, there must be limits to spoonfeeding. Would you describe Mozart as "the famed Austrian composer"? Brianboulton (talk) 20:12, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Awkward construction (To ... to ... to...: "To select to whom to offer money, publication or performances from the many composers who now appealed for help, Belyayev set up an advisory council made up of Glazunov, Lyadov and Rimsky-Korsakov. ." Possible: "Belyayev set up an advisory council, made up of Glazunov, Lyadov and Rimsky-Korsakov, to select which among the many composers appealing for help should be assisted, either through money, publication or performances."
 * Done. Jonyungk (talk) 19:40, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
 * "Though Glazunov, Lyadov and Rimsky-Korsakov worked together,..." You could avoid the repetition of names by saying: "Though the three..."
 * Done. Jonyungk (talk) 19:40, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Relations with Rimsky-Korsakov
 * Pronoun confusion: "...he had regarded Tchaikovsky with suspicion since he possessed an academic background..." The first "he" is a different person from the second.
 * Changed accordingly. Jonyungk (talk) 19:50, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
 * The last couple of sentences rather disturb the chronology. The article at this stage should be working towards, not beyond, the 1887 meeting with which you opened the article and which, I assume, is the beginning of Tchaikovsky's relationship with the Belyayev circle. I don't think these sentences are necessary in this article, and they could easily be discarded.
 * Done. Jonyungk (talk) 19:40, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Glazunov
 * "raved enthusiastically"? I'd alter "raved", with its suggestion of madness.
 * changed to "written". Jonyungk (talk) 19:40, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Second paragraph ending needs a closing quote somewhere.
 * Done. Jonyungk (talk) 19:40, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
 * "the relationship between he and Tchaikovsky" → "his relationship with Tchaikovsky"
 * Done. Jonyungk (talk) 19:40, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Lyadov
 * "not been impressed" → "been unimpressed"
 * Done. Jonyungk (talk) 19:40, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Second paragraph: "though" is intrusive and unnecessary. The description "indolent, fastidious, very private yet very engaging man" is presumably a quotation and should be in quotes with an attribution.
 * Done. Jonyungk (talk) 19:40, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
 * New confidence
 * Cumbersome phrasing: "...the realization that it now possessed the ability to sit comfortably..." Simplify to: "the realization that it could sit comfortably..."
 * Done. Jonyungk (talk) 19:40, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
 * "...despite a public opinion that believed the contrary." Can you clarify what "the contrary" refers to here? Also "a public opinion" is odd - an opinion held by only some of the public does not qualify as "public opinion". Perhaps "a widely-held view to the contrary" (when we know what contrary refers to)?
 * Done. Jonyungk (talk) 19:40, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
 * "In the years following, Tchaikovsky's visits became quite frequent." As Tchaikovsky died in 1893, this would be better worded: "In the two years of his life that remauned, Tchaikovsky's visits..." etc
 * I'd agree except for the fact this is a quote. Jonyungk (talk) 19:40, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I missed that it was within a quote. Brianboulton (talk) 20:12, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Will conclude this later. Brianboulton (talk) 16:35, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Concluding
 * Mixed feelings: a few suggestions concerning this section:-
 * The title is uninformative - whose mixed feelings? Rimsky's, as it turns out, but I wonder whether Rimsky's second thoughts are really worth a section? What this section could usefully do, in a slightly truncated form (see below) is highlight Tchaikovsky's increasing influence and acceptance. Perhaps "Tchaikovsky's increasing influence" might be an appropriate alternative section name?
 * R-K was a masterful composer but, it seems, not great shakes as a writer. I had trouble deciphering the first quote, the gist of which is that Tchaikovsky had replaced The Five in the public's estimation as the king-pin of Russian music. Might I suggest this could be paraphrased? Also, the unexplained reference to "Iolanthe" is (Iolanta) unnerving. The second quote is I think unnecessarily long—150+ words—and requires further words to explain who Rubinstein and Larouche were. Can this, too, be shortened?
 * Legacy
 * It seems to me that the legacy of Tchaikovsky's relatively short association with the Belyayev circle is summed up in the last paragraph of this section - his influence was short-lived. The earlier two paragraphs are a little wordy, and rather distract attention from this conclusion. They could easily be edited to a more concise form. My greatest problem is trying to marry this section with the summary information given in the lead, which gives a rather different picture. I think it is necessary to rewrite this part of the lead to refllect what is here. I'm sorry I don't have the knowledge or the time to suggest how this might best be done, but I am sure you can do it competently.

