Talk:Symphony No. 5 (Mahler)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Untitled[edit]

The printable version of this page includes

href="/skins-1.5/common/commonPrint.css?55"

while the printable versions of the other 8 Mahler symphonies uses 56 instead of 55. The problem is that using Safari, MacOS X 10.4, when printing this version, it doesn't respect changes that make the font size larger -- the printed font size doesn't change no matter what is chosen on screen. IMHO this is a mistake.

Merging Adagietto (Mahler)[edit]

Do we really need a separate article for just the Adagietto. It seems to me the length of the article would be perfect for a movement by movement analysis of this symphony. Centy – reply• contribs – 21:26, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We really don't need a seperate article, I believe. I agree with Centy. — Andy W. (talk/contrb.) 21:52, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Someone knowledgeable about this should write a section for each of the five movements. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.236.80.245 (talk) 18:34, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Bernard Haitink conducted an Adaigietto that clocks in at 13:56 (amazon asin# B00469IRZQ). Seaniekaye (talk) 17:41, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It could even be merged without writing a section for the other four movements. Frequently articles give much more extensive coverage to the most popular movement of a symphony, sonata or concerto than to the other movements, 98.196.209.100 (talk) 04:41, 10 March 2012 (UTC)Bart Wentink[reply]

Composition[edit]

Anonymous User:24.0.231.90 tagged this section in May 2007 with the summary that it was a "mess". In fact there is nothing wrong with the tone of this quite straightforward account of the symphony's composition. The tag might well be removed by any editor. --Wetman (talk) 14:36, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

References[edit]

There are not many references. Please cite references or remove things! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Karljoos (talk • contribs) 00:43, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Key reference should be the score, but the problem is that Mahler, even after the publication of the second Peters score (IMSPL) of 1910 didn't regard the orchestration as final (See < refDonald Mitchell "Discovering Mahler" Boydell and Brewer 2007 pp 267 -269, and ff ref>. Most of the other technical points raised can be addressed by a quick look at even the 1904 Peters score (also on IMSPL) but Mitchell shows that the work was being continuously reorchestrated until Mahler's death. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.192.68.44 (talk) 19:42, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The socre is a primary source, but an article based on primary sources alone or predominantly would have to be rejected as original research. BTW: it's IMSLP, not IMSPL. --FordPrefect42 (talk) 17:33, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Use at Funera; of RFK by Bernstein[edit]

I believe the article is incorrect, Leonard Bernstein conducted the Adagietto movement at John Kennedy memorial at the Washington Cathedral in Nove 1963 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.68.108.134 (talk) 21:47, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Orchestration - Clarinets[edit]

The IMSLP scores have clarinets in A in a couple of the movements (makes the most sense for C sharp minor).DavidRF (talk) 03:39, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The unnecessary addition of 'tags'[edit]

It's incomprehensible that in the sentence: "and Johann Sebastian Bach is regarded as the greatest composer of contrapuntal music," that someone has tagged the sentence with a "by whom?" Is there actually any reason to quibble about this? Is this a joke?

I'm getting rather tired of so-called 'editors' inserting these idiotic tags in descriptions of well-known or largely undisputed facts that are not in need of any major discussion. If such a person is unhappy about a sentence, suggest a change or better still do some actual work and make that change yourself, rather than going through it with your little 'red pen' adding tags in order to feel important and like a 'proper editor'. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 145.130.113.142 (talk) 21:49, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There is definitely not a need and I have removed the tag. Taking a cue from Bach's article, I have nonetheless inserted the word "generally" in front of the word "regarded" in that sentence. Double sharp (talk) 07:26, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Pop Culture[edit]

I have added a short paragraph about the use of music from the first movement. There is no reason to remove it so stop!

It's really that simple.

PainMan (talk) 18:34, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's trivial, and WP:UNDUE, and no source is provided so it is not WP:VERIFIED. Two very good reasons not to have this factoid. For pop culture, we can source material to some proper secondary discussion of this music, which would be better. Alexbrn (talk) 18:43, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Use of "The" in lead[edit]

Shouldn't the lead be "Symphony No. 5 by Gustav Mahler..." and not "The Symphony No. 5 by Gustav Mahler..."? That sounds more natural to my ear. I found a mixture of styles on Wikipedia regarding the use of "The" in the lead for such names. For example,
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hungarian_Rhapsody_No._19..."The" not used
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Symphony_No._9_(Beethoven)..."The" used
BrightOrion | talk 08:54, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Symphony_No._5_(Mahler)&oldid=1194972909"