Talk:The Planets/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Bernstein's YPC rendition

I actually saw that broadcast way back when. He left out two of the slow draggy movements (as he called them), Neptune and either Saturn or Venus. He also tacked on an orchestral improvisation at the end, which he called "Pluto the Unpredictable." --Wspencer11 (talk to me...) 23:43, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

FWIW, the premiere and some performances after it left out Venus and Neptune with Holst's blessing, because Holst said that British audiences weren't prepared for such a long work. When I was in high school, I agreed. Now those two are among my favorite movements. -- Myke Cuthbert (talk) 04:21, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Most performed piece by English composer?

The article states that

The Planets is the most-performed composition by an English composer.

Is this true? How reliable is this source? I can see how this could be argued of portions of The Planets, such as Mars or Jupiter, but the suite in its entirety? The Pomp and Circumstance March #1 by Elgar is one of the most ubiquitous and widely-recognized pieces in American culture, and since the Pomp and Circumstance marches were composed separately (and not as a single suite as was The Planets), to legitimately make the original claim would be to suggest that Pomp and Circumstance #1, used by virtually every American school on graduation day, is performed less often than the entire Planets suite. This could very well be the case (my high school used a CD, not a live orchestra), but I think more research should go into this statement before it is stated so frankly here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.124.160.219 (talk)

Ha, I was just coming here to say the same. Also, the citation is broken; it changes every week. Marnanel (talk) 18:29, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Nothing of any value to provide, but in the event that this claim is proven, wouldn't this mean that it's also the most performed composition by a British composer? I can't think of any works by Irish, Welsh or Scottish composers that would come close. Of course, that would mean accepting that Holst was British. And, of course, he was, as well as being English. If Pomp and Circumstance turns out to take the prize, the British claim would apply to that work. -- JackofOz (talk) 05:26, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Discography redux

I removed the discography a while ago but it was added back in. Do we really need that? The one Holst himself conducted should perhaps be kept, but all the other ones serve no real purpose. We don't have (luckily) a list like that on Don Giovanni. Garion96 (talk) 21:15, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Garion96, the article is about the musical piece The Planets. The article should contain all of the information which is directly relevant to the article being discussed. For a classical work, there are two main ways in which people will encounter the work. Either they will hear it in a concert hall or they will listen to it at home via a recording. So, this article ought to contain details of notable performances and notable recordings.

Of course, there are certain things which are to be expected in an encyclopaedia. Case in point. How did I find this page? I decided to buy a recording of the Planets. I figured that Wikipedia would have a list of the most notable recordings. I was shocked to find that this was missing and, more strangely, present in a past revision but later removed.

Perhaps we should look to other similar articles to see what kind of line has been drawn between relevance and irrelevance, to aid us in our decision whether to include a discography or not. Symphony No. 9 (Beethoven) includes a discography, as do Requiem (Mozart), St Matthew Passion (Bach) and 1812 Overture.

There is indeed a valid argument over how much of a discography should be included. As Grover cleveland states above, there are two paths we could take which would fit in with Wikipedia's joint ethos of relevance and NPOV - either we include a "complete" discography listing every known recording of the work or we include a list of "notable" recordings (defined by some objective criteria, e.g. awards won), which is similar to the approach taken on some of the other articles on musical works I linked above.

I would personally favour the latter approach but I must say that a discography of some sort absolutely belongs in the article. If there is a question about which approach to take, I can say for sure that removing the *entire* discography is the wrong approach. As Warren Buffett is fond of saying, it is better to be approximately right than definitely wrong.

Until a consensus is agreed regarding the discography, I am re-adding it. If it is decided to go for a list of notable recordings, then it will be necessary to trim down the list, but please do not remove the entire section again without gaining some kind of consensus from other editors. Thanks.Thebrid (talk) 13:19, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Which is why I posted a message on this page before I removed it. No one bothered to respond except you about a year later. That is considered at least a silent consensus. If a recording is so notable it should be included in the article in prose, including a source stating why it is notable. The one conductd by Holst is of course included, in prose. The current list list is just trivial. Garion96 (talk) 13:27, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

I wouldn't really say trivial. It's less useful because it's so exhaustive and certainly the criteria for inclusion are not ascertainable. What would your opinion be, then, of including a discography, whether as prose or a list, but trimming it down to include just the notable recordings?

I have made a start on researching the recordings which are really notable. I have noted in the article the single recording of this work which has received a Grammophone Award. Also, the recording of the piece conducted by the composer is likely to be notable.

I would really hesitate to just throw away all the remaining recordings on the list. Some of them surely must be artistically notable but I'm unsure of the criteria we could use to decide this. One idea I had was to look at classical review web sites (I'm thinking AllMusic and ClassicsToday) to find which ones are acclaimed by the critics.

I'm sure that issues like this have come up on the articles of other classical works. It would be good to find out the exact criteria used for those articles to decide notability. Best regards, Thebrid (talk) 13:50, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

On further checking Wikipedia's guidelines, the Compositions task force specifically recommends that “notable recordings” be included, with links allowing users to purchase those recordings. Best regards, Thebrid (talk) 13:58, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

It does, though it probably shouldn't be worded that way. The problem is that it IS very hard to give an objective criteria on what's notable or not, especially for a piece like this where there's quite a lot of recordings. Yes review sites/books/mags are a point, but still. I think a VERY small selection of 'special' recordings - in this case, what comes to mind is Holst's own, the Dutoit for its constant note all over the place, and possibly the Elder on Hyperion (which isn't even in there now!) for being the first to feature the now-standard Pluto), and certainly mention of Boult's rexording it five times. All this written in prose...but what I really like is how it's done at Symphony No. 7 (Sibelius) discography, which is an attempt at a complete one, and done on a seperate page per WP conventions. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 15:13, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for the link to Sibelius' 7th Symphony. It is an excellent idea to include a complete list (or, at least, one aiming for completeness) as a separate article. The list itself would be notable for inclusion in Wikipedia. My one qualm with that article is that it doesn't give an impression of the notable recordings.

