Talk:Threnody to the Victims of Hiroshima

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article falls within the scope of the WikiProject contemporary music, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of contemporary music subjects. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
Start	This article has been rated as Start-class on the quality scale.
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale.

	Threnody to the Victims of Hiroshima 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.

[edit] Total serialism?

The article states, "Another unusual aspect of Threnody is Penderecki's expressive use of total serialism." I see no evidence of total serialism in the piece and am wondering where this claim came from. Indeed, the New Grove Dictionary of Music and Musicians says "Penderecki never fully engaged with orthodox serial techniques" and that the Threnody "remains a classic avant-garde statement of the period, not least because it represented directness of expression at a time of advanced post-serial complexity." If the article here is to assert that the piece is serial, it must at least cite a source. 134.173.81.85 (talk) 19:50, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] "To" or "for"?

Grove's gives "to," and they're usually pretty good about such things. 134.173.81.85 (talk) 19:46, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

It's absolutely "for" the Victims of Hiroshima, not "to." That's a pretty serious error. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.26.145.142 (talk • contribs) 7 March 2006.

I have always heard it referred to as Threnody to the victims of Hiroshima, not Threnody for the victims of Hiroshima. As a non-expert, I ask on what authority you state that "to" is wrong? In German, as published by Schott, it is Threnos. Den Opfern von Hiroshima. The British library (search their online catalogue) who probably have some experience at this sort of thing translates this with "to" not "for", whereas Google returns more results if you search for the exact phrase "Threnody for the victims of Hiroshima". Interestingly, altavista babelfish completely ducks the issue by translating it as Threnos. The victims of Hiroshima (which I actually think captures it better than the current article title)! What do others (including our Polish Wikipedian colleagues) say? If consensus says it should be "for", not "to", then let's move the article, otherwise let's put the title back. As an aside, since it's a matter of translation for which, to me, all the alternatives I've outlined seem acceptable, I hardly think it qualifies as a "serious error" :-) --RobertG ♬ talk 09:47, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Can't say I agree, RobertG. I've never heard or read anyone using 'Threnody -to- the victims of Hiroshima' before. The piece is referred to as 'Threnody for the Victims of Hiroshima' on all the international releases I've encountered so far, and on that authority as you say I would argue that the use of "for" is preferable to "to". I understand the point of how the Polish title apparently lends several possibilities, but if both "to" and "for" are correct translations then I can't see how the German (or any other) translation should be preferred to the American and, in my experience, internationally used title. And as you already mentioned, Google-wise ("for" and "to") I would also argue that consensus has already been reached. Igorrr 11:00, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Forgot about this. If no one objects, I'll be moving this article to the title used by its main publisher, EMI Classics, next week. Igorrr 08:53, 9 October 2006 (UTC)