lflage/wiki-talks huggingface dataset:
Talk:Symphony No. 39 (Michael Haydn)

message: For some reason I thought the article about Mozart's Jupiter Symphony didn't have any musical examples, but it turns out it does have an example of the Finale's fugato, though as just four whole notes. I made the one below as well as examples from the first and third movements of this Haydn Symphony. Del arte 00:52, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Those are nice musical examples, thank you. Jindřichův Smith 21:50, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

message: The metronome marks on the excerpts are not from the composers and have nothing proper to do with the compositions.  It is misleading to use excerpts showing them, especially since two share the (bizarre) suggested tempo of half=145, which could lead some to conclude that the pieces were "written in the same tempo" -- which obviously is nonsense.  134.173.80.18 (talk) 22:39, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Metronome marks on excerpts 

message: Do we already have an article for Verlag Doblinger? Anton Mravcek (talk) 00:50, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article for Doblinger? 

message: Finale fugato -- this does have the usual meaning here of a movement containing fugal sections, not a movement that is a fugue, yes? (I suppose it may depend on what counts as an "episode"...) I don't have the score here to check (though I will see if my university library does). Thanks. Schissel | Sound the Note! 13:36, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fugato
Talk:Symphony No. 41 (Michael Haydn)

message: hi. from France. 
According to the french musicologist Marc Vignal, charles Sherman asserts that Michael Haydn has composed 43 symphonies not 41 and numbered in his catalog 1 to 43. So i'm surprised that in en:wiki 
it ends at 41 and no 43. Where are symphonies No. 42 and 43 ? moreover Marc Vignal says that Sherman omitted a symphony composed by M.Haydn with the date: 1760 november 20, with Partita written on autograph Number 1 in Perger (P.1) catalog. Thanks for your notes and analysis.Littlejazzman (talk) 13:15, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
Talk:Symphony in E-flat (Tchaikovsky)

message: "The reason Tchaikovsky had given up on the symphony was that the music be found it impersonal"
I THINK I know what's being said here, but I'm not 100% positive. Not sure enough to try to re-word it without other input, at least. Smyslov (talk) 15:11, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Confusing Wording 

message: Should be Symphony in E-flat (Tchaikovsky), to conform to WP style.  --  Jack of Oz [your turn] 19:58, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Title

message: The three movement piano concerto consists NOT of vague sketches for the Andante and Finale:
The Tchaikovsky Archive in Klin holds the composer's complete particello of all three movements, finished 10 July 1893;
the Glinka Museum in Moscow has Tchaikovsky´s own full score of the first movement, finished 4 October 1893.
It was Tanejev's decision to publish the material separately as op. 75 and op. 79, because he was personally not convinced about the quality of Andante and Rondo. He made the orchestration of the latter from Tchaikovsky's full particello only on the instigation of Modest Tchaikovsky, who was irritated, that Jurgenson had published the first movement alone as "the 3rd piano concerto",since he knew better. So reluctantly, and with not much passion, Tanejev performed this duty - however, he published Andante and Rondo at Belaieff's, and not Jurgenson, and added a different opus number. His strategy works to this day, as you can see from this uninformed article.
Andrej Hoteev has recorded the whole piece after studying the manuscripts and eliminating Tanejev's own and wrong metronome markings.
back in 1998 (with the Tchaikovsky Symphony Orchestra unter Vladimir Fedoseyev, originally for Koch/Schwann, 3 CD 3-6489-2)
Check perhaps also the article on the third Piano Concerto in the german wikipedia:
https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/3._Klavierkonzert_(Tschaikowski)
Wiki-writers, scholars: PLEASE DO YOUR HOMEWORK FIRST!!!
Dr. Benjamin-Gunnar Cohrs, Bremen, 9 Feb 2018, 9:16 MEZ  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.247.255.16 (talk) 08:15, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Intended Form 

message: Is the "Symphony Orchestra of Russia" named in the Sydney Morning Herald Article and linked here another name/translation for some orchestra already in :Category:Russian symphony orchestras or a different orchestra entirely? ELSchissel (talk) 16:54, 22 April 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Premiere of Klimov reconstruction 

message: I believe it should be mentioned, in the title and in the text, that the symphony is sometime referred to as "No. 7".
People may and do search it by this number -- I did -- and fail to find it directly. 93.172.30.111 (talk) 15:39, 3 June 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  "No. 7"
Talk:A London Symphony

message: Yes - wondered about rolling the formal tempo directions and the descriptions together. Glad to have my opinion backed by a competent authority. Tim riley (talk) 18:48, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Structure 

