Talk:Symphony No. 27 (Haydn)

Symphony Of Sibiu / Franz Koglmann
At first I was puzzled by Gulp's comment. Actually, I still am, it sounds like a Hitchhiker's joke gone wrong. Still, it's clear from the edit history that from the beginning this article has zeroed in on one aspect of this symphony that sets it apart from the 216 other symphonies Haydn wrote. So, the proposed change is Eusebeus' desire to delete all this information that is backed up with citations from Hoboken and an Austrian government agency. But this is Wikipedia, so I'm not quite sure why Eusebeus has to consult with anyone to make the change he proposes. In fact, I hope he reverts this a fourth time, a fifth time, a sixth time, and so on. Willi Gers07 (talk) 20:52, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
 * There are two items being added and reverted here. One is the "Symphony of Sibiu" note and the other is the discography with Franz Koglmann's jazz rendition.  Are they both in dispute?  I can easily see objecting to the Koglmann recording.  We should be clear as to which part of the edit is in dispute as I don't see how they are related. DavidRF (talk) 21:30, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually, doing a web search, the nickname I find most often is "Brukenthal" which is presumably after either Brukenthal National Museum in Sibiu or Samuel von Brukenthal who was the aristocrat who the museum was named after. How does "Brukenthal" fit into the nickname story?  Thanks.  DavidRF (talk) 21:39, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Assuming we all read German well here, I note the Hoboken reference added refers to this as the "Hermannstädter Symphony" (news to me, but well-subtantiated by a google search (116 hits on the German spelling). A sample: Den zweiten Pol der „Nächtlichen Spaziergänge“ bildet Joseph Haydn. Dessen „Symphonie Nr. 27“ wird in manchen Verzeichnissen nämlich auch als „Hermannstädter Symphonie“ aufgelistet, weil nach dem Zweiten Weltkrieg eine Abschrift davon in dieser Stadt gefunden wurde etc etc. The Hungarian and Romanian sources are foreign to my eyes, but I'll adjust the text accordingly, on the assumption that Hermannstadt is the standard term (not Sibiu). I find it odd that the Hoboken reference was added which provided different information from that cited in the text. (Per our MOS, quoting from foreign language sources is discouraged without a translation. I think that is idiotic myself, but I've moved the German text here because of it.) Eusebeus (talk) 22:03, 3 March 2009 (UTC) "'Dem 2.musicologischen Bericht der Haydn-Society (Boston-Wien, 25.III.1950) ist die Abschrift eines Aufsatzes von Dr.Kurt Weisskirchner beigeheftet, demzufolge am 29.I.1950 das Philharmonische Staatsorchester der Rumänischen Volksrepublik im Bukarester Athenaeum unter dem stürmischen Beifall einer zahlreichen Zuhörerschaft die Welt-Uraufführung einer Haydnschen Symphonie in G-dur veranstaltet hat, für die offiziell die Benennung „Haydns Hermannstädter Symphonie“ beantragt wurde. Das für unbekannt gehaltene Werk wurde im Jahre 1946 von Prof.Kurt Mild in einem Sommerschloß des Gouverneurs des seinerzeit österreichischen Großfürstentums Siebenbürgen, Samuel Freiherrn von Brukenthal (1721–1803), in Freck bei Hermannstadt aufgefunden. Die Handschrift ist vom Jahr 1769 datiert; es ist nicht die Originalschrift der Partitur, sondern eine Kopie. Ihr Titel lautet: „Simphonie in G – Violin I, II; Oboe I, II; Viole obligato con Basso, del Signor Giuseppe Haydn.“ Seitdem ist die Nachricht von dieser „Hermannstädter Symphonie“ durch viele Zeitungen gegangen. Durch die freundliche Vermittlung des Herrn Dr.W.Virneisel, Berlin, konnte festgestellt werden, daß es sich um eine Abschrift der Symphonie I:27 in doppelten Notenwerten handelt; s.LdnSy.unter Abschriften.'"
 * My revert is based on a google search which makes it clear that this is not a standard claim from the mainstream literature and hence amounts, at best, to trivia. I will remove it again unless a reputable source can be adduced. Eusebeus (talk) 21:53, 3 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Has it occurred to anyone to look up Hermannstädt or Hermannstadt? Mmm, thought so. Gulp.seven up (talk) 16:56, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
