Talk:List of symphonies by key

message: This page is ginormous. Is it possible to split it up into one page for each key? Isopropyl 04:54, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have thought about breaking this article into a series of disambiguation pages (for example, to distinguish between the numerous examples of symphonies in C major which have dedicated articles in Wikipedia).  But a person wishing to research the tonality of the classical symphony might find it more convenient to have the symphonies available in a list on one page.  Defrosted 23:53, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I understand the convenience aspect, but I believe that a researcher would find several pages organized in a clear manner much more useful than one (exceedingly) large page. Isopropyl 23:57, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Length 

message: Was going to include a few works- the Myaskovsky 17, for G sharp minor, for example, but I see that this is supposed to be a list of famous works. Fair enough.  The Dukas, the Dvorak 2nd, the Haydn 46, the Prokofiev 2nd-4th and 7th are debatable (the Prokofiev 2nd-4th and 6th and 7th are a big drop in -popularity- and recognition below the 1st and 5th, as are quite a few of the symphonies listed, and the Dukas is practically obscure, though not so much so as the Myaskovsky.) Schissel | Sound the Note! 03:27, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I added the Haydn 46.  I admit it is obscure, but it felt that each key needed at least one representative.  (Shostakovich 2 is B flat by allmusic.com and amazon.com -- though I haven't seen what the actual score says).  I think that explains some of the other obscure choices for the more obscure keys as well.  I think this list used to be more 'complete' rather than 'famous', but it got cluttered with the dozens of symphonies in C and D that someone decided to pare it down.  It doesn't matter to me which direction this page goes (though it might get unwieldy listing a dozen Haydn symphonies each for C, D & G). DavidRF 06:32, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Plus, as influential and important as Haydn 39 is, his most "famous" G minor symphony is almost surely "The Hen" (which is certainly fun, but I quickly forget the stormy beginning once the clucking starts).  Yes, its going to be tough to maintain this page if its only 'famous' symphonies.  Since the "ginormous" comment above motivated paring down the page, someone went back and (re-)added early Dvorak and non-organ Saint Saens, lesser Shostakovich as well as stuff like Mozart 16 and 20.  I'm leaning towards going back to complete, but how would we make the page more navigable?  DavidRF 13:34, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I say we split off for the most often used keys but keep a representative sample here. So C major and C minor should definitely get their own list pages, but not A-flat major and G-sharp minor. As a matter of fact, I'm gonna get started now. Anton Mravcek 21:53, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Famous?

message: The discussion of whether Michael Haydn or Brother Joe "gets credit" for the first timpani parts in a B-flat major symphony makes no sense.  Whether the timpani was written as a transposing instrument or at pitch is of no musical consequence whatsoever, and most likely the decision of a copyist or publisher, not the composer.  If Michael Haydn's symphony in B-flat is the first to use timpani in that key, then it's the first to use timpani in that key, end of story.   76.169.154.92 (talk) 00:09, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  B-flat major timpani 

message: The list is incomplete in a fashion - as of the mid-20th century if not earlier, symphonies were inscribed (published and otherwised) as "Symphony in C" whether they were in C major, C minor, or C (pick a mode), for instance. (Egon Wellesz symphony no. 1 "in C" op 62 is in C minor if a bit extended in harmony, by any reckoning; outer movements both are mainly centered around that mode. Mislisted as C major in some sources but the score, at least- not sure about the manuscript alas- headed (first page, if I recall) "in C". Is it similarly w/ Shostakovich 15? Pizzetti symphony "in A", even Widor's much earlier first symphony "en fa"- is/may be similar cases. Schissel | Sound the Note! 17:39, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Omitted modes do not default to major in the 20th century (more an issue in the sublists) 

message: This doesn't only affect this page, of course, but I may as well start here.  Wikipedia is the only place I have ever, ever seen "Op." spelled with a small "o", in the name of a work, e.g. Beethoven's Symphony No. 5 in C minor, op. 67.  Is there a particular reason for this?  Is it some sort of agreed policy/guideline?  Can someone show me some reputable music publications where this is the style?   It's not even done this way consistently in Wikipedia (although it seems to be on this page, at the moment), which says to me that many writers prefer "Op.", which has long been the standard format afaik.  --  JackofOz (talk) 04:42, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Upper case Op. seems good to me, too. Antienne (talk) 23:29, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: There's no reason to capitalize "op.".  Lower case is the default for scholarly sources on music, for example Grove's.  Standard program style in professional settings also is to use lower case. 76.169.154.92 (talk) 00:04, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: "Op." (opus) spelled "op."

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on List of symphonies by key. 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/20071025005829/http://home.wanadoo.nl/ovar/ivanovs.htm to http://home.wanadoo.nl/ovar/ivanovs.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:41, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on List of symphonies by key. 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/20081102223949/http://home.wanadoo.nl/ovar/kabaopus.htm to http://home.wanadoo.nl/ovar/kabaopus.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080918062327/http://home.wanadoo.nl/ovar/khrenn.htm to http://home.wanadoo.nl/ovar/khrenn.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060910195834/http://home.wanadoo.nl/ovar/shebalin.htm to http://home.wanadoo.nl/ovar/shebalin.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:37, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: There is a problem with the title, namely, listing symphonies "by key".
Wikipedia contains many lists of musical compositions:  e.g.  List of operas; List of works for piano left-hand and orchestra; List of choral symphonies; etc., etc.   Some of these exist in alphabetical order; some ordered by composer; some ordered by period; etc.
As far as I can tell, this list of symphonies is the only such list ordered by key.  This necessarily excluses those symphonies which are not in any key, by reason of being atonal, pantonal, or otherwise outside the set of common practice keys in 12-tone equal temperament.  Anton Webern's Symphony, Op. 21 comes immediately to mind.  It also excludes all of Charles Ives symphonies; Ernst Krenek's Symphonie No.2; Julian Carillo's Symphony No. 3; Stefan Wolpe's Symphony; at least two of Gardner Read's four symphonies, etc., etc.
In order to make a place for these -- and other -- missing works, I submit that the title of this arcle needs to be changed to simply, List of symphonies.
It could still be grouped by key, of course, with a separate secction for keyless works, but the current title clearly excludes any work which is not specifically intended to be in a particular key.  As such it effectively eliminates much 20th and 21st century material.
70.89.176.249 (talk) 21:02, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Title Problem