Talk:Symphony No. 2 (Mahler)

message: This article uses a number of descriptive terms, particularly for the fifth movement, that it seems to suggest are Mahler's. We need sources for this. Anyone know where it might be from? Heimstern Läufer (talk) 06:40, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sources 

message: I changed the text which said that the organ was instructed to play "with all stops". The actual instruction is "volles Werk" which IIRC means all foundations and the associated usual suspects. All stops OTOH would have been marked "tutti" in the score and would therefore include all the loud reeds which were definitely NOT engaged during the performance I attended last Sunday at the San Francisco Symphony under Michael Tilson Thomas. (And thank goodness for that as reeds would ruin the balance and the sheer power of the bass.) JanBielawski (talk) 18:17, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  The "volles Werk" annotation 

message: I'm afraid I just don't see the value in this section. What makes any of the listed recordings particularly notable? Sure, Bernstein performed this symphony a lot and recorded it more than once, but what makes his recordings any more notable than Abbado's or Klemperer's or Sinopoli's, or anyone's more notable than anyone else's? This is what gets me about any of these "selected discography"-type sections in WP articles: they're pretty much by definition POV. If a listed recording is the first one for a work, or the first to use some new and improved edition, or the only one made by the composer, or something like that, then that's one thing, but otherwise... --Wspencer11 (talk to me...) 17:03, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. This section has become merely a way of editors expressing their personal preferences for some recordings, without necessarily involving any real notability factor. MUSIKVEREIN (talk) 17:11, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. Without cites for notability, not worth keeping the section. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:15, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Notable recordings"? 

message: I was just wondering where "the largest possible contingent of strings" quote has come from, I cannot find it in the score nor in the facsimile of the autograph.  I could easily have missed it when looking - your help is most appreciated!
Chris  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Reeveorama (talk • contribs) 00:08, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  "The largest possible contingent of strings" 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Symphony No. 2 (Mahler). 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 http://web.archive.org/web/20081019023943/http://www.kennedy-center.org:80/calendar/?fuseaction=composition&composition_id=2484 to http://www.kennedy-center.org/calendar/?fuseaction=composition&composition_id=2484
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 03:31, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: It would be at least interesting to have a paragraph discussing how the ideas of this symphony connect with Mahler's reputation as agnostic.David in Cincinnati (talk) 19:57, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Religious Matters 

message: Under form, the article says the exposition is from rehearsal mark 4-15 and I’m thinking that whoever wrote that part of the article inputed a personal analysis because in most analyses of this work, (or at least all the analyses I’ve read), the exposition is from the beginning to rehearsal mark 7. 2600:100E:B00C:31EF:4D76:7A13:AEF2:2B3B (talk) 19:23, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Exposition