My personal preference would be to make a slight modification to that idea - to have a “complete” listing of Planets recordings as a separate article from this, but to have a small section in this article describing the truly notable recordings - the Holst and the Dutoit ones come to mind, possibly a few others, accompanied by a link to the full discography. What would be your thoughts on this? Best regards, Thebrid (talk) 15:33, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, that's pretty much what I was saying, but I guess I worded it wrong. See WP:SUMMARY for how it 'should' be. 17:10, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Broken link, sort of

Reference 1 on the page ("The Definitive CDs" (CD 94), of Holst: The Planets (with Elgar: Enigma Variations), Norman Lebrecht, La Scena Musicale, September 1, 2004, webpage: Scena-Notes-100-CDs") is no doubt a perfectly valid paper reference, but the link in it is useless, as far as I can tell: it links to that journal, but I have been unable to find the article referenced. I am inclined to delete the link from the reference: has anybody any better suggestions? (I wanted to look at the reference to see whether it claims the private first performance took place in the Albert Hall, as it was attached as a reference to that claim). --ColinFine (talk) 14:34, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Keys

The adding of the keys is a bit confusing and not entirely correct. None of the movements confine to "traditional tonality" and thus Holst rarely sticks to one key structure per movement. I think it would be futile to try and explain it in a shot line in parenthesis. Justin Tokke (talk) 17:29, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

That's what I thought; when I added it I was trying to make it more like the (more strongly) tonally rooted works of before 1900,* but as I said in my edit summary, if it doesn't work, revert it. And I see you did, and I don't have a problem with it. —  $PЯINGεrαgђ  20:24 9 March, 2008 (UTC)

*see, for example, Symphony No. 4 (Schumann) or Piano Concerto No. 1 (Brahms) or similar works of the period.

The Sample

The sample of Mars Theme that is placed here on wiki. Where is it from? Can it be found on CD or something? Or downloaded (since it's public domain) Just in higher bitrate. That's the best version I've heard, others are kinda lame. This one sounds very similar to Star Trek VI soundtrack. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.33.234.64 (talk) 00:46, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Much of the info you want can be found on its image page. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 01:58, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

But it's not says where it can be found in higher quality. Link to Air Force Band doesn't seems to work right. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.33.234.64 (talk) 12:41, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Structure - order of the movements

It is said that "With the exception of the first three movements, the order of the movements corresponds to increasing distance of their eponymous planets from the Earth." Actually, ALL movements are in the correct order in terms of distance from the Earth (Mars is the closest, then Venus, then Mercury, then Jupiter and the others); but they are inverted in distance from the Sun. I'm not sure if I should correct this though, as the statement is followed by possible explanations for the inversion. So is it a mix-up between Earth and Sun or what? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.132.181.237 (talk) 22:24, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Jupiter -- the nightly news in the 60s in the U.S.

The bumpy bombastic Jupiter theme was the intro to the Nightly News on one of the three U.S. networks in the 1960s. Anyone remember which netowrk it was? Was it CBS? Walter Cronkite? If you remember, add it to the article. Thanks. Softlavender (talk) 01:05, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Mr.3000

I was just wathcing Mr.3000 and within the first 20 minutes while he was speaking at a field they played the song Jupiter. I'd add that to the "Uses in pop culture" (or whatever it's called) section, but I have no references. If someone could find a reference please.Spartan123209 (talk) 02:07, 25 October 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Spartan123209 (talk • contribs) 00:24, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Star Trek VI?

"Cliff Eidelman's 1991 score to Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country was inspired by the sound of The Planets, a copy of which was given to him by director Nicholas Meyer."

The CD booklet for the soundtrack tells a different story:

"[Nicholas Meyer:] When my first notion - that of adapting Holst's The Planets - proved economically unfeasible, I found myself listening to demo tapes submitted from near and far. [...] It was Eidelman's tape which jumped out at Ronald Roose, my editor, and myself. Conversations with Eidelman followed. [...] I mentioned the opening of Stravinsky's Firebird as the sort of foreboding sounds I had in mind.[...]"

There is no further mention of Holsts's Planets. Indeed, the score seems based more on Firebird than Mars, to which it bears no more than passing similarities in orchestration and mood, whereas Firebird has very similar harmonic and melodic patterns. In fact, there are more similarities between "Mars" and part of the "Star Wars Ep. IV" original Main Title sequence than with Star Trek VI. -- megA (talk) 13:44, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Star Wars Episode IV

Has anyone heard track 23: "The Battle of Yavin (Launch From The Fourth Moon - X-Wings Draw Fire - Use The Force)" from John William's A New Hope Soundtrack? Some of it sounds quite similar to the first movement Mars, especially in the end where the Death Star is destroyed. Can more musically inclined someone confirm this? Black Sabre (talk) 05:36, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Adaptations: needs some weeding?

The adaptations section, which is mostly a list of advertisements and film scores that might have included a snippet of Mars or Jupiter, takes up more than half the article: a quick check shows that the adaptations section is about 10K characters, and a little less than that for the rest of the text above it. Seeing someone add a reference to a Reeses Peanut Butter Cup ad (which was redundant, in any event) finally has made me snap.

I propose we start chucking things out of here. True adaptations are worth keeping, but I don't think quoted snippets are.

My suggestion. Keep things like: Thaxted; Emerson Lake & Powell and other rock versions of at least entire movements (not mere quotes); the Tomita version; the Rob Astor recording; Laibach's "Nato". Delete things like: its use as a rugby theme; the many quotes in film sountracks, advertisments, TV shows, and video games; and insubstantial quotes in other musical works (e.g., the intro to the song "Eyes of the World", Sarah Brightman quotes, etc.). Who's with me? TJRC (talk) 00:15, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree for the most part. Though one needs to take care not to go too far in snipping things out, as well, though one should also note the Tomita at least is ALSO in the "Non-orchestral versions", which should also be condenced somewhat probably. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 01:26, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Adaptions vs Discography

Sorry, I need to bring this up again.... This article should focus on the work itself. Adaptions now is now over 1/2 of the main article. This doesn't add much information to the core topic.

I think the the discography is relevant to show the breadth of recordings. Relying on in print media from for profit sites does a disservice to our readers. (IMHO). We need to limit comments and opinions on each recording but significant information like the Naxos recording by Holst himself should be highlighted.

Recommendation add a new page The_Planets_discography_adaptations. The discography should probably be added as a table. Does anyone have some reference discography table from another composer that we can use a template?

