Talk:Pines of Rome

message: It is almost always known in the anglosphere as "The Pines of Rome", or sometimes just "Pines of Rome".  The definite article does not appear in the original Italian, but that does not put this in the same category as Pagliacci (correct) vs. I Pagliacci (wrong).  The Italian title is definitely just "Pini di Roma", but the English title can be whatever English-speaking people generally and naturally call it, which I believe is "The Pines of Rome".  
The English title does seem a little out of place when this work is mentioned alongside the other members of the so-called Roman Trilogy, Fontane di Roma and Feste Romane.   But I'd argue the second one is better known as The Fountains of Rome anyway.  The 3rd one is relatively little known.
Thoughts?  --  Jack of Oz  ... speak! ...  22:14, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Not sure the title of article should be changed. AnonMoos (talk) 06:40, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Looking at the English translation of the four section titles, I would say: if the original Italian title does not contain the definite article I, neither should the English title contain the definite article The (remark: despite my user name I do not speak Italian, neither am I a native speaker of English, so this suggestion is based solely on derivative logic). --Francesco Malipiero (talk) 14:47, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

text: Wikipedia:Naming conventions (use English) clearly states that "The title of an article should generally use the version of the name of the subject which is most common in the English language". That means it should definitely be changed, and it sounds that Pines of Rome is the best. StAnselm (talk) 04:33, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed on all points. Pines of Rome avoids having to created kludges around a title beginning with the definite article. Fountains is also widely known by the English title, but it is ironic that Feste is generally referred to in English sources by the Italian title. I just received an email announcement of a new CD release of "The Roman Triology" on the Bis label, and the three titles are given as Fountains of Rome, Pines of Rome, and Feste romane. Heaven help us when we discover a compositional trilogy known in English for only one component, when the others have titles in, say, Greek and Arabic.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 19:06, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, I've gone ahead and moved the page. StAnselm (talk) 22:44, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Belated thanks.  --  Jack of Oz [your turn] 01:56, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: English title?

message: This section strikes me as being almost completely unnecessary. Fragments get used somewhere, so-and-so was influenced by this or that passage, etc. etc. What's the value in any of this? One could just as easily say that the Prelude to the Afternoon of a Faun was "modeled" on the Grosse Fuge because they both begin without a strong sense of a key center. Am I a voice crying in the wilderness on this or can we cut the section? --Wspencer11 (talk to me...) 16:53, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Fantasia 2000 use is very notable... AnonMoos (talk) 17:25, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll take your word since I haven't seen it, but the rest? --Wspencer11 (talk to me...) 22:14, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it's almost valueless, with the possible exception of Fantasia 2000. You could do this with so many classical works, and in each case end up with a massive list of everything from the EU Anthem to toothpaste adverts via every film ever. Yes, maybe an outstanding example such as Fantasia 2000 should be mentioned here, but the others, if they are notable uses at all, should be mentioned at their own articles and merely linked here, not listed and importance-argued here. If it's felt to be crucial to collect all examples together then someone should either start a separate list, or make a category of "works quoting or influenced by R's P of R" (or, like, whatever) but here, as it's going on at the moment, it's potentially just a recipe for a mess. Best wishes DBaK (talk) 08:05, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Comment: I've raised this at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Classical music#Classical work articles listing every usage and influence in the hope that it's an FAQ and there's a policy, or that someone there will offer guidance on a good way forward. DBaK (talk) 08:18, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

text: Compare, for example, this article with Symphony No. 5 (Beethoven) which has a couple of simple sentences on its influence, and is in the Fantasia 2000 category (as is this article) but does not even mention it in the text. And that's pretty much it. I think that's a more appropriate and restrained response to a potentially much larger problem, though here I could still live with with a separate list or something if people felt it was very important to keep this information. Best wishes DBaK (talk) 08:28, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Uses in film and elsewhere... 

message: ===Nightingale recording===
This might seem either obvious, or trollish, but in "Instrumentation" there's no mention of the nightingale recording/bird whistle.  Seems like that could be mentioned; for the original performance, at least, it was a recording, I believe ... Renaissongsman (talk) 20:56, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: The instrumentation list includes "one gramophone", which provides the nightingale recording. Nowadays, of course, it's usually a digital recording. --Deskford (talk) 21:11, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Instrumentation

message: This might seem either obvious, or trollish, but in "Instrumentation" there's no mention of the nightingale recording/bird whistle.  Seems like that could be mentioned; for the original performance, at least, it was a recording, I believe ... Renaissongsman (talk) 20:56, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: The instrumentation list includes "one gramophone", which provides the nightingale recording. Nowadays, of course, it's usually a digital recording. --Deskford (talk) 21:11, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Nightingale recording

message: Respighi explicitly scored both Pini di Roma and Belkis, Queen of Sheba for contrabass trombone, not for tuba. This information existed formerly on a now sadly defunct Respighi website (http://www.ottorinorespighi.it/catalogo_db.php?gruppo=1), which listed the following:
P 141 1924	Pini di Roma. Poema sinfonico (M.p.O. – 20’).
1.I pini di villa Borghese - 2. I pini presso una catacomba - 3. I pini del Gianicolo - 4. I pini della Via Appia.
organico strumentale: ottavino (anche III flauto), 3 flauti, 2 oboi, corno inglese, 2 clarinetti in si bm./la, 2 fagotti, controfagotto, 4 corni, 3 trombe, 4 tromboni, timpani, triangolo, 2 piatti piccoli, tamburino basco, raganella, piatti, grancassa, tam-tam, arpa, campanelli, celesta, grammofono, pianoforte, organo, tromba interna, 6 buccine: 2 flicorni soprani in si bem., 2 flicorni tenori in si bem., 2 flicorni bassi in si bem., archi.
organico vocale:
manoscritto: partitura d’orchestra, giugno 1924, p. 58, cm 47 x 33. Ricordi R.IV.10.
prima esecuzione: Roma, Augusteo, 14 dicembre 1924. Direttore: Bernardino Molinari.
edizione a stampa: partitura d’orchestra, Milano - Ricordi, 119776, 1925, p. 67, cm 32 x 24. Parti staccate, Milano - Ricordi, 119877-119882, 1925, p. varie, cm 32 x 24. Partiturina, Milano - Ricordi, 119777 (P.R. 439), p. 67, cm 20 x 13. Mc 16-16.
Clifford Bevan also goes to some lengths to correctly define the buccine and the constitution of the low brass in The Tuba Family (2nd edition, Piccolo Press, 2000). See p. 419 of a detailed discussion of Respighi's instrumentation and the use of a 4-part trombone section with contrabass trombone instead of tuba to contrast with the conical buccine group.
--Esolomon (talk) 10:30, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
thread_title: Contrabass trombone