Talk:Gymnopédies

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Untitled[edit]

See also: Talk:Erik Satie

Information from fr.wikipedia[edit]

The French version of the article, while it's only deemed an outline, appears to have more relevant information than the English. Perhaps utilising some of the same information/sources might prove useful, esp. the section on Satie's choice of the word "Gymnopédies". My time, unfortunately, is limited these days, so perhaps someone else can look into it? Kevin F. Story (talk) 01:44, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Need more on the music itself - style and sound[edit]

It would really be excellent if the page on these could discuss their style and sound, rather than briefly noting the circumstances of their writing and subsequent modification and meditating extensively on whether they mean Satie was gay, which is what it does now. —Vivacissamamente 00:17, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

See expansion request at Gymnopédie#The music --Francis Schonken 07:40, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I have attempted to describe the music in a little more detail as requested but is this sufficient? Still the majority of the music section concentrates on what constitutes ambient music and the relationship to Eno. I may have another attempt once I've had a chance to think about it a bit more. - Adrianward 08:29, 26 January 2006 {UTC}

Hi, thanks! I'm still hoping someone would make a harmonical analysis: I've been looking around but couldn't find one yet (and I'm not all that experienced to make one myself) - I think that should also explain their exceptional nature (maybe even more than them being "complex" and/or "irregular") - their "complexity" shouldn't be exaggerated though: they're simple (very simple) melodies on a simple (very simple) harmonic background, these compositions have no exceptional (and not really a "complex" or "irregular") structure, etc... --Francis Schonken 09:37, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, yes, I agree, too. I'll try to work on it and see what I can do. I have one question, though - exactly what significance does the poem have? Well, obviously, it is of some importance, but its section is much longer than that of the fundamental ones. --~~MusicalConnoisseur~~ Got Classical? 23:28, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, sorry, I wrote "poem." I meant the " Perceptions of Antiquity" section. --~~MusicalConnoisseur~~ Got Classical? 23:32, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Isan's versions are documented at http://www.isan.co.uk/discography.htm 68.43.25.206 18:58, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think a description of the three movements with titles and translations would be very helpful.

Hi guys, I know this isn't the right place for it, But I'm having trouble understanding what chords to play on the Treble Clef at the beggining of the 1st Gymnopedie, I think they're BDF ACF (but they just don't sound right) Does any1 know where there is a forum where I can discuss how to play Gymnopedie please? Ryan4314 17:42, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Try the newsgroup rec.music.makers.piano - Google Groups can help you locate it. Oscar 03:45, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The article seems to be slightly biased. Even though I love the gymnopedies, some of the text is overly biased towards it, describing it as "gentle" and Mild" Qwed117 (talk) 00:47, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Use in Media[edit]

I don't know if there's a good place to put this, but the 1st gymnopédie is used at the beginning of episode 12 of the Japanese cartoon Love Hina, which is where I first heard it, although since it is uncredited (as far as I can tell, I can't read Japanese) I had a really hard time tracking it down :(

It also sounded really familiar, so I'm sure it's been used in other shows, movies, commercials, etc, but I can't think of any specifically. FredNash

Yeah I first heard it in Short Circuit 2, then saw it on a mates phone years later Ryan4314 02:20, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also, Gymnopédie No. 1 can be heard towards the end of the Star Trek: TNG episode "Where Silence Has Lease." Captain Picard is sitting alone in his quarters listening to it while waiting for the impending deaths of himself and his crew. When Councellor Troi and Data enter, Picard expounds his theory on the nature of death while this beautiful melody plays.

Another reference, this time in film, is during the final scene of "My Dinner With Andre," a 1981 film by Louis Malle, when Wallace Shawn contemplates his conversation with his friend, Andre Gregory.

It can be heard in another anime show, School Rumble Ni Gakki. I forget which episode, but it is played. Telamascope (talk) 08:31, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This music plays in the opening of "Irresistable;" Season 2, Episode 13 of "The X-Files." Meowfur29 (talk) 18:32, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's also in Flower, Sun and Rain performed by Torn. It's also on Dragon Ash's album "Harvest". 148.197.81.135 (talk) 11:18, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In 1972 the Dutch popgroup Supersister on their third album Pudding en Gisteren had a number Pudding en Gisteren Music for Ballet. This number ended with the Gymnopedie Nr. 1. HenkBerg55 11:03, 11 March 2008 (UTC +1) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Henkberg55 (talk • contribs)

The first was also used in the 2006 movie Marie Antoinette. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.67.116.180 (talk) 06:45, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Copyediting[edit]

Per the "clean-up" box, I started copyediting the article to provide more of an encyclopedic tone.