 * What's with the tone? The text of the article clearly states the equivalence of the two placenames.  Not all nicknames get translated and updated with time.  I've seen three nicknames "Hermannstädter", "Brukenthal" and "Symphony of Sibiu".  The piece has only been recorded four times and is rarely programmed, so there aren't a lot of instances of any of these.  I don't see a problem mentioning all three. DavidRF (talk) 19:06, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
 * What's with the mandate to keep this article a substub at all costs? I thought Wikipedia was supposed to give facts, not shape them according to the status quo. I don't see anyone here giving this same unfair treatment to Beethoven's 9th, with that sprawling discography. And what's the point of citing three different sources together and giving a lot less information than any of those taken singly? We might as well delete these pages and replace them with a page that says: "Don't bother looking in here. Buy HCRL book." Gulp.seven up (talk) 19:00, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
 * OK. I spelled out the three nicknames as I suggested yesterday.  Sorry I didn't follow up my suggestion with an article-edit right away.  I got distracted.  As for the Beethoven's 9th comment, cleaning up pop-culture references from articles like that is a full time job (made easier by the fact that the page has no doubt many editors watching it).  Also, that discography section is indeed out of control.  Its not as absurd as it could be (252 CD's in print), but at some point someone will try to pare that back. (Not me for that one, though).DavidRF (talk) 20:01, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't know if Gulp knows this, but I've actually tried to help cut down the Beethoven Ninth discography. I selected the recordings that I thought were the most noteworthy (no pun intended) and put them into paragraphs. I would like someone else to look at the ones that remain in bullet point format and explain why they belong in the list. After that happens, I would gladly delete the recordings for whom no one has explained why they're notable, and I could honestly say that it was done by concensus, and not out of my own capprice. I haven't even looked at the pop culture references. Willi Gers07 (talk) 21:19, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes. Discography sections start off with good intentions, but they can grow recording by recording as anon's add their favorites. The pop culture section there was removed a couple of years ago.  Its gotten be a couple of screens long in late 2006.  Every once in a while someone will try to re-add the section, but it usually gets quickly reverted.  Since there's no section all, there's less incentive to add one.  This is off-topic in this article, though.  This piece has only been recorded four or five times.  :-)DavidRF (talk) 01:27, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Not far off the mark you are. Drahos, Fischer, Hogwood, Kuhn, Dorati, Tatrai. Gulp.seven up (talk) 18:03, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Also Ernst Märzendorfer, who recorded all then-canonical 104 symphonies on a limited distribution label before Doráti, no? So seven. Schissel | Sound the Note! 10:51, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, and that can be backed up with Hodgson's book if there's anyone who doesn't believe you. But just because it was important to Hodgson doesn't mean it'll be important to this article's owner. Willi Gers07 (talk) 17:45, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Now several other things Willi.
 * Please stop adding trivia without first obtaining consensus. The bit about the Sibiu commission is in my view trivial with respect to the symphony itself. If you wish to add it to the Sibiu page, go ahead but I will remove this here pending clear consensus from other editors.
 * You're the only one calling it trivia. DavidRF called it "influence on later compositions." Willi Gers07 (talk) 18:33, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Stop dragging me into this repeatedly. I just want this to go away and naively tried to concoct a compromise.  This is getting too personal, though.  Whatever you two have going here runs pretty deep.  You only bright side here is that a lot of attention is being paid to what has got to be one of Haydn's worst symphonies.  :-)  Maybe we need to have childish edit wars at #82 or #48 so we can flesh out those analysis sections (or lack thereof)?  Anyhow, you two can get someone else to play moderator.  Try the talk page at WP:CM or something.  Some new viewpoints from an outsider would be welcome in the feud you guys seem to be having.  Cheers.  DavidRF (talk)

