Talk:Symphony No. 4 (Tchaikovsky)

Problem re: Opinionated description of work's structure
It seems fairly large swathes of the description of the symphony's structure are written in prejudiced or otherwise non objective language. Shouldn't statements like "The reprise of "Fate" is highly artificial and, compared with a strict cyclic form, is not really effective. Neither does it give any resolution to the psychological tensions of the other three movements..." be sent to the criticism section of the page? Falstaft (talk)
 * Agreed - there's also a lot of POV in the text presented as fact. e.g. "The Romantics in general were never natural symphonists because music was to them primarily evocative and biographical. Western musical form, as developed primarily by Germanic composers, was analytical and architectural; it simply was not designed to handle the personal emotions the Romantics wished to express." Merely giving a text a citation (in this instance the second sentence only) doesn't make it fact. It would be more honest to present it as "According to Martin Cooper" etc., and similarly in other instances in this article. When I've more time I might try to fix this myself, but will be delighted if someone else has and does. Alfietucker (talk) 01:12, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Description
The Fourth Symphony's first three movements were composed during an 1877 sojourn by Tchaikovsky in the Hotel Londra Palace, on the lagoon in Venice, just a few steps from Piazza San Marco. The reality of the location, with the Adriatic waves incessantly lapping the steps of the quai just outside the hotel clearly is depicted in the opening of the first movement's Moderato con anima, with the faintly "seasick" theme of the first violins set against bobbing rhythms below.The hotel has lion statuary, which to the composer suggested "two lions": the cities of London and Venice, also obvious in the roaring fanfare that permeates the work from the outset. The second movement canzona also abounds in Italian ambiance from the opening oboe solo. This is just one example of how works of music tke shape, sometimes very specifically, from particular locations. Michael Dumouchel

Instrumentation format
Can we please leave the instrumentation in the standard, compact style, as it is found in any reference work? The expanded version, promoted by a single editor, is unnecessary, wasteful of space, and idiosyncratic. If there is a good reason for doing it that way here (and elsewhere) I would be much obliged to see the arguments in favor. Thank you, Antandrus (talk) 03:32, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Re "Imperial apotheosis"
Re Imperial apotheosis: Tschaikovsky's Symphonies must be regarded as absolute music and not lumped in with works like "March Slav" or "1812 Overture". Isn't the 4th and 5th Symphonies' heroic style similar to Beethoven 3rd(Eroica) and 5th,and Brahms 1st-- i.e.the artist as hero? Any attempt to ascribe some kind of patriotic undertone to the Symphonies' thematic material seems like very superficial critical analysis. Tschaikovsky was a great musician of great artistic integrity. He deserves better from Wikipedia. 2tgbat (talk) 05:32, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Choice of recording
I am concerned about the choice of recording attached to this article. The United States Navy band does give a very professional performance, and I know it is hard to find quality recordings that are not copyright protected. However, the band is playing a transcription of the music, written out by a different composer, for wind ensemble. The sound clip is telling readers that this is what Tchaikovsky symphony sounds like, when in reality, Tchaikovsky wrote the piece for symphony orchestra, with a full string section. Also, since there are links to performances of the work at the bottom of the page, I would suggest cutting this sound file out of the article. Also, In looking at the footnotes for this article, I noticed that not all of them are mentioned in the Sources section. Is that normal? --Bsnjon (talk) 22:17, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
 * If a footnote isn't mentioned in the sources, then it should have a full citation (and not just author and page number) which I think is the case.
 * I think the recording should stay unless someone has a better one. That said, it should say in its caption that its a transcription for wind ensemble.  I wouldn't mind if the link were moved down by where the movement is discussed.  Its doesn't have to be top-right like that.DavidRF (talk) 07:12, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I will add the info to the audio caption. I am new to wikipedia so I will have to learn morn about article editing before trying to move sections around.
 * I might be blind, so please correct me if so, but I don't see the full citation for "holden" or "Cooper" anywhere in the article. would you mind looking it over again?--Bsnjon (talk) 21:29, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
 * You were right. Holden was missing.  I added information for that.  Cooper fully cited in note #9.  I'm not a big fan of keeping Notes and Sources separate.  I'd rather each note contain the full citation.  I didn't contribute to this article though, though I'll leave footnote management up to the original authors.DavidRF (talk) 02:22, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Symphony No. 4 (Tchaikovsky). 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/20141028134755/http://ajw.asahi.com/article/cool_japan/anime_news/AJ201408070021 to http://ajw.asahi.com/article/cool_japan/anime_news/AJ201408070021

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 15:16, 31 December 2017 (UTC)