I removed the following phrase: "rhythms shift out of phase, phrases terminate mid-flow and key signatures shift much more commonly than usual". The first two are just not true. The rhythm is consistently that of a 3/4 note followed by a half note, except for the last 2 measures. And there are no phrases which terminate mid-flow. As noted above by Francis Schonken, the pieces are rather simple. The most unconventional aspect of the compositions are the harmonies (dissonance) and the chord progressions.

While copyediting, I moved the Music section to the beginning since this is the standard encyclopedic structure. As noted above, there needs to be more information on the actual music itself. Right now, there is more stuff (or fluff) on Ambient Music and on musings on the origin of the word than there is on the music itself.

I would be happy to discuss these or other changes, and thanks, Oscar 02:54, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]


I Need Help![edit]

I have seriously tried to explain this piece in terms that are concise but also cover all of the technical and emotional aspects of the pieces - but I end up in strings of words that don't even make sense to me after a while. I believe that a free-use (not fair-use) image of the first few bars will more than help the description become tangible to work with. (And, hopefully, answer Ryan4314's question above) --~~MusicalConnoisseur~~ Got Classical? 03:02, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gymnopédies are still copyrighted (at least in France). I'm not sure about US. As a precaution, all musical samples of Satie compositions I uploaded to Wikipedia are "fair use". There are only some 5 compositions of Satie (post WWI) that would probably be public domain worldwide.
But I don't see how that would solve the problems with your essay on the compositions? Wouldn't it be better to look for some descriptions (in books, record sleeves, etc.) and summarize them? --Francis Schonken (talk) 07:09, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, true, but I'm afraid of being too wordy. I want to make sure that I don't tumble over myself trying to explain chord progressions.
I am against fair use, so if they are copyrighted, I suppose it would be against policy. I'll try again, soon. --~~MusicalConnoisseur~~ Got Classical? 03:44, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted section ==Perceptions of Antiquity in the 19th century==--no relevance to article[edit]

I deleted the entire section titled "Perceptions of Antiquity in the 19th century." Satie is mentioned only in the very last sentence, and that sentence simply says that Satie probably named these works Gymnopedie because the word was exotic. Even if that point is relevant (the naming of the piece need not figure so large), I can't see how a lengthy analysis of Victorian perceptions of Antiquity is necessary to establish that point, or that any of these citations have anything to do with Satie. Furthermore, the final conclusion really appears to be original research, as there is no citation to establish that this is a commonly reported interpretation of the names of these pieces.

I would also question if the prior section with the Contamine de Latour is appropriate either. While I think it is relevant to state that this is the source of the name (especially since we have Satie's letter as evidence), any details about what that name may mean really seem to fall under original research. I'll err on the side of leaving it in at the moment, but I ask other editors to consider this point. --User:Qwyrxian (talk) 11:58, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but I desagree. If it missed some reference from a more detailed and specific research, we should ask for it, but that section turned the text much richer. To think properly about from where Satie took the name is an absolutely relevant question and people may come to this article looking for information on it. It's obvious that a philological research is needed here to determine how Satie could understand Ancient references as of this word - or how would it be explained? It's perfectly coherent to insert this question in the article, and if it demands some contextualization, it isn't any sacrifice, it's just how the access to knowledge works.
In the name of any pretense coherence, we can't loose rich and relevant information: it makes no sense, it's not worth of be. Put that section back, please. --Leonardo T. Oliveira (talk) 18:57, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, I'm tempted to revert your undo, but I won't (yet). If you want to keep it, it needs to have far far more connection to the subject of the article itself (the music). It's fine to discuss where the name came from; however, it is not fine to spend 6 or more paragraphs, plus a translated poem, merely to say that it seems like he used the name because it sounded exotic. When a person comes to this page, they want to know about the work of music. If you mention the poem (and link to the appropriate page), as well as mention the word's history (a sentence or two should suffice), that is sufficient. An encyclopedia doesn't list all information related to every article on that page itself; rather, it uses multiple articles (and, in the case of Wikipedia, links between them) to allow knowledge to be subdivided.

