Talk:Sinfonia antartica

	Classical music portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Classical music, which aims to improve, expand, copy edit, and maintain all articles related to classical music, that are not covered by other classical music related projects. Please read the guidelines for writing and maintaining articles. To participate, you can edit this article or visit the project page for more details.Classical musicWikipedia:WikiProject Classical musicTemplate:WikiProject Classical musicClassical music articles
	This article is supported by Compositions task force.

Spelling![edit]

In Italian, "Antartica" is correct. So if you are referring to the title of the symphony remember it's "Antartica," not "Antarctica." Thanks! --Wspencer11 (talk to me...) 15:11, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move[edit]

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Discuss the move here. It seems to me common practice across classical music articles that a symphony is listed as such and not by a subtitle (eg. Symphony No. 3 (Gorecki) rather than Symphony of Sorrowful Songs). Centy – reply• contribs – 20:49, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Well, Górecki's Third is easier to refer to by number than by that long subtitle. In RVW's case, it seems like people are split down the middle. Anton Mravcek 21:23, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am also not at all convinced that this is a subtitle. The work didn't even have a number until several years after it came out...up till then it was simply known as "Sinfonia antartica." And what does one do about the Copland symphonies, then? --Wspencer11 (talk to me...) 00:12, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Unlike (IIRC) Gorecki's, this symphony is predominantly known by this name. WP:COMMON; compare the Symphonie Fantastique, Alpine Symphony. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:05, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

It was requested that this article be renamed but there was no consensus for it to be moved. --Stemonitis 16:26, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I seem to recall that Vaughan Williams's next Symphony was announced as "No 8" from the start. It must therefore follow that the "Antartica" can properly be referred to as No 7. I don't think there was ever any insistence in 1953, and I heard the premiere in the Free Trade Hall, that it should only be known as "Sinfonia Artartica", though I accept that Vaughan Williams had never actually numbered his symphonies before the Eighth. Even in 1953 they were commonly discussed as though he had numbered them - from the start the E minor had been known as the Sixth, for example. It, and the two preceding Symphonies, had not been named and were distinguished only by their keys, so they naturally attracted numbers. If there was any debate, it was over whether the description "symphony" could properly be applied to the work, not a number. Delahays Delahays (talk) 21:09, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Sinfonia antartica. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080717132511/http://www.rvwsociety.com/workssymph.html to http://www.rvwsociety.com/workssymph.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:59, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody seems to have wondered exactly what the quotations imply about the work. Given Vaughan-Williams's known political sympathies, and that the Shelley Prometheus excerpt had been seen by him in 1948 as a possible text for a Hymn of Victory, how are we to see the work as a whole?Delahays (talk) 00:49, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]