message: The timings of recordings can be somewhat misleading. The first almost complete recording of VW2 under Sir Henry Wood (he made a small and pointless cut of a few bars at one point lasting just a few seconds) is taken very fast throughout, presumably so that the work could be accommodated on a given number of 78rpm sides. However, the first stereo LP under Barbirolli in 1959 lasted around 10 minutes longer at 46'50", simply because he took everything at a far more moderate pace. Compare his overall timing with that of Goossens, also recorded on 78rpm discs. Goossens used the 1920 edition of the score (one of only two recordings to do so) which contained substantial extra music in the 2nd and 4th movements. Despite this, the whole work lasted 40 minutes (on a Biddulph CD) again because Goossens was much speedier in his tempos in 1941 than Barbirolli was in 1959. Philipson55 (talk) 23:55, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for this.  I've now managed to listen to the 1926 Godfrey version and have made an amendment to the article based on what you've said.  One thing I can't confirm is the strong suspicion that RVW sanctioned the cut in the Epilogue - after all, he cut the passage himself later.Willowmusic (talk) 02:21, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recordings 

message: I have added a short passage about how the score came to be lost after the first performance. (There was something before, but it was removed in some generally good cleaning up.) I think it's important to explain the circumstances of the loss - after all, it's a very unusual occurrence.  I have referenced it to Michael Kennedy, but there are many more possible sources.Willowmusic (talk) 10:24, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lost score 

message: And now I see that Hyperion Records plans to release the first post-WW2 recording of the 1920 score; between that, Hickox's recording of the first version, and recordings of the 1933 edition there should be some standards of comparison though preferably there should, it's this writer's opinion, be more of each. Schissel | Sound the Note! 23:15, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  1920 publication
Talk:Matamoros, Coahuila

message: The Matamoros involved in the Battle of Matamoros is Matamoros, Tamaulipas.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.110.171.75 (talk) 01:31, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: [Untitled]
Talk:Pastoral Symphony (Vaughan Williams)

message: I am aware that there has been some discussion on whether the composer's name should be in the article title. I was going to say that I think it would be preferable, even if no ambiguity arises, since the distinction between "Pastoral Symphony" and "A Pastoral Symphony" is pretty slight, and may confuse the non-specialist. Then I discovered that there is, in fact, another piece called A Pastoral Symphony, in four movements for brass band by Robert Redhead. I would propose that (Vaughan Williams) be added to all the article titles. Myopic Bookworm 16:32, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Disambiguation 

message: The scoring for the final movement provides for Soprano or Tenor Solo. In his BBC Symphony Orchestra 'Proms' performance of 21 July 1998, Andrew Davis opted for the alternative by engaging Paul Agnew to sing the wordless part normally taken by a soprano. This same solo is also cued into the clarinet parts and is "to be played by 1st Clarinet, when there is no vocal Soloist." This scheme was adopted by Andre Previn when he was Principal Conductor of the London Symphony Orchestra. Although in 1971 he had made a commercial recording for RCA with Heather Harper as soloist, for a subsequent concert at the Royal Festival Hall, the finale's solo was played by the LSO's principal clarinet, Jack Brymer. Philipson55 (talk) 19:12, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Alternative scoring
Talk:Symphony No. 8 (Vaughan Williams)

message: I wouldn't call some of this symphony "light-hearted". It has moments of real reflection and foreboding mystery.
The British Pye LP of the late 1950s (essentially a celebration of the Halle premiere under Barbirolli) reproduced the composer's programme note, which is the source for the majority of the "citations needed" points in the article, including the "'phones and spiels".  I don't have it just now, but memory suggests it doesn't include a reference to the "passion chorale" being used in the third movement.   But this should be easy enough to check.  Interestingly, V-W did, in fact, conduct the Halle orchestra and choir in Manchester in the St Matthew Passion (his own performing version as per the Leith Hill festival) a year or two before the premiere, so it's not impossible that that he did include it as a personal reference.   I'm not sure about the comparison of the second movement scoring to a "British military band" - not least because it doesn't employ percussion.Delahays (talk) 14:50, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

message: Some of the sources listed in the "Further reading" section do not directly involve the Eighth Symphony. This would seem to go against Wikipedia's guidelines for such sections. See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Further_readingRMR1108 (talk) 21:45, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Some? There's only one, Kennedy's Barbirolli biography, which seems not totally unrelated. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 00:41, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

text: I think the guidelines say that the sources listed for further reading should be primarily about the subject in question, unless I'm interpreting that wrong. Otherwise these sections can become too diffuse and unwieldy.RMR1108 (talk) 16:07, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

text: Actually, I was looking at the wrong heading. Largely disregard what I said above. Still, that Kennedy source in the further reading section lacks context. Does it address the Eighth Symphony specifically? If so, I think it needs page numbers to be justly included there. RMR1108 (talk) 16:14, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
thread_title: Further reading
Talk:Symphony No. 7 (Prokofiev)