More importantly, you must find a citation for the conclusion (that it was used for it's exotic feel). If you cannot cite that (either because you cannot find a citation or because it's a conclusion that you yourself have drawn) then it cannot be included in a Wikipedia article (that would be original research). As such, I'm going to tag the original text with a "citation needed" mark for now. If, after some reasonable time, such a citation can't be found, then the whole section will have to be tagged Original Research and considered for removal again. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Qwyrxian (talk • contribs) 12:00, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Qwyrxian, I won't say your criteria are "fantasies", etc., because I think you have a good point, it's a good perspective of how an encyclopedia works, and a good critic to the text. But all these problems that you see don't have to exclude the passage, they must be assigned to be corrected or developed. At this point I agree with your criteria, but I think you should work them, and not use them to remove information. About the relevance of the question, I desagree with you: the name of the piece is an absolutely relevant allusion made by Satie. In his music, allusion is a rich subject, and always means something that reverberates in music. Sometimes the allusions of the text or of the score identify an irony, that in music itself wouldn't be evident. Maybe music itself don't need the explanations of the allusions, but sometimes our comprehension needs, and, after all, these explanations illuminates music. So I think it is a relevant question to contextualize what Satie could want to say with this title, and what was possibly said with it at his time. It's just a matter of contextualization. If you think it can be approached in a more coherent way, help us. If you miss the reference of the research, let's find it. I agree with these points, but let's work, and not give up.
Best regards. --Leonardo T. Oliveira (talk) 03:12, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Qwyrxian is quite mistaken & prejudiced about what "should" be in the sources: I've still yet to find the first actual description of the music of the gymnopedies in a reliable source, while there is tons of material written about the name of the composition.
Then Qwyrxian's prejudice spills over to his/her interpretation of what "should" be in an encyclopaedia like Wikipedia. What should be in Wikipedia and what shouldn't is quite comprehensively explained in WP:V and related content policies, so no thanks for Qwyrxians novel and quite unworkable fantasies. --Francis Schonken (talk) 17:06, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A quick google search reveals one musical source [1]. There's likely much more... especially if one does real non-google searching and digs through musicological journals. Stuff like this is what I'm accustomed to seeing in articles on musical compositions. What's the musical form? what are the harmonies? The tonal framework? Any influences that previous works had on this one? What was the original reception from musical critics and contemporary composers? That type of thing.
Now, I don't want to imply that there cannot a long discussion about the origin of the name, but if this is an article on the music composition, it should remain focused on that. Perhaps that only means grouping the existing sections down one level as subsections under a "Origins of the term "Gymnopédie"" header to guide the reader. As the article stands now, I am a bit confused as to whether its about the Satie composition or about a general movement in 19th century art. If it turns out that that general discussion needs expanding that we could split off the Satie works themselves into a subsection or article (e.g. Gymnopédie (Satie)) or a 19th century section could be added to the Gymnopaedia article. There's lots of options that don't involve deleting anything, but as this article stands now, I find the jumping back and forth between Satie and non-Satie confusing. My two cents.DavidRF (talk) 20:31, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Re. "There's likely much more... especially if one does real non-google searching and digs through musicological journals." - says who? And who says that wasn't exactly where I went looking for such material? So no, DavidRF, your answer is highly conjectural until real sources can be indicated.
Thanks for the Murray Baylor source though! I think we should do something with it, isn't it? --Francis Schonken (talk) 03:53, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
OK. Just trying to be constructive. I figured with the pieces being so famous and there being a few generations of musicology professors publishing or perishing that the journals would have a bunch of analyses of these but I suppose its just nine minutes of music. Here's a better Baylor link [2] where all the relevant pages are visible. There's a recommended reading section which might contain more stuff. I don't have journal access, but there might be stuff in these articles [3] [4] [5] [6] [7]. A lot of those articles are quite old and might not talk about these pieces, feel free to discard any or all of those, but who knows? Since the pieces are short, a Baylor-like analysis with perhaps a score snippet of the first few bars of each piece and its already a better wikipedia article than most piano pieces. Just tossing ideas around.DavidRF (talk) 04:58, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Tossing ideas around in a constructive way is the easy part... one doesn't even have to be acquainted with the subject to do that. For the record: THANKS ANYWAY!!! Indicating the Baylor source is of very high value, as far as I'm concerned!
Well, I've written about half (or even more) of the current material in the Wikipedia Gymnopédie article (...time someone else showed up), so let me present you a challenge: who is prepared to write up a musical analysis of the Gymnopédies based on the Baylor material (or similar... if available)? Thanks for anyone trying! --Francis Schonken (talk) 05:57, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A "Origins of the term 'Gymnopédie'" header makes sense. --Leonardo T. Oliveira (talk) 03:12, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Your reference to WP:V is useful here. To quote, "All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation.[1]" As far as I can tell, the only link to the topic of this article (Satie's composition Gymopedie) is in the final sentence of the previously deleted section, and that sentence is unsourced. This gets to the crux of my concern, although perhaps I'm not expressing it clearly--my apologies. When I came to this article, I was looking for the kinds of information DavidRF mentions. When I encountered the section about de Latour, I found myself quite confused, as it went on for what seemed like an inordinately long amount of time on a subject with no clear connection to the composition. Only at the very end did I see what the intended relevance was; however, there is, at the moment, no citation of that relevance. If that final statement cannot be cited, then it must, presumably, be removed, as it is unverifiable. Imagine, then, that said sentence is deleted as unverifiable; in that case, the entire section it is in suddenly has no connection to the composition. I think, in fact, that Francis Schonken is misunderstanding my earlier claim--I'm not saying that this information is unverifiable, or that it's not appropriate for Wikipedia. Rather, I'm saying two things: 1) the final sentence is currently unverified (and the burden of verification lies upon the person who included it in the first place, or upon someone else who wants to keep it); and 2) Without the final sentence the section on the meanings and usage of the words "gymnopedie" are interesting but belong in a separate article. That is, WP:V doesn't allow you to include any statement in any article just because it's verifiable--it merely states that any information which is included must be verifiable.Qwyrxian (talk) 00:31, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's clearer now, thanks! --Leonardo T. Oliveira (talk) 03:14, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Citation for the obvious and easily verifiable?[edit]

