Talk:Sabre Dance

Friendly Addition

If the editor(s) of the Sabre Dance article intend to keep the "Appearances in pop culture" section, I suggest adding Jumpin' Jack Flash (film). Consider the fact that the use of Sabre Dance in that movie is cited in the Wikipedia article, although it does not link to this article.

12.185.201.126 (talk) 11:06, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Done! --Երևանցի _{ասելիք կա՞} 02:17, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Ugh

The section about appearances in Amercian tv shows and Western culture is five times longer than the section about the piece itself? What kind of joke is this? Esn 04:16, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Sad indeed. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 07:16, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

I think it's almost of neccessity going to be like that, since the piece itself is not particularly ground-breaking, and pretty much the only reason it has an article of its own separate from the one on Gayane is that it's so immediately recognizable and so often (over-)used on TV shows, in movies, etc. Lbark 03:09, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

1942?

How can it be finished in 1942 and played for the silent Keystone Cops? Did Khachaturian export intermediate versions from the Soviet Union? --84.20.17.84 12:48, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Plagiarism?

An article very similar to this appears at the NationMaster Encyclopedia website http://www.nationmaster.com/encyclopedia/Sabre-Dance There are some sections of this article that are word for word on that website. Kville105125 (talk) 14:02, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

NationMaster mirrors the wikipedia content. Try looking up other articles there, and compare them to the wikipedia versions. Mikkel (talk) 05:00, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Stub?

Does this article, with its recent expansion, still qualify as a stub? Kville105125 (talk) 13:30, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

In popular culture

The whole section "In popuar culture" ought to be removed. There's not a single source for any of it, and even if there were, it would be much better to mention the "Sabre Dance" in the artist's or work's article than here. A simple summary, stating that the piece has wide spread coverage in films, TV shows and by other performers should be enough. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 16:11, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

I agree. Normally we've been removing all of these trivia farms throughout WP:CM. I think I had looked the other way for this one because the article really serves little purpose other than the trivia farm. This is really just a short excerpt of Gayane (ballet) and all serious discussion is correctly located up there. Its sort of analogous to Flight of the Bumblebee. But if we applied the same standards as we did to other WP:CM articles, we'd just delete the whole section.DavidRF (talk) 20:48, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

"Sabre Dance" is a massively popular piece, even among those who never heard of Khachaturian or even "classical music" as a whole. Can you say the same about Gayane? What defines notability again? Hearfourmewesique (talk) 20:56, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

We're not talking about removing the article. We're talking about removing the "In popular culture" section. Do you want an article to be about the piece of music or an article or about who uses it? If the piece is popular, these sections become these ever-growing trivia farms. Its the "ooh, I just heard the Sabre Dance in a commercial for car insurance, I'm going to go add that to wikipedia!" mindset that we're disagreeing with. See [1]. In the past, we've split off these sections into child articles (something like Sabre Dance in popular culture) but those articles end up getting deleted (mainly its editors from outside WP:CM who push to delete those). See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1812 Overture in popular culture for one of many examples.DavidRF (talk) 21:59, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

As much as the sarcastic picture made me chuckle, this is hardly the same. Note that WP:TRIVIA encourages us to turn bulleted lists into prose, not remove entire sections. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 22:04, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

It is the same. There's 23 bullets right now and one could probably double that without much effort. Just google "Sabre Dance" and add the pop culture references you find to that section. I'm not exaggerating, either. We've seen other "in popular culture" sections grow to several screens long before there was a movement to remove them all a few years ago. How are you going to turn all of that into prose? The only thing that needs to be said is that the piece is very recognizable and appears all sorts of places. Any more detail turns the article into an ever-growing trivia farm. Trying to include just a few ends up begging for people to add more. These sections have it backwards anyways. Those articles should link here and not vice-versa. Why does this article link to Blues Brothers 2000 when the use of the Sabre Dance is not mentioned there or in the soundtrack? Why is it linking to Chick Rooster or Reptilian (band) when they don't even have articles? Anyhow, that's the rationale. The main reason why this list never got deleted is that from an encyclopedic perspective, the main article for this composition is Gayane (ballet), so this article has mainly served as the pop culture magnet for stuff that would otherwise be removed (as it had to be removed from articles like 1812 Overture).DavidRF (talk) 03:37, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