Earlier versions of this article had a good growing discography that we can use. Frankk74 (talk) 07:47, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Non-orchestral versions jaw-dropper

I refuse to believe that there is any such thing as a version made by Holst or anyone else for solo harp. Without a titanium-clad citation that someone can put in pretty durn quickly I will remove it, ditto for the reference to H. composing/intending it for two pianos. See my remark above regarding that question ("State of the article"). --Wspencer11 (talk to me...) 14:21, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Actually the two pianos thing (or it may have been piano four hands) is real -- it's in the notes of the Telarc recording with Previn at least. I'd have to dig it up if I still have it (it mentions something about Neptune being for organ because of style). ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 15:29, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

I recall the piano duet as well. If my recollection is correct, it wasn't so much that Holst intended it to be a piano duet in its final form, but worked it out that way first. The difference between this case and the sort of standard practice that Wspencer11 is referring to is that Holst actually gave performances of it in this form; it wasn't just a sketch. Alas, I have no references to back this up, having read this (probably in liner notes, too) some 20 years or so ago. TJRC (talk) 19:00, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Detailed Piano Discussions

I found some add'l info on the piano duet and added it. The info I found only indicates that it was a published version, and the date of publication was 1949, obviously much later than the orchestral version. Nothing to confirm my recollection that it was performed as a duet prior to its release as an orchestral version. TJRC (talk) 19:18, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Ok, I dug up the CD and found this -- basically it says they were originally written for two pianos (organ in the case of Neptune for aesthetic reasons), because of his severe arthritis at the time. He got help from fellow St. Paul's faculty members Nora Day and Vally Lasker to write out the full score under his guidance. But just because they weren't published until later doesn't mean that this info is faulty. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 20:10, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for that. Was there anything about it being performed as a two-piano arrangement, as I recall reading? Or was it just a compositional aid? Since it's a published version, I think it's worth keeping in any event, but it would be worth noting, I think. TJRC (talk) 20:42, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Nothing about it either way, no. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 21:56, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

My point is not that Holst didn't write the piece out in this form, or that it has never been performed that way. Heaven knows orchestral scores have been played in public in piano versions (among others) all the time; in the old days, that was the way people could get to hear music before the days of ubiquitous recordings. (Stravinsky's keyboard versions of Sacre and Petrushka still turn up in concert sometimes, and it's very interesting to hear them that way. But he didn't intend those versions to be the end product, and those renditions are not really substitutes for the orchestral versions.) My point is that I don't think Holst intended this to be a piano work. I believe his intent always was to create an orchestral piece. This is why I object to referring to this version by saying that "Holst originally composed the suite for two pianos" which is how the reference currently and so misleadingly stands. And just because it has been published that way doesn't mean anything beyond that. Stravinsky published those keyboard versions of Sacre and Petrushka, too.

How about saying something like, "Holst also created a version [or maybe "reduction"] for two pianos." And the lines about where those copies are located would probably work better in the body of the article, with just the citations down in the notes/references.

And by the way, is it really true that there's a piano-duet version and a two-piano version? That seems really odd to me. --Wspencer11 (talk to me...) 02:02, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Read what I wrote above. The two piano version isn't a reduction, it was written first. I agree it was always intended as an orchestral piece, but that's not the point. As for both two pianos and piano duet? Not odd in the LEAST. Remember that until the advent of recordings, most orchestral music was arranged for four hands (either way) so people in homes could get to know the pieces. Usually the composer didn't do this arrangement, but they sometimes did; either way, it's not odd. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 03:09, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Hmm. I must not be making myself very clear, somehow. I have read what Melodia Chaconne says in this thread, several times. The two-pianists version(s) that Holst made undoubtedly did come first. So did the four-hands version of Sacre. Both of us note that these versions were the way for most people to get to know the music prior to the day of easily-available recordings. And I am not making a lot of noise about the possibility of Holst himself creating both a four-hands and a two-piano version...I'm just saying that seems odd to me. A totally subjective opinion, utterly un-back-up-able, and intentionally kept here on the talk page and out of the article itself.

This is a very different case from that of the Brahms Haydn Variations, which exists in co-equal versions for orchestra and for two pianists. I think there may be other cases like this too...maybe an early Bartok piece? Something by Rachmaninoff? I don't remember right away.

I think we're saying much the same things, just from somewhat different points of view.

I do not follow one thing you say, though. "I agree it was always intended as an orchestral piece, but that's not the point." The point of what? And what is the point, in your mind? My point is that I believe it would be clearer and more accurate to phrase the reference to the piano version like this: "Holst also created a version for two pianos." (I'll happily delete the word "reduction" since the keyboard version came first.) One could say exactly the same thing about Sacre: "Stravinsky also created a version for piano four-hands." Both these statements are true. I am trying hard just to clarify this, and not to be combative about anything...except that asinine "solo harp" version, which I just deleted. --Wspencer11 (talk to me...) 02:26, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Most of the time a composer will use a 'short-score', which isn't really a working preforming version. The linar notes imply that he wrote the piece as a workable two piano piece, rather than a sketch, as it were, even if he intended it as an orchestral piece all along. So unlike with Sacre, the two piano version came first, rather than it being a reduction of the orchestral version. The Rachmaninov piece you're thinking of is the Symphonic Dances, which is in fact well known in the two piano guise.
But I dunno. It's a fine line, but it just seems to me that you're arguing that Holst didn't do anything abnormal here, where I think the text implies to me that he did in fact not compose the piece in the usual manner. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 03:14, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

There's still something not connecting here. I'm afraid I still do not see any answers to my inquiries in my last paragraph.

I am not saying anything about short scores, which I know about. I am not trying to say that Holst did nothing out of the ordinary. I am trying to say that the wording of the reference to the pianos-version is misleading and ought to be changed; I have suggested a new wording and hope that anyone who is interested would weigh in with support, or with a plausible alternative. I would rather not make the change without consulting others here first. I also believe pretty strongly that for the purposes of an encyclopedia article, liner notes from recordings are not good enough as sources, and I really wish folks would not cite them.

Also, the four-hands version of Sacre came first, by maybe as much as a year (I don't remember exactly). It is not a reduction of the orchestral score, it is a way-station, you might say, on the road to the full orchestral score. Way after the short score but not yet at the version given in May 1913 in Paris (let alone all the subsequent versions that Stravinsky issued). --Wspencer11 (talk to me...) 04:05, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm going to take a second an apologize for any misinformation I may have inadvertently injected into this discussion. The probably imprecise use of the word duet was introduced by me above. Looking at the article Duet (music), I see that two pianists using a single piano is referred to as a "duet" or "four hands"; and if two pianos are used, it's referred to as a "duo." This is not a distinction I'd intended to draw. I intended only to convey that there existed a version that was performed by two pianists. I believe it was two pianists, each with their own piano (a duo), but actually have no strong recollection to that effect. I did not mean to imply that the version was for one piano, four hands. TJRC (talk) 18:37, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Aha, that may be part of the issue. Yes, it's very confusing, and I have simply forced myself to learn how to refer to the two ways to do this. I try to use "piano four-hands" to refer to piano-duet, that is, one keyboard, two people, and "two-piano" to refer to...well, I hope that one's obvious. It would be a good thing now for someone to determine just what piano version(s) exist that Holst himself had a hand in creating. --Wspencer11 (talk to me...) 01:07, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

The linar notes I mentioned above clearly says two pianos, though it wasn't clear if Neptune was for one organ or two. And yeah, 'duet' usually refers to one piano, four hands unless otherwise specified. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 02:11, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Attention readers :-)... My plea for a discography section would have answered the availability of the duo and duet versions although not necessarily the composer's intentions.