People, I see a lot of "citation needed" in the article now, specially regarding musical analysis (as I now, there is expectation to a Baylor analysis to be used as source), but isn't it an exaggeration? These are pacific points. If we should source everything we say about a matter in WikiPedia, we would be paranoic and walk obsessively slower. For example, there is a "citation needed" when the article says that the three pieces share the same theme and structure. Just listen and you will note it. Just take the score. It's an auto-evidence. If we are too absolute in asking citations, we'll trade the perception of reality for an absolutely theory of reality, ontology for axiology. Ideas are tools to infer reality, and, as that, must be flexible: so we can't take ideas (in this case, theories) as BEING reality (in this case, don't accepting auto-evidence).

But as I see it is a provisory state of the text. --Leonardo T. Oliveira (talk) 20:20, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Page move[edit]

Father Goose moved page Gymnopédies (Satie) to Gymnopédie over redirect: "no disambiguation necessary, and no plural, per WP:NC".

I can live without the disambiguation. But this is about a group of pieces collectively named Gymnopédies. It is not about the general history, features and form of a "gymnopédie" - because there are no history, features or form, because Satie invented the title for a series of pieces. He may not have intended them to be considered as a unified set like the Chopin preludes, but this article is still about all of them as a group rather than about any single one of them. If it were about a single one, that would have to come with a number.
I can't see what part of WP:NC is relevant to this issue. I suggest this be moved to Gymnopédies. -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 13:29, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. Are we to see United State of America next? Andy Dingley (talk) 13:35, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutely. Same goes for the less well-known Gnossiennes - page title is singular, first sentence of the lead reads "The Gnossiennes are several piano compositions ..."  pablo 13:44, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
So what should it return to? Gymnopédies, Gymnopédies (Satie), or something else? (I suggest the first, as I see no need for the disambiguator.) Andy Dingley (talk) 14:26, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That's what I suggested above. -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 03:54, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
All of these pieces are sometimes referred to in the singular, for instance, "Later the same year the "Third Gymnopédie" was published" from this very article. But as a subject, they do tend to be dealt with collectively, so I'll concede in retrospect that having the article title in the plural is probably the most appropriate choice. Consistent with that (and as Michael Bednarek suggested below) I've also moved Ogive (music) to Ogives.--Father Goose (talk) 04:27, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 04:30, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: moved per request. Favonian (talk) 11:03, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Gymnopédie → Gymnopédies – rv recent undiscussed and inappropriate page move. Article subject is inherently plural, dogmatic application of a singular name was inappropriate. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:05, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Gymnopédies. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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 IITalk to my owner:Online 05:52, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Minor inquiry[edit]

Eperoton, let me begin by thanking you for pulling out a significant chunk of starry-eyed WP:OR/speculation today; as coincidence would have it, I was looking at some of that same content earlier and contemplating removals myself. However, there is one bit of content you removed which seems to be adequately sourced and I wondered if maybe it was removed unintentionally. Specifically, the mention that Satie had said that the Gymnopédies were inspired by Salammbô, which a is the last bit of content towards the bottom of the altered section, in this revision; is there something which I am missing that explains why you felt this was WP:OR, or did this content just get caught up in a larger edit by mistake? Snow let's rap 08:18, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Snow Rise:, I moved this statement and combined it with a similar statement based on the source I used, where it was attributed to Satie's friend. The cited page isn't available in preview, and I'm trusting that it was reflected correctly. Thanks for double-checking my edits! Eperoton (talk) 21:26, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oh geez, yes there it is, of course--that's egg on my face; thanks for taking the time to respond, though! Snow let's rap 23:43, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Gymnosophists[edit]

I wonder whether the name origin tracks back beyond the festival to the “naked philosophers” who presumably danced it? The gymnosophists: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gymnosophists. I don’t have a way to confirm this. Just putting it out there for consideration. Jordan 05:23, 27 October 2021 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jordanotto (talk • contribs)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Gymnopédies&oldid=1194458878"