I hope these final remarks are helpful. I haven't had time to do a line-by-line review of this part of the article, though no obvious problems stand out. Overall this has been a fascinating insight into the politics of 19th century Russian music, an area on which I previously had little or no knowledge, and on which I am now much better informed. Brianboulton (talk) 23:29, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Awadewit's comments I've read the article once now - I'll reread and then post my comments. Awadewit (talk) 05:03, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
 * It isn't until the middle of the first paragraph of the lead that the reader discovers what the circle really is - is there any way to immediately describe it in the first sentence of the article?


 * The musical legacy of the circle needs more explication in the lead, particularly as relates to the "Legacy" section.


 * The second paragraph of the lead might focus too much on the The Five, who are not at the core of this article.


 * While more eclectic in their approach than their predecessors in The Five, they fell back stylistically on their predecessors instead of developing individual styles, as Tchaikovsky had done. - Repetition of "predecessor" is awkward


 * They also spread this approach to Russia on the whole and were an influence on composers well into the Soviet era. - It is unclear what "this approach" is.


 * The Tsar's decoration was a visible seal of official approval, which helped Tchaikovsky's social rehabilitation - This suggests that some of Tchaikovsky's social problems were created by society, not just by his own personal problems. If so, this should be explained.


 * As a member of The Five, Rimsky-Korsakov had been essentially self-educated as a composer, and before 1871 had not considered an academic education in musical composition to be a necessity - I don't quite see the logical connection between the first clause and the second.


 * Should more of the musical works be linked or redlinked?


 * In giving this opinion, Tchaikovsky now showed not only an implicit confidence in his own music, but also the realization that it now possessed the ability to sit comfortably and confidently alongside any number of their compositions, in no way suffering in the ears of any audience. - The music has a lot of agency here.


 * The "Legacy" section does not get to its main point until the third paragraph. Could it be reorganized so that the main points come first and the details later?


 * WP:PUNC says that quotations which are complete sentences should have punctuation placed inside the quotation marks while incomplete sentences should have punctuation placed outside the quotation marks. Please check the article for this.

I hope these are helpful - I think it is the lead that needs the most work. Awadewit (talk) 01:23, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Ruhrfisch comments: Very nice article and lovely lead image ;-) - glad to see it has received so many comments already. As requested, here are some suggestions for improvement. Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Peer review/backlog. I do not watch peer reviews, so if you have questions or comments, please contact me on my talk page. Yours, Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 20:47, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I like Brian's new lead, but wonder if the lead would be still better with a different (new) first sentence. WP:LEAD says of the first sentence "The article should begin with a declarative sentence, answering two questions for the nonspecialist reader: "What (or who) is the subject?" and "Why is this subject notable?"" The title mentions both Tchaikovksy and the Belyayev circle, but the first sentence does not mention Belyayev or the three main composers in his circle.
 * Perhaps the first sentence of the lead could be something like "Pyotr Ilyich Tchaikovsky's relations with the group of composers known as the Belyayev circle, which lasted from 1887 until Tchaikovsky's death, influenced all of their music and helped shape the next generation of Russian composers." Not great, but maybe it will give you and idea of what I mean.
 * Refs ususally go after punctuation unless there is a good reason not to - can the [1] be moved after the period in In March 1884, Tsar Alexander III conferred upon him the Order of St. Vladimir (fourth class), which carried with it hereditary nobility[1] and won Tchaikovsky a personal audience with the Tsar.[2] ?
 * Provide context by adding [his patron] here: Tchaikovsky wrote to [his patron] Nadezhda von Meck: "I have never seen such a triumph....
 * Is it "The Five" or "the Five"? The article is Tchaikovsky and the Five but here it is usually "The Five" - I am fine either way, but it needs to be consistent
 * There are some places where more detail could be given earlier and the more general statement moved later. For example, we are told Glazunov was 16 when he wrote his first symphony in the Belyayev and his circle section, where this detail could go earlier in the Tchaikovsky section, where it now reads just He had begun showing a keen interest in Glazunov shortly after the premiere of the teenage composer's First Symphony,... Another place where this might be needed is with the early references to Belyayev - perhaps mention he was a lumber baron, but I am not as sure there.
 * There is brief biographical info for Rimsky-Korsakov and to a lesser extent Glazunov, but Lyadov is described very sparsely (pupil of R-K, then mostly in terms of Tchaikovsky's reactions to his music). Since he is one of the least well known of the composers here, could a bit more on him be added? Not sure if Glazunov could also use a bit more detail
 * Should the mighty kuchka in the R-K quote be explained better? I know what it means from other articles, but it is not clear that it is the Five here. It is currently explained later, in the legacy section.
 * Link Name day in nameday party?
 * Missing word? choir? orchestra? Despite his reputation as a Moscow composer, he actually produced the majority of his work in Saint Petersburg after succeeding Balakirev as director of the Imperial Chapel [choir? orchestra?] in 1895.