Talk:Symphony/Catalogs/Symphonies: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
imported>Martin Baldwin-Edwards No edit summary |
imported>Ro Thorpe m (Talk:Symphony/Catalogs/Famous Symphonies moved to Talk:Symphony/Catalogs/Symphonies: not all are famous) |
||
| (11 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown) | |||
| Line 2: | Line 2: | ||
:Won't bother me. I tend to remember more numbers than names, I think, except for the really ''really'' famous names. The only think I can think wrong with your idea is that some don't have names. Some sites give more than one list, by composer, by number, by name--honestly I don't mind; whatever people think is best. [[User:Aleta Curry|Aleta Curry]] 02:20, 21 October 2007 (CDT) | :Won't bother me. I tend to remember more numbers than names, I think, except for the really ''really'' famous names. The only think I can think wrong with your idea is that some don't have names. Some sites give more than one list, by composer, by number, by name--honestly I don't mind; whatever people think is best. [[User:Aleta Curry|Aleta Curry]] 02:20, 21 October 2007 (CDT) | ||
::Yes, the few without names will need numbers, but we could list them at the end. Alternatively, I suppose we could order them by composer, but I think it is more useful by nickname. Let's wait for someone else to comment, before doing anything :-) --[[User:Martin Baldwin-Edwards|Martin Baldwin-Edwards]] 02:24, 21 October 2007 (CDT) | ::Yes, the few without names will need numbers, but we could list them at the end. Alternatively, I suppose we could order them by composer, but I think it is more useful by nickname. Let's wait for someone else to comment, before doing anything :-) --[[User:Martin Baldwin-Edwards|Martin Baldwin-Edwards]] 02:24, 21 October 2007 (CDT) | ||
I would think that historical order, grouped by composer, would be the most sensible. :-) My unofficial $0.02. --[[User:Larry Sanger|Larry Sanger]] 08:33, 21 October 2007 (CDT) | |||
:I agree. Most symphonies don't have names, a tradition that continues with [[Alfred Schnittke|Schnittke]], who died in 1998: one name in nine. The most famous symphony is probably Beethoven's Fifth (sic). So, composer, number, name if any. Since no-one has touched it lately, I am going to be bold... [[User:Ro Thorpe|Ro Thorpe]] 17:07, 2 November 2007 (CDT) | |||
==Move?== | |||
Peter Schmitt at [[Talk:Symphony]]: 'Why "famous"? - it gives complete lists!' Quite: let's move it. [[User:Ro Thorpe|Ro Thorpe]] 17:44, 31 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
Latest revision as of 20:54, 1 November 2009
I don't think the number of the symphony is a good way to list them. I suggest alphabetically by the nicknames, which are quite famous usually. --Martin Baldwin-Edwards 02:12, 21 October 2007 (CDT)
- Won't bother me. I tend to remember more numbers than names, I think, except for the really really famous names. The only think I can think wrong with your idea is that some don't have names. Some sites give more than one list, by composer, by number, by name--honestly I don't mind; whatever people think is best. Aleta Curry 02:20, 21 October 2007 (CDT)
- Yes, the few without names will need numbers, but we could list them at the end. Alternatively, I suppose we could order them by composer, but I think it is more useful by nickname. Let's wait for someone else to comment, before doing anything :-) --Martin Baldwin-Edwards 02:24, 21 October 2007 (CDT)
I would think that historical order, grouped by composer, would be the most sensible. :-) My unofficial $0.02. --Larry Sanger 08:33, 21 October 2007 (CDT)
- I agree. Most symphonies don't have names, a tradition that continues with Schnittke, who died in 1998: one name in nine. The most famous symphony is probably Beethoven's Fifth (sic). So, composer, number, name if any. Since no-one has touched it lately, I am going to be bold... Ro Thorpe 17:07, 2 November 2007 (CDT)
Move?
Peter Schmitt at Talk:Symphony: 'Why "famous"? - it gives complete lists!' Quite: let's move it. Ro Thorpe 17:44, 31 October 2009 (UTC)