• HOLST the planets York2 "World Premiere Recording 4 hands one piano" publisher Black Box.

and

• GUSTAV HOLST THE PLANETS "A World Premiere The Composer's own TWO PIANO VERSION" publisher FACET. Frankk74 (talk) 09:49, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Note there is also an Organ version which was transcribed from the Orchestral version by Peter Sykes publisher Raven. With the appropriate bass producing speakers/headphones this does justice to the loud planets :-). Frankk74 (talk) 09:57, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Diana Spencer's funeral

Frankk74 (talk · contribs) added the following with respect to I Vow to Thee, My Country:

Princess Diana requested the hymn at her wedding and her funeral. It is included on the BBC Recording of the Funeral Service.

I reverted. Frankk74 re-reverted. Not wanting an edit war, I discuss it here.

It's inappropriate for this article, whose subject is the composition The Planets. The Planets was not played. Jupiter, a portion of which the movement on which the hymn I Vow to Thee, My Country was not played. Rather, the hymn I Vow to Thee, My Country, a pre-existing poem which was set to music from this movement, was played.

The proffered passage is not a passage about The Planets; it's a passage about I Vow to Thee, My Country. I express no opinion about whether it's worth mentioning in I Vow to Thee, My Country, but I feel that it's out of line in this article. There's enough cruft in this segment of the article without growing these side quotes.

I know, we've got a lot of other dumb stuff in this article, particularly in the "In modern media" section. But see WP:WAX. The fact that other areas of the article need cleanup is not a good reason to make this area need cleanup, too.

What's the consensus? TJRC (talk) 01:27, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

• My feeling is that we ought to link this article to "I Vow to Thee, My Country" within the Hymn section, and then detail about the lyric and the use of the song (including Di's funeral) can go in that article and not here. That's what links between articles are for -- Foetusized (talk) 02:32, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Sorry guys. I agree duplication should be avoided. The I vow to thee page mentions the Princess Diana information. I originally I didn't see the cross link to I vow to thee.... So I will remove it... Frankk74 (talk) 07:43, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Details of the premieres

This is still causing me some concern. As noted above, the current received wisdom is that there were 3 premieres:

• an invitation-only (probably incomplete) performance (sometimes referred to as "a rehearsal") on 29 September 1918 in the Queen's Hall in London, conducted by Adrian Boult
• an incomplete public performance on 10 October 1918 in Birmingham, conducted by Appleby Matthews
  • both of these are mentioned in the lede
• the first complete performance, on 10 October 1920, also in Birmingham.
  • this is mentioned in Background, but not, surprisingly, in the lede.

Googling "appleby matthews planets 1918" gives me lots of hits for the 1918 Birmingham performance, but most say it was the first complete performance.

Googling "appleby matthews planets 1920" tells me that this was the first complete public performance. They can't both be right.

I've always been suspicious about the date 10 October for both 1918 and 1920. It's certainly possible, but somehow, I wonder if someone has confused some facts.

This, this and this all refer to the first public performance of The Planets being by Albert Coates in 1920, without giving a precise date or the name of the orchestra. However, this says: The first complete public performance was conducted by Albert Coates on November 15, 1920. Prior to that, Adrian Boult led a semi-private rehearsal at the Queen's Hall Orchestra in 1918. That information about the November 15, 1920 performance is corroborated in the liner notes to my recording (Saint Louis SO under Walter Susskind), which also identifies the orchestra as the London Symphony Orchestra. There's no mention of Appleby Matthews in those sites, which leads me to believe that whatever involvement he had in any of the premieres, it was or they were not complete performance. This google search seems to support this. User:Camembert also raised the Coates claim up above.

Given that the vast number of internet sites about The Planets are Wikipedia mirrors, I think it's safe to say that Appleby Matthews conducted the first Birmingham performance and the first public performance, on 10 October 1918 - but it was an incomplete performance so it does not deserve prominence; and the first complete public performance was on 15 November 1920, in London, by the LSO under Albert Coates. Our Albert Coates article says this performance was the first complete one in London (also a matter referred to by Camembert), but for my money, it was the first complete one ever.

I intend to change the article as follows, unless there are objections:

• The first complete public performance of The Planets was by the London Symphony Orchestra conducted by Albert Coates on 15 November 1920. An incomplete public performance conducted by Appleby Matthews had taken place in Birmingham on 10 October 1918, and a private, probably incomplete, performance was given on 29 September 1918 in the Queen's Hall in London, conducted by Adrian Boult.

JackofOz (talk) 20:18, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

OK, done now, slightly reworded. -- JackofOz (talk) 07:27, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Astrological aspect

Rather than being purely esoteric, there was a strong relationship between music and astrology in the academic norm of the quadrivium which preceded scientific method. The focus in this domain was more properly the cosmological angle on eschatology. An examination must therefore be made of any Renaissance inferences. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.129.36.4 (talk) 03:29, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

??????? (wrong talk-page, I guess) --Francesco Malipiero (talk) 16:41, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Black Sabbath?

