Talk:Les préludes

message: Without giving much importance to it: Klauser's arrangement was published under his name while Liszt's name was left unmentioned. The arrangement thus kept being Klauser's.85.22.30.74 (talk) 08:22, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Klauser's "revised" arrangement 

message: The piano arrangement provided at imlsp actually is that by Stradal. If you want to access it, take the link at the article's bottom. (The comments concerning Klauser's arrangement are misleading and in parts wrong.) Then scroll down and click at "Les Préludes". After you have opened the pdf of Stradal's arrangement, scroll down to the final bars. You will see that Liszt's alterations are not incorporated.80.144.85.6 (talk) 09:27, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I just saw that at imlsp as well the arrangement by Klauser is available. However, calling tis arrangement an "arrangement by the composer" is not only misleading but seems to be insulting for Liszt. The inscription is "Bearbeitung von Karl Klauser", i.e. "arrangement by Karl Klauser".85.22.22.193 (talk) 09:44, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Klauser versus Stradal 

message: As far as I saw contemporary editions of Les Préludes, it was always called "Symphonische Dichtung Nr. 3" ("Symphonic Poem No. 3"). "No. 3" thus is a part of the original title and should better be kept.85.22.22.122 (talk) 08:24, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I can see why, if for no other reason than that it is the third that he wrote. —  $PЯINGεrαgђ  15:46 27 July, 2008 (UTC)
Wow!  I started this page as a stub back in 2007, and I'm extremely impressed at what it has become.  You've all done a great job.  Slystoneisback (talk)  —Preceding undated comment was added at 04:16, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  "No. 3" or "the third" 

message: The article says that the first melodic arpeggio unfolded in the strings (C-E-G-A) "can be heard as the subdominant of G," and claims that the absence of the pitch F undermines C as the tonic.  I notice that this analysis does not cite a source and I strongly suspect it to be original research, thus should be stricken.  F's absence is irrelevant; one could equally say that the lack of Ds (as the dominant of G) undermines G as a possible tonic.  No credentialed music theorist would analyze this first phrase in G.  76.90.232.8 (talk) 20:44, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Form -- first phrase in G? 

message: Let's! This article is very extensively researched, judging by the 100-odd footnotes.
60.54.27.253 (talk) 16:18, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Good article nomination? 

message: Directed by Liszt himself, [2] In April 1856 the score, and in January 1865 the orchestral parts, were published by Breitkopf & Härtel, Leipzig.  
: How could Liszt have "directed" the publication of the score and the parts?  This sounds more like a reference to the composer conducting the 1st performance, no mention of which event appears at all, an odd omission for such a detailed article.  --  Jack of Oz [your turn] 10:10, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Odd sentence

message: The article is very impressive, but when I read it I had the feeling I was reading someones dissertation rather than an encyclopedic article.Graham1973 (talk) 23:29, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Dissertation?

message: Certainly a recording can be heard. Why, where can I hear it.  Link please. Bcwilmot (talk) 08:23, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Where can I hear it? 

message: I reviewed the whole thing, cutting out swathes of irrelevancies and obscure academic arguments, to address the problem of WP:ESSAY. I corrected as much as possible of the English (seems to have been written by a German speaker). I separated out some material to a new article , Les quatre élémens. I reordered the sections of the article so that they were more or less sequential. I added up to date references. I provided wikilinks to a variety of names and technical terms. I hope that the reader can now get a clear idea of what Les préludes is and how it came to be written.--Smerus (talk) 13:26, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rewrite 

message: I have tried to complete the article, despite my poor English, without taking anything away from what existed (possibly moved from one paragraph to another), and by adding several elements:
A consideration of Bonner's 1986 article, which provides a definitive answer to questions that did not seem 100% defined in the previous version of the wiki article (Wouldn't the very latest revision between the overture of "Les quatre élémens" and "Les preludes" have been a little bit influenced by Lamartine...? As Bonner says: " The answer is emphatically no").
More important, a detailed analysis of the work, which had not yet been proposed and can serve as a listening guide, considering first and foremost the score, and not the countless speculative interpretations, most of which date from a time when the manuscripts found by Bonner were not yet known. Most of the observations are taken from published musicological works and accompanied by the corresponding citations. 
As for the thematic links with the choruses "les quatre élémens", only one parallel has to my knowledge never been brought to light in a published article: the link between the beginning of the chorus "Les Aquilons" and the music of "allegro tempestuoso" mes.131-133. But the accompanying extract from the score speaks for itself, just read the music. (And it would have been surprising if Liszt had not used at least one motif from the chorus "Les Aquilons" in the Overture of "les quatre élémens", while he uses motifs from the 3 other choruses)
As it is naturally not possible to dismiss out of hand the "philosophical" or "literary" interpretations that have accompanied the work for decades, attached to the ambiguous appellation of "symphonic poem", I have brought them together in the paragraph "the first symphonic poem", by comparing several interpretations, each with their arguments. (Although Taruskin is a leading musicologist, his statement that the introduction of "les préludes" represents "The Question" is an interpretation, not an objective analysis of the score as Bonner does. In the previous version of the article, this interpretation was presented as the only reading grid, thus supposed to be a definitive truth. In this version, I simply include this interpretation among others.) 
Finally, I have proposed a discography, with comments in which I have resisted the (strong) temptation to leave personal opinions, and by only paraphrasing extracts from reviews published by journalists or recognized musical personalities. With an exception for 2 recordings which seem to me to be really interesting, even if they are probably not the very first choices, and for which I have not found any published review: I. Fischer, which received an award in France at the time of release, and V. Neuman in concert in 1979, released in the form of a concert-conference followed by a performance of the work. For those who appreciate the Czech Philharmonic, this is knowledgeable)
I'm sorry I had to make so many successive edits to improve the accuracy and clarity of the explanations, without being really fluent in English. (It's a pity there is no "save" function without publishing, it would have allowed to work without polluting the "edit history" so much: perhaps an administrator could suppress most of the intermediate edits).
I'd be happy if other contributors could improve the probably still numerous English mistakes.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Musico73 (talk • contribs) 22:27, 21 August 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Detailed musical analysis 

message: I think talking about the orchestration in Genesis is fine, but only specifically where Liszt got help from. Perhaps a new subsection (e.g. "Instrumentation) would better fit that information. DpMusicman (talk) 05:23, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Move orchestration