Talk:Violin Concerto (Sibelius)

message: Oistrakh and others performed this many times during the 1960s and earlier.  Anja Ignatius herself recorded it in 1952, and 1943.  So this 1991 claim seems completely fabricated, along with the "holders of the copyright" nonsense.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.58.211.224 (talk) 23:25, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
thread_title: largely unknown until 1991?  Rubbish

message: si alguno tiene informacion de analisis musical del 1mer moviemiento del concierto para violin en D menor op 47 de Sibelius, por favor envienme informacion a este correo, nelguevara@yahoo.com muchas gracias. (If anyone has information on the musical analysis of the 1st movement of the Sibelius violin concerto in D minor op 47, please send me information to this email, nelguevara@yahoo.com thank you very much)— Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.182.26.254 (talk) 05:23, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: I would remove the line about Heifetz's considering the concerto among the greatest in the literature - for now anyway, absent some evidence - but he does seem to have given it its recording premiere or at least a very early recording? ("Premiere" is usually hard to prove- I thought the Naxos recording of Paul Creston's first symphony was its premiere; not so, there was a 1950s LP with very, very little distribution, then I think nothing since. To quote Paul Rapoport, "the existence of the work in score might have led to a performance of the work by somebody else" - though recordings may be another matter, legally speaking...) Schissel | Sound the Note! 15:40, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unsourced statements 

message: Sentences like "this is the only full-blown concerto..." might read better using different words and phrasing.  I'm quite sure that Grove's Dictionary or any other doesn't use "full blown" to describe anything. (-:  
Actually, if I'm not mistaken, this is the only concerto Sibelius wrote.  It's well known he wanted to be a violinist and so took very seriously this his first major -- can I say major? -- work for solo instrument and orchestra.
So maybe, perhaps, that particular sentence would have better read:  "This is his only major work for solo instrument and orchestra."
Still there were other sentences that need, IMHO, to be tweaked a bit.
Anyway, this is one of the most important violin concertos in the modern repertoir and I think there should be a bit more detail here.
It's also one of my most favorites so I guess I can say I'm a bit biased. (-: — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.133.204.146 (talk) 23:00, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The term is used to distinguish it from several - significant, but nowhere on the level of this concerto - Humoresques and other works he wrote throughout his life for violin and orchestra. And this is one of the great 20th century works for violin and orchestra in my opinion, but that's POV, doesn't belong in the article (what do, is statements that are objective and from which the reader could draw that conclusion on their own), and - I'd say; my opinion - not the only work to reach such a level (several works - many of them written all in 1935, interestingly... - compete very closely at least.) Schissel | Sound the Note! 15:04, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well "full blown" really sounds like slang to me.  But if you feel it reads better the way it was before then change it back. (-: — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eurlim (talk • contribs) 16:42, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Needs a bit of polish 

message: Would it be appropriate to list the most famous recordings of this piece?  For example Pekka Kuusisto and Gil Shaham and the other famous ones. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eurlim (talk • contribs) 16:47, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Other articles on the site do so- I'd say yes, offhand. (Since you mention above, I think? I don't recall whether the last time I looked at the New Grove's it  looked like it followed a standard of objective lack of POV much like ours, or not. Oxford Concise Dictionary very, very definitely does not, but there may be differences between the projects that account for that.) Schissel | Sound the Note! 08:17, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Major Recordings? 

message: Does anybody know what story this piece is supposed to tell, or what it depicts?  I think this should be mentioned in the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.0.240.199 (talk) 04:13, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: For the end of the first movement, I always sort of saw a man in a hangglider, soaring over the sea during a thunderstorm at night.  I have no idea if this is the official depiction or not, but it's got merit.  71.0.241.46 05:41, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Story / Depictions 

message: 1 link removed - Footage was B/W film of a performance of the piece - No indication as to the date of the footage. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sfan00 IMG (talk • contribs) 
:I've seen the video; it's a perfectly fine performance. I won't put it back (yet), but can you give a good reason why you removed it? —  $PЯINGεrαgђ  01:07, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Because the footage was undated, it wasn't possible to determine if the (C) on the film had expired.  It's generally considered bad form to link to copyvios from Wikipedia. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 01:51, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I know that; but OK, if the copyright is elusive. —  $PЯINGεrαgђ  05:18, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  You Tube link removal. 

message: Violin Concerto (Sibelius - Original Version) is an orphaned and poorly formatted stub about the conterto's first version. It should better be merged into the history of the concerto in this article. --FordPrefect42 (talk) 22:15, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree 1000%.  MERGE.  --  Jack of Oz  ... speak! ...  11:56, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds a v sensible idea. Alfietucker (talk) 19:13, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, I've gone ahead and merged them.  -- Jack of Oz  ... speak! ...  09:44, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merger proposal 

message: I deleted the entire recordings section. In my almost ten years of contributing to Wikipedia I am quite sick to death of idiots editing on this website who don't understand the most basic rule that all lists of recordings, publications, and the like must be placed in chronological order. You should never be contributing to any encyclopedia article of any kind if you haven't fully grasped that concept. Please re-install it, certainly, but do in correct order or don't do it all. This is not debatable. I am very exasperated. PJtP (talk) 02:57, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Recordings section deleted

message: In light of the new sub-section regarding the 1904 version that I just entered:
* It must first be commented that the assertion that Vengerov's November 2015 performance with the QSO is "only the third public performance" is incorrect.  Rather, the Vengerov/QSO performance is the fourth public performance.  (Thus Andrew Barnett will need to update his biography of Sibelius.)
* Thus, by default and working from the new list, the Vähälä/FRSO/Lintu performance truly is the third public performance.
* I also just realised that I need to correct the Kavakos text in the prior paragraph for internal consistency; apologies there.  However, this does raise an issue about the Manfred Grahbeck attribution of the live performance.  Whilst I have no reason to doubt the article from the Minnesota Orchestra article, that article is the only on-line attribution that I can track down for that particular September 1990 concert.
DJRafe (talk) 20:54, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comments on new sub-section about 1904 version