Should it be noted that Black Sabbath's song "Black Sabbath" has a riff which was created from "Mars". Geezer Butler said he was playing "Mars" on his bass and Tony Iommi then played a rock version on his guitar. Should this go under the Non-orchestral arrangements section? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.130.164.204 (talk) 21:36, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

The song "Am I Evil?" by Diamondhead is an even more obvious knockoff. Those references belong more in the articles for those songs than they belong here.DavidRF (talk) 23:28, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Fade-out

The article claims that ""Neptune" was the first orchestral piece of music to have a fade-out ending." The last movement of Mahler's 9th Symphony (1908-9) ends with a held chord (with a pause symbol) marked ersterbend ("dying away"). I submit that this therefore predates "The Planets", but there may be other even earlier examples in the repertoire that I don't know of. PhilUK (talk) 18:48, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Brahms' Third Symphony (1883) also ends by "fading away." Cobicles (talk) 05:09, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

The Brahms symphony gets quiet and comes to an end. See . I don't know the Mahler symphony mentioned above, but from the description, it's a held quiet chord that also ends. The fade-out ending of Neptune is a true fade-out: the music is continued by the players and faded out after an indeterminate period. I don't know that it's the first, but to me, it seems to be qualitatively different from the quiet ending being described for the Brahms and Mahler symphonies. TJRC (talk) 18:11, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

From the score I saw (I can't recall hearing the work), Brahms' Third ends with a held chord of indeterminate length ("pause" symbol) marked "pp" - no mention of a decrescendo at all. Of course, conductors may choose to interpret it as a fade-out, but it's not marked as such. Mahler's Ninth is definitely marked "dying away". However, I agree that the direction in Holst's score "... until the sound is lost in the distance" - usually achieved by slowly shutting the door on the hidden choir - is qualitatively different from either, so I'm happy to bow out of this discussion! PhilUK (talk) 14:48, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

How I agree with TJRC that Neptune has a true fade - the score makes that clear - but I should hesitate a long time before agreeing that this was the first piece of music to have a fade-out. There are (semi-) precedents. One (rather surprisingly) is Johann Strauss's Perpetuum Mobile from 1861. The original parts published by Cranz of Vienna have the accompaniment continuing beyond the natural finish. There is nothing that actually says 'fade away' but that's clearly what is implied (it is perpetual motion after all) and how it's usually played. Likewise, Dittersdorf's Le Carnaval ou le Rédoute has the same sort of ending as Haydn's Farewell - not exactly a fade-out but perilously close. More interesting are the composers who use the indication niente (nothing) after a diminuendo - meaning 'dying away to nothing'. Vaughan Williams is an obvious example (in the London Symphony of 1914, for one thing). I just think it's too categorical to say it was the first piece with a fade-out. Johann Strauss has a better claim, but even then who's to say there's nothing earlier.Pabmusic (talk) 09:09, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

On a related note, is linking to a page that concerns audio engineering really the best place to go? And is a link for this compositional technique really necessary at all? I would think that the passage in the article would actually work better with nothing more than a good, well-written sentence describing what Holst wrote, and leaving it at that. --Wspencer11 (talk to me...) 21:13, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Recordings

To have recordings of wind band arrangements of the piece on this page seems inappropriate. It would be far better to have recordings of the original work, or no recordings at all. The wind band arrangements presumably have nothing to do with Holst (in terms of his intentions) and I reckon he'd be pretty annoyed if probably the most accessible source of information on his most important work had recordings of a wind band playing bits of it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.159.18.21 (talk) 22:37, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

To exactly which parts of/ items in the article are you referring? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 23:20, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

POV

Section "Structure" reads like an essay. Examples: "It is perhaps instructive", "called only by". Also there are weasel words like "Some commentators". Section also does not give attribution to most perspectives except for maybe the one to the critic. For example it reads "An alternative explanation" without explaining whose explanation. POV is also found in phrases like "a more prosaic example". Actually POV is in the whole article, including possible peacock in the lead. --Mr. Guye (talk) 00:29, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

@Mr. Guye:, I've taken a stab at addressing this section. I've taken the liberty of removing the tags as part of that edit. TJRC (talk) 19:27, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on The Planets. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090415164416/http://www.southernmusic.com:80/marching_band/1998/md.htm to http://www.southernmusic.com/marching_band/1998/md.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080725032656/http://www.southernmusic.com/marching_band/2002/grade2.htm to http://www.southernmusic.com/marching_band/2002/grade2.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20131209201729/http://www.tapspace.com/Mercury-from-The-Planets-pr-51.html to http://www.tapspace.com/Mercury-from-The-Planets-pr-51.html

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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} 08:03, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on The Planets. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.schoenberg.at/library/index.php/attachments/single/1634
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120825015447/http://www.diamond-head.net/article1.JPG to http://www.diamond-head.net/article1.JPG

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• 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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:47, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

Trimming the list again

This is a perennial task, but I've just cut down the section "Non-orchestral arrangements" again, for all the same reasons we discussed a couple years ago. TJRC (talk) 20:14, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Suprised noone added the Reece's Peanut Butter Cup commercial again :P. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 20:59, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Again. TJRC (talk) 21:51, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

Asteroids

Sotbas removed the section "Asteroids" with the comment The section concerning the existence of a piece called "Asteroids" has nothing to do with Holst's composition and should not be included. It was reinstated by Martinevans123 with the comment I disagree. Without "The Planets", these would never have existed. Take to Talk page? Thanks..

My take is that it should be deleted, unless the article can make a connection between the Asteroids compositions and The Planets, with appropriate sourcing. Right now, all we have are two links (one of them dead) indicating that Asteroids has been combined on the same CD with The Planets, but I don't think that's sufficient linkage. If there were something that established that Asteroids was specifically commissioned as a "sequel" or companion piece to The Planets, that would do it for me. TJRC (talk) 22:28, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

The Amazon review at that first source says:

"Moreover, the Berlin Philharmonic added to Holst's galaxy by commissioning four composers to write a movement each for a Suite called "Asteroids." This is its premiere recording."

Perhaps that connection is too slight? I agree that second source is dead and I can't find anything from Deutsche Grammophon about the suite to replace it. I'd suggest perhaps this from the FT. That has this:

"Holst’s The Planets needs a bit of ginger if it is not to smack of caricature today. Six years ago Colin Matthews added Pluto, the Renewers to the suite, bringing it closer to our time. But Rattle wanted more, and came up with the idea of asteroids.

"Kaija Saariaho, Matthias Pintscher, Mark-Anthony Turnage and Brett Dean were commissioned to write six- minute works for Holst on an asteroid of their choice."

"The four new works were not a collaborative project. Three of the four composers chose to depict cataclysms, which makes for a turbulent half-hour here. But the common subjects and instrumentation bring conceptual harmony. Holst is certainly a winner. Rattle conducts the suite with uncritical gusto, letting the orchestra’s lush sheen show. The new pieces save the evening from stodginess."

So I see it as just an artistic extension of Holst's idea. Strictly speaking it indeed has "nothing to do with" The Planets. It's just a kind of recent extension, an inspiration. That's all. If there really is "no connection", then I guess we should rip out the Pluto section too. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:58, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

I think the Pluto bit should stay; the article makes clear that it was commissioned as an addition to The Planets, and I think that's the type of connection that justifies its presence.