message: It is reported that, on his deathbed, Prokofiev indicated that the original quiet ending was to be preferred. - could you add sources? --A4 18:54, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

message: In the description of recordings, someone added "Recordings using the original slow ending are marked by an asterisk." but there are no asterisks in the list.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by DiscoStu1987 (talk • contribs) 15:12, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps none of the recordings in the list use this ending?—Jerome Kohl (talk) 20:58, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: If you look at the edit history, someone removed them all in December 2016, without explanation. They appear to have been doing various formatting and deleted the asterisks in the process. Is it worth putting them back? Orfeocookie (talk) 11:20, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, probably. It seems worthwhile knowing which recordings are of which version. Please feel free to restore them.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 16:16, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Where are the asterisks?
Talk:Symphony No. 3 (Rachmaninoff)

message: Currently the introductory section says that what was groundbreaking was its "its greater economy of utterance compared to its two predecessors". Can someone that knows what this means perhaps rephrase it?  I like to think I know quite a lot about music, but I don't know what the editor here was trying to say.
Thanks! Northtowner (talk) 13:05, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: I literally came to the talk page for the exact same reason. "What was groundbreaking in this symphony was its greater economy of utterance compared to its two predecessors." doesn't make sense, in my opinion it should be removed. Thanks - RandomEditorAAA (talk) 03:59, 4 September 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Some clarification, please?
Talk:Carmen Fantasy (Sarasate)

message: 1883 seems unlikely as a composition date - maybe it's the year the orchestral version was written and published, but not the year the fantasy was composed. Choudens published the violin/piano version of the work in or by 1882, and this was announced as received by Hofmeisters Monatsbericht late that year - see link. Schissel | Sound the Note! 19:48, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Composition Date

message: Article badly needs sourcing! HammerFilmFan (talk) 12:41, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: No references, some POV
Talk:Offertorium

message: "the theme is rebuilt, note by note, from the middle note, until it resembles a Russian Orthodox hymn"--this is just not true. The theme is not rebuilt from the middle note. The Russian Orthodox hymn is not created from the original theme; it is completely separate. Quelqu'un (talk) 21:44, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: This looks like a misreading from Kurtz's biography - which states that the Musical Offering theme is rebuilt in retrograde "one note at a time in the bass line of the harp and piano" (p.150). He doesn't say anything about where the hymn-like main melody comes from (and I neither own a score nor know enough about Russian Orthodox hymn tunes), but it's clear just from listening to its interval character and general melodic contour that it has nothing to do with the Musical Offering theme. I've made a change to the text to reflect this. 86.148.70.18 (talk) 21:10, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: :The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The result of the move request was: moved. Unopposed proposal, moving per WP:RMNOMIN. (closed by non-admin page mover)  ModernDayTrilobite (talk • contribs) 14:45, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requested move 29 August 2023
Talk:Violin Concerto (Korngold)

message: The phrase "most enthusiastic ovation in...history" sounds like an opinion to me. Ought it be changed? --Hkobb7 (talk) 23:45, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: It ought not be changed just because it is or is believed to be an opinion.  Opinions are fine if they can be verified. If the source is not considered reliable, then we need to locate one.  --  Jack of Oz [your turn] 08:58, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  St. Louis Premiere 

message: This says Huberman unintentionally insulted Korngold by laying the score aside and not being immediately enthusiastic about it, which is why the premiere was then given to Heifetz.
This says that scheduling difficulties were the problem.
So what’s the true story?  Did Huberman ever play it at all?  --  Jack of Oz [your turn] 19:45, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: According to Michael Steinberg, Huberman never performed the concerto.  TheScotch (talk) 15:58, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
thread_title: Huberman: the real story?

message: Re: “Working in the lush, lyrical idiom reminiscent of ‘fin de siècle‘ Vienna, Korngold wrote the violin concerto for unusually large instrumental forces (within the concerto idiom).”
The instrumentation the article goes on to describe—-double woodwinds, four horns, two trumpets, one trombone, strings—sounds to me fairly modest, except maybe for the variety of percussion instruments involved. Neither am I aware that concertos typically involve fewer instruments than other orchestral works. What is the source for this remarkable statement? If its author means only that the variety of percussion instruments employed is unusually large, he needs specifically to say so. Otherwise we’re left with the impression that he has no idea what he’s talking about, and the entire article becomes less than credible. TheScotch (talk) 15:58, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: I removed the offending passage, although I was tempted to leave it in place, as a warning to Wikipedia readers. Almost everything in this article when I came to it that hadn’t been more or less directly lifted from Michael Steinberg was bovine fecal matter, and that is typical of Wikipedia articles in general. In the end I decided it more important to set the record straight. Clearly warnings about the Internet’s virulent amplification of misinformation are little heeded anyway. I also removed the “lush fin de siecle” bit on the ground that it is unsourced. It may be more or less true—the concerto seems to me to be very much in a late Romantic vein, although I don’t know that Vienna has anything specifically to do with it—but it strikes me as pompously worded, and in any case it’s obviously just someone’s opinion.TheScotch (talk) 16:30, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Large forces?
Talk:Cello Concerto No. 2 (Boccherini)

