| Revision as of 05:52, 7 March 2008 editHeimstern (talk | contribs)Administrators16,883 edits →Merge proposal: strong oppose← Previous edit | Revision as of 05:57, 7 March 2008 edit undoEusebeus (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers10,667 edits →Merge proposal: comment - oppose mergeNext edit → | ||
| Line 40: | Line 40: | ||
| I've also suggested that symphonies 82 through 87 be merged into ] and symphonies 93 through 104 be merged into ]. I've started discussions on ] and ], although it may be better to have those discussions here as well. --] (]) 05:16, 7 March 2008 (UTC) | I've also suggested that symphonies 82 through 87 be merged into ] and symphonies 93 through 104 be merged into ]. I've started discussions on ] and ], although it may be better to have those discussions here as well. --] (]) 05:16, 7 March 2008 (UTC) | ||
| :'''Strong oppose'''. First, nothing in ] really applies to classical music (the only part on musical works talks about "albums" etc. and thus clearly speaks of popular music. Each symphony of Haydn is clearly notable and should not be merged. ] ] 05:52, 7 March 2008 (UTC) | :'''Strong oppose'''. First, nothing in ] really applies to classical music (the only part on musical works talks about "albums" etc. and thus clearly speaks of popular music. Each symphony of Haydn is clearly notable and should not be merged. ] ] 05:52, 7 March 2008 (UTC) | ||
| :'''Obvious Oppose and Slap'''. I suspect this this is an ] by a churlish editor who is upset because television fancruft is being cleaned up. He therefore wishes to make a point about what he sees as fancruft of a rather more Hochkultur variety. As a result, I doubt this merge proposal need be taken too seriously, but I think Pixie should be taken to AN/I for mass disruption. For the record, he has apparently not targeted other individual works (e.g. Mozart or Schubert Symphonies or Piano sonatas, etc...), so this may be a targeted campaign against certain editors (pronominally perpendicular in this case, yes) with whom he has a disagreement. ] (]) 05:57, 7 March 2008 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 05:57, 7 March 2008
 | Classical music | |||
| ||||
How about adding Toy Symphony?
- The Toy Symphony is now thought to not be by Haydn after all, though it was, and sometimes still is, attributed to him. Leopold Mozart is often put forwad as the possible composer, but I don't know if there's any certainty about that. Maybe it's worth mentioning this, maybe not. I won't add mention of it myself, but if somebody else feels a quick note is appropriate, I won't argue. --Camembert
My understanding is that very few scholars and musicians believe the Toy Symphony to be by Haydn anymore. I'm also pretty sure that the term "Toy Symphony" is actually a misnomer; if I remember correctly, it's actually a cassation. These two facts lead me to believe it does not belong on this list. I am, however, taking both of these facts from memory, so if someone can demonstrate I'm wrong, I'd be glad to hear it. Heimstern Läufer 05:36, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
The Letter Nicknames
I'm not sure of the origins, but an older way of cataloguing Haydn's Symponies used letters instead of numbers. The following ones I've been able to find:
Letter A - #71 (not to be confused with the current symphony 'A')
Letter B - #45 (not to be confused with the current symphony 'B')
Letter E - #44
Letter L - #47
Letter Q - #92
Letter R - #90
Letter T - #91
Letter V - #88
Letter W - #89
I would imagine there might be more as there are gaps in the sequence of letters.
Years of composition
I added several of these a few months ago; however, a better perusal of Grove suggests to me that many of these are still uncertain, and that often all we know is that a symphony was completed by a certain year, not in which year it was completed. So, I'll be working on reflecting this more correctly in this list now. Heimstern Läufer 23:43, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
- I looked up #64. Steinberg says 1773. Hurwitz says 1773. allmusic.com acknowledges "conjectures ranging between 1773 and 1778". DavidRF 01:43, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
- From what I can tell, Grove is willing to assert that it was composed by 1778 at latest, while noting 1773 as a possibility. Perhaps we could list 1773 as the probable year of composition, while observing that it may have been as late 1778? We'd need to cite this well, of course. Heimstern Läufer 01:57, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Merge proposal
I think all of the articles in Category:Symphonies by Joseph Haydn need to be merged into this list. Many of the symphony articles appear to fail WP:MUSIC. --Pixelface (talk) 04:50, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
I've also suggested that symphonies 82 through 87 be merged into Paris symphonies and symphonies 93 through 104 be merged into London symphonies. I've started discussions on Talk:Paris symphonies and Talk:London symphonies, although it may be better to have those discussions here as well. --Pixelface (talk) 05:16, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
- Strong oppose. First, nothing in WP:MUSIC really applies to classical music (the only part on musical works talks about "albums" etc. and thus clearly speaks of popular music. Each symphony of Haydn is clearly notable and should not be merged. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 05:52, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
- Obvious Oppose and Slap. I suspect this this is an exercise by a churlish editor who is upset because television fancruft is being cleaned up. He therefore wishes to make a point about what he sees as fancruft of a rather more Hochkultur variety. As a result, I doubt this merge proposal need be taken too seriously, but I think Pixie should be taken to AN/I for mass disruption. For the record, he has apparently not targeted other individual works (e.g. Mozart or Schubert Symphonies or Piano sonatas, etc...), so this may be a targeted campaign against certain editors (pronominally perpendicular in this case, yes) with whom he has a disagreement. Eusebeus (talk) 05:57, 7 March 2008 (UTC)