Talk:Symphony No. 2 (Shostakovich)

message: I recall hearing from someone that the technique used in the opening of the first movement (the complex in the strings) referred to as hyper- or ultra-proliferation. Is this a valid name for a technique or just a personal description of what occurs?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.42.65.71 (talk) 06:28, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Opening

message: Symphony No. 2 is written in B Major and not B flat major
:Do you have a source for that?  Every thing I find for the symphony says B flat. (allmusic.com, recordings at amazaon, etc) DavidRF 06:24, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I just listened to the symphony and while most of it is atonal and it does switch keys a lot, it does conclude in the key of B major, so I guess that makes sense. --128.120.169.147 (talk) 03:14, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: The only deciding factor is how it is officially designed by the composer in the score. If he calls it "in B major", then it is B major, even if it concludes in G sharp minor. (Many symphonies designated in minor conclude in major, for example) I don't have the score right here, but on my recording (Haitink/London Philharmonic) it says "Symphony No. 2 in B major". -- megA (talk) 18:26, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

text: But  does the composer call it any such thing? Do we have any source for this? The first publication of 1927 has no key at all in the title. Not sure of the score of the revision, though I can look it up... Schissel | Sound the Note! 17:29, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Interesting. Today an IP editor added "B flat major", which I changed to "B major". Looking at a few sources I have to hand, Oxford Dictionary of Music (1994 edition) gives B major, as do CD notes for recordings by Jansons, Rostropovich and Haitink. Hugh Ottaway's BBC Music Guide on the Shostakovich symphonies however gives no key for No. 2 (or No. 3). --Deskford (talk) 22:52, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Harmony

message: I just went through the article. There was a sentence I couldn't quite understand:
:Now known as Shostakovich's Second Symphony, it was christened a "symphony" considerably later.
I think that it needs to be clarified or rewritten.
--Atavi (talk) 06:52, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, yes. It was first called a symphonic poem? ("simfonicheskoe posviashchenie") in its first publication of 1927: see . Does anyone have evidence from Shostakovich's letters or something else that would reflect his point of view on the matter at the time, etc. that he considered it a symphony even as early as this date?  Schissel | Sound the Note! 17:26, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Sentence I can't understand

message: Requesting consensus to move section to Symphony No. 2 (Shostakovich) discography. See also discussion on Talk:Symphony No. 1 (Shostakovich). Centaur81 (talk) 09:16, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Requesting consensus to move 'Notable Recordings' to new section 

message: I've sorted about the books for Solomon (2004) (Shostakovich and Stalin: The Extraordinary Relationship Between the Great Composer and the Brutal Dictator), Shostakovich-Bobykina (2000) (Dmitriǐ Shostakovich : v pisʹmakh i dokumentakh), Glinka (1990) Shostakovich-Glikman (1993) (Pisʹma k drugu). They are now in the References section. But, I was not able to find the book by MacDonald. Any help? –pjoef (talk • contribs) 14:21, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Never mind! I found it. . I hope I used the correct edition. Now I'm going to replace all the occurences of the REF tag with  (shortened footnote template; see: Wikipedia:Citing sources#Shortened_footnotes), to automatically combine identical footnotes and create links to the full sources in the References section of the article. –pjoef (talk • contribs) 10:21, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  MacDonald (in Notes 
but not
 AND in References) 

message: An image used in this article, , has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Copyright violations 
;What should I do?
Don't panic; deletions can take a little longer at Commons than they do on Wikipedia. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion (although please review Commons guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page.
* If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
* If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.
* If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Commons Undeletion Request
This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 16:34, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: File:Tov lenin ochishchaet.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

message: I know of at least the following publications of the symphony- 1927 (as symphonic poem, does not use "symphony" in title); 1960 (Belwin Mills reprint of 1927); 1975 (title uses Symphony for first time); 1987 (as part of complete edition, I think); 2001/repr? 2004 (published by Moskva : Izd-vo "DSCH"). None have keys in the titles, I think, though they may in inside pages? Schissel | Sound the Note! 17:36, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Publications