message: I believe it is Concerto no.6, not no.2 ? Dilbert (talk) 16:16, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: This concerto, G. 479, is known as Boccherini's second concerto because it was the second to be publisehd in his lifetime. However, as the Gerard catalogue suggests, this is actually the sixth concerto, so you're right. It should be mentioned in the article, in my opinion. AdamChapman (talk) 12:17, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: So near as I can tell, this wasn't published at all until 1946 (edit: , Caruana/Lupi edition...), so "second to be published in his lifetime" is a dubious claim. That said, more information about such nittygritty as that in the article would have been more useful, as against what's actually there now which is wholly useless. ELSchissel (talk) 01:58, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: IMSLP says it's the second concerto. https://imslp.org/wiki/List_of_works_by_Luigi_Boccherini Go to the "Cello Concertos" section. Baccherini (talk) 18:18, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

text: I'm an editor and administrator there, but there as much as here (unfortunately IMSLP could use a reference template of some kind, but...) it's not meant to be used as an ultimate citation. Musiqueorguequebec.ca does give concerto no.2, actually, though no other reason besides Gérard is given for calling it this. (This may have to suffice for this time being, but a better reason should be sought.) ELSchissel (talk) 18:20, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
thread_title: Comment

message: There is a lot of opinion and next to no information here. This reads, in fact, like it was written in order to be used as program notes... ELSchissel (talk) 01:40, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Quality of article
Talk:Violin Sonata No. 1 (Beethoven)

message: Why is this Violin Sonata? More accurately it should be Violin & Piano Sonata. To me, "Violin Sonata" means just the Violin, no Piano Stephen Howe (talk) 15:29, 24 February 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: While this may be confusing to the first-time reader, this is standard terminology, see violin sonata. Just like piano quartet does not usually imply four pianos, but a piano accompanied by a string trio. intforce (talk) 17:53, 24 February 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Subject Title
Talk:Violin Sonata No. 7 (Beethoven)

message: Where do I begin... 1. "ternary form" is not a synonym for sonata-form. Minuets, for example, are often ternary forms but are not sonata forms.  To use Thorpe-Davie's technology (in my opinion he makes a good case with existing works and they make a good case for it) a sonata-form is an open ternary form- a ternary form in which the first section ends (fairly firmly) in another key, rather than staying mostly in the same key throughout (even if it takes a quick phrase-turn to the dominant chord at the end. The drama created - or that should be created- with the help of the opposition of the one or more theme-groups is important here.) 2. The importance of the development section - as shown in, for instance, the sheer number of works by composers who knew what they were doing and who didn't really care if they quoted themes from the exposition or "put them through their paces"- is in getting from the key in which the first ("exposition", if one must...) section ended (or mostly ended, if there was a transition, of course...) back to the main key of the work- often but not always dramatically (and in this connection quoting and contrasting and transforming earlier themes, fugues, etc. etc. etc. are means, not the end.) This is debatable, of course... still, using terminology and assumptions (and based on assumptions) for which the exceptions (even by exceptionally good composers) are so numerous as to be the rules should I think be avoided generally... Schissel | Sound the Note! 20:33, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Center paragraph
Talk:Peter Hayes (Australian lawyer)

message: I suggest replacing the "current event" template with a "recently deceased" one, but I don't know how. YechielMan 08:00, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

message: Clearly, only one article is needed about this person. I favour the version without "Australian" in the title - there are not that many Peter Hayes that we need to be so specific (and wordy) in the title. WWGB 23:30, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed merge
Talk:Flight square

message: I have adopted this article and will be done on 6/8/07. W1k13rh3nry 03:30, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Adoption

message: Have never heard "flight square" or "escape square" used in any context other than w/ king. The Oxford Companion says "a square to which a king could be moved [...]" and mentions no other piece. For pieces other than king, the term is "retreat square". --IHTS (talk) 03:07, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Wrong application

message: I merged the Luft page here because it was basically the same; it just had to do with pawns. Hope this is an improvement. The Council of Seraphim | speak before the Council 16:45, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merged Luft here 

message: In the second paragraph under examples: “ winning the checkmate-threatening h4 rook after White reacts.”
Couldn’t the rook move to f4 to block the check, evading capture? Am I missing something? 2600:387:C:6D13:0:0:0:C (talk) 21:01, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Error in Examples