Template:Did you know nominations/Hear my prayer, O Lord (Purcell)
- The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was: promoted by Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:10, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
Hear my prayer, O Lord (Purcell)[edit]
... that Henry Purcell composed in Hear my prayer, O Lord for eight parts a gradual development to a "towering dissonant tone cluster"? Source: several
- Reviewed: Berenice Wyer
Created by Gerda Arendt (talk). Self-nominated at 18:34, 3 September 2017 (UTC).
Gerda Arendt New, long enough, well sourced, QPQ done, inline hook citation checks out. About 4 hours late, but that's okay. Can you rephrase the hook, however? I can't really figure out what it's saying, and think that there are some grammatical problems with it (e.g., "composed in ... for"). --Usernameunique (talk) 19:41, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
- I tried to be short ;)
- ALT1:
... that Henry Purcell composed in Hear my prayer, O Lord, a setting of the first verse of Psalm 102 for eight parts, a gradual development to a "towering dissonant tone cluster"?--Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:07, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
Approving ALT1. Added a few inline citations to support "a setting of the first verse of Psalm 102 for eight parts." --Usernameunique (talk) 22:59, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
I have a few problems with the article's facts. First is the assertion that the composition is a part of a longer work. It may well have been intended to be part of a longer work, but all that has come down to us is Hear my prayer, O Lord. It is the final piece in the manuscript, there are a number of blank pages after it, and Purcell's score ends in a way that typically indicated that there was more to come, but he may never have returned to it. The article states that the piece runs about two minutes, yet the quote from King very clearly says it takes over three minutes; this discrepancy needs to be resolved. Finally, the last paragraph in "History and music" starts with specific recordings, rather than indicating from the start that it has been recorded many times, and then giving examples. There's no reason I can see to start with Collegium Vocale Gent. (Note that the King quote specifically mentions "modern recordings", so it was probably recorded in a single take in earlier recordings.) Finally, I don't feel the hook does the piece justice, and would like to suggest one that focuses on what makes the piece so great:
- ALT2: ... that Henry Purcell's eight-voice anthem Hear my prayer, O Lord features "pungent" harmonies in a long, "inexorable" build-up to a "towering dissonant tone cluster" right before it ends? BlueMoonset (talk) 02:14, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
- Thank you. I wrote a bit in a rush, assembling facts rather in the order I found them. Please check again. The problem with ALT2 is that we will be asked to say "acoording to ..." for the many quotes, - that made me focus on the most "towering" one. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:29, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
- Gerda Arendt, I've made some minor further modifications to the text. If the two one-word quotes in ALT2 turn out to be an issue requiring identification, then the "towering" one would certainly have been an issue, too. If necessary, we can come up with synonyms for "pungent" and "inexorable" (the latter could be "inescapable", for example), but ALT1 has a structure that works against what might be of interest in it and I have struck it. If you don't like ALT2, then by all means propose something you feel is more interesting. BlueMoonset (talk) 19:13, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
- But I like it! Please keep it watched through the prep stage, - it happened often, and often late, that someone requested attribution of a quote, and I was ready to add it once (space-wise), but not four times. I heard it, but didn't even know it was on the program when I began. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:22, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
- Issues raised by BlueMoonset have been addressed. Approving ALT2, which checks out, has inline citations, and reads well. The quotations are attributed in the article, which, judging from past practice, seems to be sufficient. For recent examples, see recent additions for, among many others, Sleeping with the One I Love, Herbie: Fully Loaded, Simone Schneider, and Elisabeth Munksgaard. Gerda Arendt, you actually approved the last one. --Usernameunique (talk) 01:56, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
- But I like it! Please keep it watched through the prep stage, - it happened often, and often late, that someone requested attribution of a quote, and I was ready to add it once (space-wise), but not four times. I heard it, but didn't even know it was on the program when I began. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:22, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