On The Asteroids', the Amazon review seems a little vague, although it certainly implies it was commissioned as a companion to The Planets. But are Amazon reviews WP:RS? I can't tell where that review came from. It's credited to Edith Eisler, but that may just be some Amazon customer.

The FT article sounds like a good one, though. It's paywalled for me, but based on your quotation of it, "...were commissioned to write six- minute works for Holst," it sounds like there's a documented connection, although the choice of words by the FT writer seems odd: commissioned to write for Holst?

I found this statement an Boosey-Hawkes: "Ceres" was first premiered under the baton of Simon Rattle with the Berlin Philharmonic in March of 2006 as part of Rattle’s project to commission works which compliment Gustav Holst’s The Planets. I don't think it's a stretch to impute the statement about "Ceres" to the four of them, particularly when combined with your FT find.

By the way, while we're at it, I'd kill the paragraph in the "Pluto" section about Wilson's "Songs of Distant Earth"; that seems related to the IAU decision on Pluto, but not to The Planets. TJRC (talk) 23:35, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

I agree, that FT wording does seem a bit odd. Your Boosey and Hawkes source is a good one. I also agree about the Wilson paragraph. Martinevans123 (talk) 23:43, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

Hey, is musicweb-international.com a reliable source? In the context of Pluto already existing as a Planets-add-on, it says "[Simon Rattle] took the initiative to commission the music of these several asteroids to join Pluto." TJRC (talk) 23:44, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

I'm not sure. But I'm struggling now with deciding who commissioned what - was it all three? Berlin Philharmonic, Rattle and EMI? Or just Rattle. The current sources do not support either the orchestra or the label? Martinevans123 (talk) 10:57, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

The booklet with the CDs states "Asteroids by Saariaho, Pintscher, Turnage and Dean commissioned by the Berliner Philharmoniker". In his accompanying note, Simon Rattle says that when EMI asked him to record The Planets for a second time he was aware of Colin Matthews' Pluto addition and had the idea to take this further: "So we commissioned works from four composers who have worked with the Berliner Philharmoniker, to make a suite of pieces that would be like a calling card for the orchestra." The booklet refers the reader to www.rattleoftheplanets.com for further information, but since the fall of EMI to Warner the website has become a travesty – it doesn't even get the track listing correct. --Deskford (talk) 23:25, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

References

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on The Planets. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080516211835/http://www.divine-art.com/AS/boult.htm to http://www.divine-art.com/AS/boult.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090416033808/http://www.oremus.org/hymnal/o/o153.html to http://www.oremus.org/hymnal/o/o153.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:25, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Bernstein Pluto Improvisation.

In the final broadcast of his Young People's Concerts series in March, 1972, the conductor Leonard Bernstein, concluded the section dealing with Holst's Planets Suite saying: "With all this in mind, we shall now attempt to shed a little light on this dark planet by improvising a Pluto-piece. Let's call it in the manner of Holst, Pluto, the Unpredictable; but there any resemblance to Holst will end."

He very clearly says that they are improvising this part. I have added a separate citation to the article.--Megaton Sheriff (talk) 14:24, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

Eurovision 1998?

The Orchestra Grimethorpe used Jupiter, the bringer of jollity in the interval act. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eurovision1323 (talk • contribs) 17:57, September 22, 2020 (UTC)

Unless it's particularly significant, and you have a published WP:RS backing that up, it doesn't belong in the article. TJRC (talk) 00:17, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

Roman deities

If "each movement is intended to convey ideas and emotions associated with the influence of the planets on the psyche, NOT the Roman deities", why does Mercury have the subtitle "the Winged Messenger"? Where does this definition come from? Robert Conrad (talk) 14:01, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

It is a direct quote from one of Alan Leo's astrological books - now mentioned in the article. Tim riley talk 10:09, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

No analysis?

The list of the seven pieces just link-thru to the relevant planets as such. Do we not get a analysis of the music itself? Valetude (talk) 18:02, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

@Valetude: I've had a shot at just that. Comments/expansion invited. Tim riley talk 10:10, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

The Sims 4?

A tune that sounds very similar to Jupiter is in The Sims 4. Should this be included? Krystal Kalb (talk) 03:39, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

There is a secondary article called Cultural influence of Holst's The Planets where trivia of this sort can be included if adequately cited. Tim riley talk 09:03, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

I found this in case it’s useful

https://archive.org/details/Holst_ThePlanets/mode/1up Victor Grigas (talk) 21:56, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

That's already included in the "External links" section. TJRC (talk) 20:36, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

Indeed so, but nonetheless thank you, Victor, for your thought. Tim riley talk 20:40, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

Revert for "formatting"

I found this page via discussions offwiki and noticed there were content based reverts simply because the addition mucked up the margins good and proper. That is not valid reasoning for a revert, when the fix can be as simple as just fixing the margins instead.

It would be different if the edit was content related or clearly an incorrect add for the page. Best I can tell, it's neither. Soni (talk) 13:09, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

Why in God's name is Saturn's music sample almost 7 hours long?

If one were to look at the current runtime for Saturn's audio file, one would be able to see that it is 6 hours and 45 minutes long! I'm no good with Wikipedia coding, so could anyone explain and/or rectify this? 134.197.0.24 (talk) 21:45, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

It doesn't have sourcing information on Commons, and the performance likely is still under copyright, so it will probably be deleted soon anyway. TJRC (talk) 22:46, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

I concur. The file was added a few weeks ago, and I have deleted it from the article. I don't tangle with Commons if I can help it: so many editors upload files with inadequate documentation that you can rely on it to let you down. Tim riley talk 07:23, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

It's been deleted from Commons. TJRC (talk) 23:56, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

Edit

Please tell me what you take issue with, @Tim riley. Keeper of Albion (talk) 19:32, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

Please use the article talk page to attempt to justify your preferred stylistic alterations. Seek a consensus there for your proposals. Tim riley talk 20:05, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

Please tell me what you take issue with. Keeper of Albion (talk) 20:11, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

Tim, judging by your edit history here (many reversions) it seems to me that you’re interested in asserting some kind of ownership or quasi-ownership of this article. Nothing in my edit is even remotely controversial—it includes useful links, complies with guidelines, removes pointless repetition of "the composer", and most reasonable editors would not raise a finger to it—but you think the article ought to be left perfectly the way you want it to be. Keeper of Albion (talk) 22:01, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