1 - Go read WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL and WP:CON. Accusations of ownership are absurd. You made a change to this article which frankly falls outside the scope of this article. I reverted it (as I will do again) so now let's have further discussion as to the merits of your change. You changed a stable version of this article - upon reversion the right thing to do next is discuss. See WP:BRD.
 * Why does WP:NPA apply only to me and not to you? Willi Gers07 (talk) 18:33, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

2- Go read WP:SOCK. It is unacceptable to use sockpuppet accounts as you have above with [[User:Gulp.seven up. Generally, if you wish to edit here profitably and you engage in such behaviour the best thing is to show contrition, apologise and admit that you screwed up. Generally, an acknowledgment on your user page is helpful too. Even if you are not so inclined, you should cease using sock accounts immediately.
 * Let's say that's true and I was dumb enough to name the sock so similarly. It's not that impressive to order me to not do something I haven't done in a while anyway. But I don't know if you know Gulp's password, or if Gulp will ever log in again, so I might be hanging myself on this one. But I'm disappointed. I was hoping you would come up with something more original than sock accusations. Willi Gers07 (talk) 18:33, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

3- Consider your actions. In your time here you have managed to accomplish three things: 1) you have used sockpuppets, (2) you have been uncivil and (3) you have been edit warring. I welcome your positive contributions, but frankly this is not an impressive demonstration. Eusebeus (talk) 18:04, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, 1) maybe you have, too, but I won't try to guess, 2) is it uncivil to call things as they are? 3) only because of your fine example. Willi Gers07 (talk) 18:33, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

foreign language versions
Wow. Did not succeed in getting the Koglmann bit into the English version so you push to add it to the Italian, French, Spanish and Esperanto versions? Seems a bit nasty if you ask me, but its also crazy enough to crack me up. Is this bit of trivia really that important to you, or is this some sort of turf battle thing?DavidRF (talk) 17:22, 8 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Who are you talking to? Presumably someone who does know those languages?
 * The "trivia" is not in the Esperanto version. But let's see who deletes it from those other versions and imposes the format used here. Willi Gers07 (talk) 17:38, 8 April 2009 (UTC)


 * You had nothing to do with this Koglmann bit being added to three different language-articles in the past three days? Really?  I don't believe you.  Sorry. DavidRF (talk) 17:45, 8 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Maybe not directly. But I have talked by IM and IRC about how some Wikipedia editors are saner than others (I've even said you're quite reasonable and sensible). Willi Gers07 (talk) 17:56, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

It shouldn't be about turf battles (and in any case, the English Wikipedia is the prize, the rest would barely be worth any points), it should be about putting in all the facts a general audience would care to know. So: basic harmonic analysis maybe, Shenker's analysis no; it was in an obscure Ukrainian movie two people watched no, it was in a big summer blockbuster yes; it was quoted in a composer's university thesis no; it was quoted in a commission for the European Union yes; etc.

Because do you know who wins turf battles? Fake experts who lie about playing the piano. Willi Gers07 (talk) 16:21, 14 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I'm not following you. What are you talking about?  Are you seriously this interested in the connection between this symphony and the Koglmann piece?  DavidRF (talk) 16:34, 14 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm interested in any instance of a 21st century composer commenting on 17th or 18th century music. Walter Murphy chose Beethoven's Fifth. Willi Gers07 (talk) 16:37, 14 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Ah, disco music from the 70s is your defense here. You really know how to try a person's patience.  That reference got removed from Symphony No. 5 (Beethoven) a while ago.  You need to take this discussion to WP:CM and see if you can get any other editors to form a consensus with you.DavidRF (talk) 17:02, 14 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Ah, you too know how to try a person's patience. I keep telling you I'm here for the facts, not for my ego (unlike some people), and you keep suggesting I use gang tactics to get my way. The facts are the facts, regardless of my charisma or lack thereof.
 * What was the reason for removing the Murphy? I hope it was something better than classical snobbery against disco. But knowing Wikipedia, it was probably because more about some editor with seniority trying to assert his authority. That removal is way sillier than the Koglmann removal. Willi Gers07 (talk) 17:21, 15 April 2009 (UTC)