Talk:Turangalîla-Symphonie

message: I restored the  tag, because although I have provided citations for a few facts, there remain other unsourced statements: that Loriod played OM in many performances, the "amoresong" quote, and the movement analyses. Or should I just put a few  tags in? David Brooks 02:14, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Whoops, didn't notice those.  Personally I think specific  or  tags are a little more useful for future editors.  I added one but I may have missed spots.  —Turangalila (talk) 03:26, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Uncited claims 

message: I think there are only two unreferenced claims: Koussevitsky's illness, which I can't find mentioned anywhere else, and the "It's a love song" quote. However, there remain the subjective descriptions of some of the movements which I have also not seen elsewhere; perhaps someone can get around to those later. David Brooks 18:01, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I got around to them, in line with Wikiproject guidelines. The subjective elements that remain all quote (or slightly paraphrase) Messiaen's notes for the 1991 recording noted in the references. Of course, the guidelines allow for other commentators' subjective descriptions so long as they are sourced and contain "according to" language. Our performance is just two days away! David Brooks 19:52, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unreferenced tag removed 

message: "The work was revised in 1990". Presumably by Messiaen (I don't know) and if so, wouldn't it be better to make the sentence active "Messiaen revised the work in 1990". Redlentil (talk) 20:12, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Good points. David Brooks (talk) 01:58, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Revised in 1990 

message: In the first example, which I uploaded in 2007, I acknowledge that it doesn't actually replicate the 1990 score. The third trombone's third note is actually an octave higher, D3, unison with the first trombone, which looks a little odd visually in the score. When my orchestra played it, we substituted the D2 here and in a later repeat; there's also a sustained C3 somewhere that we "restored" to a C2. Sorry about that; after ten years I just noticed what I had done. If there's a clamor, I'll try to resurrect the original and fix it.
I have nothing to back this up, but I believe it was normal in the early part of the century for French orchestras to employ three tenor trombones, whose range ends at E2 unless they have a "plug" (most do these days). Most orchestras also employ a genuine bass trombone. Messiaen was happy to write the 3rd part down to the E, which makes me even more certain that he was intentionally staying in the tenor range. However, it's possible that his ear was so precise that he didn't want the sound of the low D and C in these chords. I don't know if there's any definitive explanation out there. David Brooks (talk) 22:15, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I just remembered where I got the D2 from. See the footnote. Also, the instrumentation list in the score itself says just "3 trombones", which even more strongly suggests he wanted a matched tenor trio. This has been bugging me for almost ten years, I guess! David Brooks (talk) 20:35, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bass trombone interpretation