God in Heaven! Another editor who screams OWN! when his/her edits are challenged. Please propose your various wished-for alterations here and see if they attract a consensus. Tim riley talk 22:09, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

Have you considered that the common factor is you? Keeper of Albion (talk) 22:17, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

Hardly surprising that I pop up here so often. I wrote 80% of the text and successfully took the article through GAN. Anyone who has taken articles through FAC or GAN is only too familiar with drive-by editors who squeal "OWN!" if their precious rewrites are reverted. If one takes an article to GA or FA one is expected to keep an eye on it and maintain standards. I see from my watchlist that alterations have recently been made to six different articles I took to FA or GA, which were all minor improvements that I have not dreamt of reverting. Where, however, it is a matter of "I would phrase it this way so your phrasing must be wrong" there is no case for keeping the changes unless the new editor can garner a consensus on the article talk page, which you are, of course, wholly at liberty to attempt. Tim riley talk 06:47, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

Consensus

@Tim riley, why do you insist on consensus for my reversion but not for (your apparent friend) [Withdrawn] Gerda Arendt’s edit here? I remind you that WP:CONSENSUS is not determined by voting, and certainly not voting by reversion. Keeper of Albion (talk) 21:35, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

A nasty little attempted smear there. As it happens Gerda Arendt and I are far from being friends, but we are grown up enough to concur when we think the other is right. I struggle to work out why you are so reluctant to seek consensus for your desired changes. I recognise that "Keeper of Albion" is a magniloquently splendid title (though also an anagram of "Be like near poof") but it does not confer on you the sole right to rewrite Wikipedia articles in the face of disagreement from existing editors. Tim riley talk 22:09, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

I’m happy to withdraw the relevant words, although I was not implying what you think.

You’ve chosen to ramble about my username rather than answer my question about consensus and explain why you support their edit (see WP:AADP, too). Why should your objection be considered at all if you won’t engage? Keeper of Albion (talk) 22:24, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

Could we have that in English, please? If you must detain us here please explain in plain words why the rest of us should subscribe to your proposed alterations. Tim riley talk 22:34, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

You invited me to the talk page and now you complain about my replies on the talk page. You’re free to stop replying at any time (in which case I would revert, because you would be declining to defend your position), or to keep replying without being rude and passive-aggressive.

I am asking you: why do I need consensus for this, but Gerda Arendt does not need consensus for this? Or, if there is consensus, how does a vote by reversion from you qualify as consensus? And why do you support their edit?

I’ve put it to Gerda Arendt on my talk page about this matter that the link in question is useful to readers and entirely in keeping with MOS. They referred to WP:SEAOFBLUE to support their position, which I described as an unwarranted concern. I’ve never before heard the argument that two links separated by three characters constitute a sea of blue, and I still have never heard why this would even be a bad thing.

If you don’t want a link or a forename, why include Stravinsky’s name at all? "The Firebird" is the primary topic after all. Keeper of Albion (talk) 07:52, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

I think you have made your views plain. Let us see if they command a consensus. Tim riley talk 10:35, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

Are you exempt from engaging constructively and arguing for why you think Gerda Arendt’s edit was good? Keeper of Albion (talk) 10:53, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

It is for you to make your pitch for proposed alterations. The status quo prevails until your proposals command a consensus. That is how Wikipedia works. Tim riley talk 11:22, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

You reverted it because you disagreed and now you won’t explain why you disagreed. Keeper of Albion (talk) 11:30, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

In case you missed it the first time, I repeat: it is for you to make your pitch for proposed alterations. The status quo prevails until your proposals command a consensus. That is how Wikipedia works. Tim riley talk 11:44, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

You are part of the discussion about it, per WP:BRD. You are simply status quo stonewalling. Keeper of Albion (talk) 11:51, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

What in WP:BRD did you not understand? When an edit is considered bold (like yours, adding surname and a link), and is reverted, it is upon you to find enough people to support your change to call it a consensus to change. In numbers: about 2/3 of people commenting, provided they have arguments (vs. just support of buddies). My observation in this case is that two people prefer the status quo, established by original author, Brian Boulton, following project convention and common sense, and stable for at least seven years, and only you want it differently. You will need 3 people thinking like you to overturn the status quo. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:08, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

Feel free to convince me your desired alterations are an improvement. Tim riley talk 11:55, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

I’ve made my case and I invite you to make yours. Keeper of Albion (talk) 11:58, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

You still aren't getting this are you? It is as blatant a case of "everyone's out of step except me" as I have seen for quite a while. The article is on more than two hundred editors' watchlists and I hope we shall hear from some colleagues here. Meanwhile, Gerda Arendt's reference to "project convention and common sense" is decidedly ad rem. Tim riley talk 12:52, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

You could revert any edit on any article you pleased on the grounds of "no consensus" and then refuse to elaborate. Do you see why this – status quo stonewalling – isn’t constructive? You’re an experienced editor, and I appreciate and commend your commitment to the King’s English and your work in improving articles to GA and FA status, but I find it hard to reconcile this with your refusal to share your views or to discuss co-operatively.

Per WP:STATUSQUO:

"Edit warring to maintain a "status quo version" is still edit warring, and you can be blocked for doing this. If a dispute arises regarding which version is the status quo ante bellum, be the adult in the room and don't revert. Tag instead. There is no rule on Wikipedia that requires anyone to revert, but if the page has already been reverted to an older, pre-dispute version, then it's especially helpful if you avoid reverting to a different version."

We are both guilty of contravening this, but the first incidence was yours here, in whose edit summary you say "Better before", yet you’ve declined multiple times on this talk page to explain why it was better. I again invite you to make your case. Keeper of Albion (talk) 13:31, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

Good grief! In Britain there is, or perhaps was, an offence "wasting police time". Alas we haven't got such an offence of wasting other editors' time under Wikipedia rules. A pity. I suggest we wait to see what other editors have to say here. Tim riley talk 13:54, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

You’re free to leave this discussion at any point, Tim; it’s your WP:CHOICE. But accusing me of wasting your time whilst you ignore everything I say and decline to discuss anything whatsoever isn’t great.

