Talk:Pictures at an Exhibition

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Pictures at an Exhibition is within the scope of WikiProject Classical music, which aims to improve, expand, cleanup, and maintain all articles related to classical music, that aren't covered by other classical music related projects. Please read the guidelines for writing and maintaining articles. To participate, you can edit this article or visit the project page for more details.
This article is supported by the Compositions task force.
Other languages WikiProject Echo has identified Pictures at an Exhibition as a foreign language featured article. You may be able to improve this article with information from the Russian language Wikipedia.
Russia Portal
This page is within the scope of WikiProject Russia. If you would like to participate, please join the project and help with our open tasks.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the assessment scale.
Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the assessment scale.

Contents

[edit] Album tag

[note about this page being a part of Wikipedia: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). --Camembert
Oh, and it is, so I'll move the note there.
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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] Con mortuis in lingua mortua

[edit] 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: [1] vs [2]. --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. Freddie 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: --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"-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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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.

[edit] 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 [3], 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)

[edit] 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.

Freddie 18:18, 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.
@ 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)
Exactly. I made a mistake when I put them all here, I'll remove them now. --Yms 17:22, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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?

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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 Wikipedia: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)

[edit] 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)