These are exactly the reasons why I removed that section. My edit also improved the articles in various other ways, some listed in my edit summary. The subsequent wholesale reversal of my edit was unwarranted. I'm going to reinstate my edit. If anybody wants to reinstate the section "On popular culture", a source needs to be provided for each item that a) it's true; b) a notable use of the Sabre Dance. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 11:05, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

PS: As for Hearfourmewesique's edit summary: Note the date when I started this thread and consider WP:SILENCE. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 11:10, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Picture of Khachaturian

Khachaturian is the composer, not "the bloke who performed it". His picture is as relevant as anything else. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 15:50, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

The last stable version before this dispute began was with the image. Per BRD cycle, consensus must be gained here for its removal.

I think the image is acceptable. As a compromise, I would put it in the overview section or elsewhere (maybe cook up a tiny section about the composer or something) with a more detailed caption. The image so close to the top makes too strong a connection between itself and the article title. We must avoid visitors thinking that the subject of the article is that person. Would this be agreeable to all? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 16:40, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Certainly not. Per WP:PERTINENCE, "images must be relevant to the article that they appear in and be significantly and directly related to the article's topic". This is indirectly related to the article's topic via Khachaturian being the composer. It would appear that the image can be used for any purpose but also that it was added for a failed DYK nomination, which in itself is tendentious. I do not agree that a section on him would be any better either but for me a compromise would be replacing the image with something related to a release - possibly the cover art of the Love Sculpture version which became a hit.--Launchballer 16:56, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Fair enough. Personally, I don't care either way. I'm happy to see you here discussing things. Please just use the WP:BRD cycle, okay? Good luck. I hope you can work things out. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 17:03, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. Hearfourmewesique, your thoughts on my post?--Launchballer 17:07, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Khachaturian is the composer of the original piece, and he is most certainly more pertinent than Love Sculpture, who actually are a bunch of "blokes who performed" a version of it that is not even remotely as notable as the original. Your argument is invalid, and your tendentious reverts, coupled with your adamant refusal to participate in the discussion until Anna Frodesiak intervened, is less than helpful. I think Anna Frodesiak's idea is in a much better direction. Should we request WP:3O? Hearfourmewesique (talk) 01:04, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

A picture of the Love Sculpture cover would be better? I take that as a joke where the appropriate emoticon was omitted.

Anna's position is widely followed in articles of classical compositions – most have no image of their composer, and if they do, it's not at the very top of the article. User:Launchballer's reading of WP:PERTINENCES is unjustifiably narrow – of course an image of the composer is relevant. I suggest to move the image to the "Overview" section. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 01:48, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

Why are you guys making a huge deal out of nothing? Khachaturian is the author of this composition. Don't you think his image should be in the article? --Երևանցի ^talk 02:42, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

No, per the policy supplied above (it is an indirect relationship and it requires a direct relationship). I'm saying the cover art of the Love Sculpture version should certainly be on the page, even if it's a case of carving out the 'cover versions' section into 'Love Sculpture version' and 'other versions' and placing the infobox there. Khachaturian's image would not even be much more relevant in the 'overview' section because it still discusses the piece, not the composer. I still support removal.--Launchballer 09:30, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

There is no relationship more direct than that between a composition and its composer.

Apparently, the Love Sculpture suggestion was not meant as a joke. When I search for "'Sabre Dance' cover" I get many responses, and the Love Sculpture one is not at the top; their relationship to the work, especially as written (not as arranged), seems very "indirect". Their image is probably suitable for an article about their version. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 04:43, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm insulted that you considered it a joke. As far as I'm concerned, the image of the composer has an indirect relationship to the song, because it requires an intermediary (the composer). I don't see why the sheet music wouldn't've been inappropriate. If you check the writing credits, that version was composed by "Khachaturian/Edmunds" (according to the liner notes of "Hits Of The 60s", a compilation album in my collection which contains it). Oh, and by the way; "songs with notable cover versions are normally covered in one common article about the song and the cover versions", so any image that would belong there belongs here.--Launchballer 10:33, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

