Talk:Prélude à l'après-midi d'un faune

message: :Add *Support or *Oppose followed by an optional one-sentence explanation, then sign your opinion with ~~~~
* Support. David Kernow 04:45, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Survey

message: This article was moved from the English title to the French title in April 2006. The users supporting this move seem to have largely ignored WP:UE, so I felt it was worth having another look at this.In fact the English title is not uncommon (Google searches excluding Wikipedia have a comparable number of hits,  and ) and therefore it seems most consistent with Wikipedia policy to use the English title for this article. Heimstern Läufer 07:44, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suggested move back 

message: :The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 
The result of the debate was PAGE MOVED per discussion below. --Philip Baird Shearer 12:06, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Add  # Support  or  # Oppose  on a new line in the appropriate section followed by a brief explanation, then sign your opinion using ~~~~.  Please remember that this survey is not a vote, and please provide an explanation for your recommendation.
====Survey - in support of the move====
# Support - WP:UE suggests that we should use the well-known English name. Chris cheese whine 08:02, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Add any additional comments:
*Here are some reliable sources that use the English title, which I hope will dispel the notion that it's uncommon: A Norton Critical Score , an article in the peer-reviewed journal 19th-century Music , and a program description on the National Symphony Orchestra's website . Heimstern Läufer 18:38, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requested move February 2007

message: :Add  # Support  or  # Oppose  on a new line in the appropriate section followed by a brief explanation, then sign your opinion using ~~~~.  Please remember that this survey is not a vote, and please provide an explanation for your recommendation.
====Survey - in support of the move====
# Support - WP:UE suggests that we should use the well-known English name. Chris cheese whine 08:02, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Survey

message: # Support - WP:UE suggests that we should use the well-known English name. Chris cheese whine 08:02, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Survey - in support of the move

message: #Oppose The French title is by far the more common. --Mel Etitis  (Talk) 14:01, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Survey - in opposition to the move

message: :Add any additional comments:
*Here are some reliable sources that use the English title, which I hope will dispel the notion that it's uncommon: A Norton Critical Score , an article in the peer-reviewed journal 19th-century Music , and a program description on the National Symphony Orchestra's website . Heimstern Läufer 18:38, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Discussion

message: I've never seen this piece referred to by its English title alone. Even the first line of the article admits it is commonly referred to by its French name. The same goes for Debussy's other compositions. It's La Mer, not The Sea. How frequently do you hear of Games, Woodcuts or The Slower than Slow?- -Folantin (talk) 20:28, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: You're right about La Mer, I've never ever heard it as anything but that outside of in cases where the title is explained. But for this one, it's ALWAYS announced in English on the radio, be it my local station (such as written down here) or a national feed. Maybe this is indeed a case of US vs UK (I'm in the US). It does seem to be in French on all my recordings of it though. I would agree that it should probably be moved back (again). ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 21:58, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah. I'd rather go by academic literature/booklets to recordings than by US radio announcers (I'm from the UK and I've always heard it in French - however badly accented - on the radio). I think this should be in line with the titles of Debussy's other works on Wikipedia. Also, the creator of the article put this under the French name. --Folantin (talk) 22:05, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: My preference is the French title, and I'm with Melodia that it's likely a US/UK thing, as announcers on the radio here invariably use the English, but for this piece alone -- curiously, I'm having a hard time thinking of other Debussy pieces that get the English equivalent, except for maybe the "Dances, Sacred and Profane" (how they usually say it).  Sorry I missed the initial move discussion, I would have opposed it. Antandrus  (talk) 04:21, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd say Sunken Cathedral and The Girl With the Flaxen Hair are used pretty regularly too, but both of those are at their French titles. Also, as far as written goes, I think Children's Corner is often English (Jimbo's Lulluby, The Little Shepherd). Also, I usually see it as 'Sacred and Profane Dances'...but anyway, for THIS piece I'd say it's a fine line because WP:UE vs. what's common in whatever sources would reference the piece. The title it's at now IS the normal one, which is a point for it, but...eh...I think this piece is at the very LEAST, recognizable in its French form as normal. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 04:46, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: On the radio I almost always hear the English title. Once in a while you get a deep South DJ make a hillarious attempt at the French title. Willi Gers07 (talk) 20:06, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why is this at the English title? 

message: Please see Talk:Das Floß der Medusa#Title revisited for some pertinent comments about this article.  --  Jack of Oz  ... speak! ...  19:35, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Naming issues

message: What is Musical Literalism? The link doesn't seem to go to an actual article.
--108.88.162.182 (talk) 23:16, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Musical Literalism? 

message: The article reads: "It is a work that barely grasps onto[clarification needed] tonality and harmonic function."
I wouldn't agree. It is throughout quite tonal but uses harmonic devices uncommon in 1894 and expanded tonality via whole-tone devices in one brief section. This claim reaches too far; isn't it sufficient to say that the piece was a significant departure from common practice in its time?Pinikadia 13:00, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Use of Expanded Tonality 

message: The article states that Prelude to the Afternoon of a Faun "is considered a turning point in the history of music." That's a bold statement. But it's just left at that. The very next line "Pierre Boulez has said he considers the score to be the beginning of modern music" is also left without explanation. Since this is such an important piece of music in the history of music, an explanation of these statements would be useful. Why is it considered a turning point in the history of music? What about it makes it a turning point? What about the piece caused Boulez to consider it the beginning of modern music? What was different about this piece of music from the music that had come before it? How did it began a whole new era in music?
If the article is to be encyclopedic, it should expound upon these ideas and statements. A person comes to an encyclopedia article to learn more about a subject. However this article piques interest with these bold statements but never answers the question of why this is such an important piece of music in the history of music.
:Agree. Also, not all critics consider this the turning point in Western music; arguably, much earlier, Wagner's Tristan und Isolde broke the bounds of conventional harmony; I believe I heard this in a talk on CBC radio (Canada), may have been a Massey lecture. Another point:  I have read criticism that the middle of the piece abandons impressionism and slips into romantic style--sorry no source. Hopefully these will ring a bell for someone --D Anthony Patriarche, BSc (talk) 23:30, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:  Notice that you’ve changed “a turning point” into “the turning point”. There is a difference. That’s one thing; the other is that the example of “Tristan and Isolde” as pivotal is, of course, a moldy old cliche, and Boulez here was attempting to look at this from a refreshingly different perspective. Wagner pushed the boundaries of tonality in a much less radical way from Debussy because Wagner retained the tensions of traditional tonality, and the tensions really represent the underlying presumption. Schoenberg in his pre-serial atonal period, following from Wagner, retained these as well, and I would argue that Debussy’s innovations were more profound and far-reaching than either Wagner’s or Schoenberg’s. TheScotch (talk) 17:54, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Turning point in music history