Talk:Polonaise in A-flat major, Op. 53

YouTube links
Surely this article doesn't need links to seven different versions of the song on YouTube? --Nucleusboy 21:45, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
 * You're right. Cut down to the Chopin Competition winner :)  ♥ Fr  ed  il  01:49, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

So what is the final title of this page going to be?
I've noticed that this page has been moved recently from one title to another. I was just wondering if it's settled down now and will keep the title it currently has ("Polonaise, Op. 53 (Chopin)").

I just ask because I recently placed a link to this page in another article, and I modified the link once to update it to "Heroic Polonaise (Chopin)", only to find two further changes only days later. I'll change it again; but if the page changes title yet again, should I keep updating this link?

(If my opinion counts, I think the present title is the best. The previous title was the same except for there being no space between "Op." and "53", which is incorrect - spaces should always separate words, whether they are full words, abbreviations, or numerals.) M.J.E. 07:00, 29 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I very much dislike this trend toward naming such articles "Polonaise, Op. 53" or whatever. One may say that "Op. 53" completely identifies it as a work by Chopin.  But who knows how many other polonaises by other composers were published as Op. 53?  And who but complete Chopinophiles would know this anyway?  We're writing not just for professors of Chopinology here, but for general readers who wouldn't know their opus numbers from their ophicleides.  The title has to explicitly name the composer, and it has to identify it in a way that distinguises it from his other polonaises, i.e the key, and if there's more than one Chopin polonaise in this key (as there is), then also the opus number.  But not just the opus number.  Opus numbers should rarely be used for disambiguation purposes, imo; only in extreme cases where there's no other way of separating the titles of two works.  My preferred title is "Polonaise in A flat, Op. 53 (Chopin)".  --  JackofOz (talk) 00:29, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Not really a polonaise?
''Although the piece is labeled as a polonaise, it has little to do with the typical polonaise style. It presents two sections with a polonaise rhythm, but most of it has no particular polonaise attribute. It has been said that Chopin had composed the piece having a free and powerful Poland in mind, which may have led him to label it as a polonaise.

Another possibility is that the Heroic Polonaise is closely related to the Polonaise in A major, Op. 40, No. 1, known as the Military Polonaise, which, unlike the Heroic, is a true polonaise.

Who says that this this is not a Polonaise? Why? What is the typical polonaise style? In whose opinion? How exactly is this all (possibly) related to the Military? According to whom? Just a few concerns to get on with (beyond the question of the title, above). --Jubilee♫ clipman 23:35, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I know and I agree with this. I'm trying to clean it up -- Bryce   Wilson  &#124;  talk   03:49, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm pretty sure this helped. -- Bryce   Wilson  &#124;  talk   03:50, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

I have the same impression - the tum da-da tum tum is only showing up near the end. At the same time, I can imagine that the introduction may have something to do with a polonaise introduction. I think this is an important issue. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.76.100.30 (talk) 16:21, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

File:Chopin polonaise Op. 53.jpg to appear as POTD soon
Hello! This is a note to let the editors of this article know that File:Chopin polonaise Op. 53.jpg will be appearing as picture of the day on June 1, 2012. You can view and edit the POTD blurb at Template:POTD/2012-06-01. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page so Wikipedia doesn't look bad. :) Thanks! — howcheng  {chat} 16:25, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Sobriquet
The section on the origin of the sobriquet is completely fake and should be deleted. No reference is provided, because, of course, none can be found. George Sand never wrote anything about this Polonaise.--2601:B:C600:3C3:2014:3BDD:B130:9D68 (talk) 05:10, 10 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Completely agree. Also, what has the first paragraph to do with anything? Chopin and Sand were not even together in 1848. 2600:6C63:667F:D9D3:3D4D:1F91:CA8:FED8 (talk) 14:59, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

Strange sentence
"When the 1848 Revolution began in France, women had fewer rights than men and Sand believed these were necessary for progress."

This is a poor sentence since it can mean two very different things. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:641:500:AC0:849D:65F0:E9E3:7ED5 (talk) 19:50, 19 March 2021 (UTC)


 * I have cleared the sentence up by splitting it into two and adding that Sand saying women's rights were necessary for progress. 49.192.44.178 (talk) 11:16, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Polonaise in A-flat major, Op. 53 (Chopin). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20100929235538/http://www.musopen.com/sheetmusic.php?type=sheet&id=127 to http://www.musopen.com/sheetmusic.php?type=sheet&id=127

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 18:58, 13 February 2016 (UTC)