Talk:Symphony No. 1 (Prokofiev)

Classical?
"Prokofiev gave the symphony the nickname Classical partly in the hope that his piece might indeed become a classic someday, and also because of his attempt to imitate the classics of Haydn."

Does this make very little sense to anyone else? Surely it's nicknamed 'Classical' because it's a neo-classical work? Masily box 00:06, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Name or Nickname?
Prokofiev actually titled this work "Classical Symphony." It's not a nickname. It was later given the "No. 1" designation, only after Prokofiev's other adult symphonies began to be published (as a youth, he'd written two symphonies even before the "Classical"). This article should really be retitled as "Classical Symphony (No. 1) in D major, Opus 25". QwertyUSA 10:59, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Instrumentation
It's called the "Classical" because it uses the same instrumentation and movement order as one of Haydn's symphonies, even though it uses 20th-century musical language. Asriel (talk) 21:58, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Heh - not to speak of its structural elements, both symphony and within the movements (sonata and rondo forms and use of fugue).  SkoreKeep (talk) 21:50, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Piano Transcription
I notice that no mention is made of the transcription for piano duet that Prokofiev supervised. It's quite relevant... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.226.1.229 (talk) 13:37, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Recordings
Is this list really necessary? Especially since it is icomplete. Arturo Toscanini also recorded this in 1951 with the NBC Symphony in Nyw York, but it's not on the list. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.100.219.111 (talk) 17:39, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

"As if Haydn lived in our time"?
I (vaguely) remember that Prokofiev wrote the symphony "as Haydn would have written it, if he lived in our time", or something similar. Is that a quote from Prokofiev himself? It would make for a good motivation in the article. -- megA (talk) 13:52, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Criticism?
There was some criticism of this symphony was there not? Martin Hogbin (talk) 16:52, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Neoclassical
Surely "Thus it can be considered to be one of the first neoclassical compositions." is weasel wording. No one listening to it could deny that it is neoclassical, as Prokoviev obviously meant it to be, regardless of whether the word was in use at that time. I would change this to "Thus it is one of the first neoclassical compositions." But I'm not enough of an expert to know if there is any reason to be so reserved about the designation. Zaslav (talk) 03:04, 9 October 2018 (UTC)