I considered it as a joke because the Love Sculpture version has as much to do with Khachaturian's composition (part of his ballet Gayane, not a song) as does a music box version of Beethoven's "Für Elise" with that work. As for sheet music: I can't quite parse your sentence, but the score is still under copyright and cannot be used here.-- Michael Bednarek (talk) 11:16, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Wouldn't've = would not have. It's a bad habit, I really need to drop it.
This article is about the song "Sabre Dance", not the source composition. The Love Sculpture song is indirectly related to the composition via the song. I don't think there is an actual appropriate image for the top of the page and really, the image of Khachaturian shouldn't be there either.--Launchballer 12:27, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Launchballer, you gotta be kidding me. This is a classical composition, not a pop song. Most people identify the song with its author, not some unknown Welsh band cover of the classical composition. --Երևանցի ^talk 05:06, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Well, it was a top five hit in the UK so people must've bought it.--Launchballer 10:33, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

"Its middle section incorporates an Armenian folk song from Gyumri"

This sentence doesn't seem to be true, because the two sources provided do not talk about it

• the first source [2] mention Sabre Dance only once: "The ballet Gayance (1942, including his favorite "Sabre Dance") and the Second Symphony (1943) were aksi successful and were warmly praised by Shostakovich."
• the second source [3] (p. 23) has a whole page about Sabre Dance, but does not say that the "middle section incorporates an Armenian folk song from Gyumri."

Although I'm not an expert, I think its clear (and I found a few sources) that the Sabre Dance has been influenced by Armenian folk music. However, I'd like to see where Gyumri came from. I'll remove Gyumri part for now. --Երևանցի ^talk 01:07, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Personal opinions

"Because of its exceptionally exciting rhythm, the "Sabre Dance" established a place for itself in common concert practice, leading also to various adaptations in popular music."

I see this sort of stuff all the time in classical music articles here on wikipedia. On what grounds can an encyclopedia make a statement like this? If it was a quote that would be alright I guess, but that is seldom the case. Not only does the author state that the piece has an "exceptionally exciting rhythm", a statement that can only ever be true if you have some sort of psychological study to back it up, they then proceed to attribute the piece's omnipresence in western culture to this single (dubious) fact.

As I said, this problem is not unique to this article, but this is a particularly blatant example. --79.136.62.161 (talk) 21:57, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

I totally understand your concerns. I have been working on this article the lately and have tried to improve it as much as possible by adding sources. As you can see in the lead, I prefer adding quotes because its hard to accurately paraphrase those statements and avoid plagiarism. I guess sentences like that one should be deleted. --Երևանցի ^talk 22:03, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Unsourced text

As said above, the whole overview section is simple WP:OR

It evokes a whirling war dance, where the dancers display their skill with sabres. Because of its exceptionally exciting rhythm, the "Sabre Dance" established a place for itself in common concert practice, leading also to various adaptations in popular music. Its recognizable ostinato and popular melodies have made it a popular concert band piece.

The orchestral version is written in the key of G major. It starts out with a recognizable motif ostinato with the timpani and strings that can be heard throughout much of the piece. The upper woodwinds and keyboard percussion take an exciting dance melody, later accompanied by the low brass. Then the strings come in with a folk song melody. The first melody is then briefly recapitulated. Descending chromatic eighth notes bring the piece down to straight eighth notes on the note G in the low strings. The piece ends on ascending quarter notes in a F♯ pentatonic scale (against the G bass) to an open G octave.

Unless sources are provided, there is no reason why this text should be in the article. --Երևանցի ^talk 22:22, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Copyright status

Anyone know whether this is in PD yet? 217.42.255.92 (talk) 20:13, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Sabre Dance. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:

• Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.atlantasymphony.org/aso/asoassets/downloadcenter/2011-2012%20Teacher%20Guide%20World%20of%20Music.pdf
• Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.buffalonews.com/sports/sabres-nhl/article363953.ece?

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 05:50, 31 March 2016 (UTC)