Neither WP:EDITCONSENSUS nor WP:EPTALK requires an affirmative consensus for edits. Can I find that requirement elsewhere? And may you please tell me whether you have any reason for your reversion other than "no consensus"? Keeper of Albion (talk) 15:07, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

I am deeply tempted to do so, but would certainly be sanctioned by admins for the vehemence of my views about your edits. Meanwhile, kindly have the patience to await disinterested comments from other editors. Tim riley talk 15:21, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

If nobody replies for seven days I’ll list this at WP:THIRD. All the best, Tim. Keeper of Albion (talk) 15:49, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

(edit conflict) You seem still not to understand WP:BRD: when you make a bold edit and are reverted, you don't revert back (!) but propose your change on the talk. There will be no edit-warring if that step is followed (because the status quo is restored). However, you took a different step: reverting back. Next time: please don't, even if you are 100% sure that you are right. It helps. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:25, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

• Agree with Tim and Gerda. John (talk) 17:27, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

  WP:CON: "Consensus on Wikipedia does not require unanimity (which is ideal but rarely achievable), nor is it the result of a vote." Please elaborate. Keeper of Albion (talk) 17:31, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

  Happy to. Like Tim riley and Gerda Arendt, I do not think the proposed addition of these two links adds value to the article. The spirit of MOS:OVERLINK is that links should be added judiciously, and only where they add value. These two do not, as they provide additional links to the authors of the musical pieces which are already linked very close by. A reader curious to find out more about Richard Strauss need only click on the link provided to Ein Heldenleben, where they will find a link to Strauss right there in the first sentence, for example. I may have made as many as half of my 200K+ edits removing superfluous links like these. I also agree with them that reverting in a situation like this is very bad form. In your 2,098 edits thus far, you don't seem to have picked up yet on how important consensus-building is on the project. It's a collaborative place, and if you feel that collaborating with others and listening to their views is beneath you, it will make your time here very much less satisfying, as I've discussed with you recently in your talk. John (talk) 17:59, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

• I also agree with Tim and Gerda. I don't see any argument by the proponent in any of their many postings above about how any of the links they have been edit warring about would "increase the readers' understanding" of The Planets. As MOS:OVERLINK explains, we don't want to add excess/random links that make it more "difficult to identify those likely to aid a reader's understanding". It says to ask yourself whether the link "would help someone understand the article you are linking from". So, I agree that when an editor is challenged regarding the appropriateness of a link, they must come to the Talk page and state their position clearly with respect to each link they are proposing so that others can consider their arguments (and those of others) and come to a WP:CONSENSUS. -- Ssilvers (talk) 18:56, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

Thank you, Ssilvers for that. Thanks to John's thoughtful contribution, above, I visited Keeper of Albion's talk page and found that s/he has provoked adverse comments (mostly swiftly deleted but still accessible) from SchroCat, Fortuna imperatrix mundi, DrKay and JacktheBrown just in the last month. The words of Oliver Cromwell come to mind: "I beseech you, in the bowels of Christ, think it possible that you may be mistaken". Tim riley talk 19:15, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

Mine isn't a negative comment about Keeper of Albion (in fact, the opposite), avoid putting me in the middle of this discussion. JacktheBrown (talk) 05:05, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

I'm so sorry! Apologies. Tim riley talk 07:46, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

Sudden surge in interest

Did something significant happen on 6 September 2025? The daily page views for this article went from around 700 per day to 11,025 in a single day. The Gustav Holst page also surged to 5,535. Within a couple of days they were back to normal. merlinVtwelve (talk) 22:44, 16 September 2025 (UTC)

Often this means a social media post somewhere went viral. It looks like it was recommended as a solution to bad neighbours around that time, not sure if that's the explanation but I enjoyed it. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:52, 16 September 2025 (UTC)

I have used the overture to Die Meistersinger for that purpose, but "Mars" would certainly do. Tim riley talk 15:44, 17 September 2025 (UTC)

I would probably use Space Truckin' by Deep Purple. There is even a version that includes a quote from "The Planets". merlinVtwelve (talk) 04:50, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

Concert Band

Does anybody know why this page is in the category "Concert Band Pieces"? It's a suite for orchestra, not concert band, and the page doesn't mention any concert band arrangements that I noticed. Peter of Loren (talk) 07:07, 19 November 2025 (UTC)

IMSLP lists numerous arrangements of the suite including versions for wind bands and brass ensembles, but they are not Holst's arrangements and I'd have no objection to your removing the category unless other users object. Tim riley talk 08:49, 19 November 2025 (UTC)

As nobody has commented further I've removed the category. Tim riley talk 16:54, 23 November 2025 (UTC)

Thanks, I was planning to do this but it totally slipped my mind until now. Peter of Loren (talk) 00:38, 14 December 2025 (UTC)

Wording of lead

@Tim riley: reverted the wording "and reflects its mythological and astrological qualities" to "and reflects its character according to astrology" with the comment "More neutral before". I disagree. Presumably the edit is to avoid the implication that "reflects its... qualities" is a statement by Wikipedia that the qualities are "real". But when we are talking of art, do we really need to distance ourselves like that? Consider the lead of The Birth of Venus, which reads

It depicts the goddess Venus arriving at the shore after her birth, when she had emerged from the sea fully-grown

Surely it would be ridiculous to claim that this is Wikipedia endorsing the reality of the mythical goddess Venus and of the episode, and rewording like this:

It depicts the mythical goddess Venus supposedly arriving at the shore after her alleged birth, when she is said to have emerged from the sea fully-grown

The phrase "astrological character/quality" already means "its character/qualities according to astrology". Moreover, reliable sources do not bother to distance themselves in this way:

• "each movement inspired by the planet's astrological significance"
• "his conception of the planets' astrological properties"
• "Holst's music was inspried by the planets' astrological characteristics"
• "Holst said...: 'These pieces was suggested by the astrological significance of the Planets' "

By the way, that last source also clearly shows that my addition of "mythological" is incorrect: "...neither have they any connection with the deities of classical mythology". Best, --Macrakis (talk) 16:20, 15 December 2025 (UTC)

I don't feel strongly about the matter, but think the earlier version is more neutral. Tim riley talk 17:59, 15 December 2025 (UTC)

Quality of recordings

I know Wikipedia has to go with free and open recordings, and I understand why. Would it be possible to keep the "Skidmore College Orchestra" version of Mars from being on the main page, though? There is a professional version by US Air Force Band available.

I will change "Mars" to the USAF Band recording now, if I can work out how. Hang on to your hats! Voxra (talk) 09:15, 24 December 2025 (UTC)

Good luck with adding a better free-use recording. Hope all goes well. Tim riley talk 16:55, 24 December 2025 (UTC)