Talk:Symphony No. 8 (Mahler)

First discussion of instrumentation
On orchestration: I feel that the length the orchestration takes up is OKAY for this symphony, since it boasts of it. If anyone thinks of shrinking it, I may recommend against it. -- A Wang (talk/contrb.) 18:03, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I think I'm with ILike2BeAnonymous here. Introducing the single-paragraph form as used elsewhere would be really difficult, but the current format is an excellent compromise. We don't need to make the section look typographically huge: people who read it will understand how huge it is anyway. EldKatt (Talk) 07:25, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Could someone who knows it add the the number for each instrument used that adds up to 1000. I think that would add to the article. Asmeurer  ( talk   ♬  contribs ) 02:00, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Pardon me, Asmeurer, for reverting your edits to the article. I don't think addition of links is necessary. Most, if not all, articles do not link to articles that way. Also, the symphony is not always performed with a thousand people. About four hundred is adequate to perform it, so there is not need to add it. — Andy W. (talk/contrb.) 15:20, 15 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Shouldn't the strings be in a separate section? It seems odd to have them under "miscellaneous". I nearly missed them altogether...--Zeisseng 17:44, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

How precisely does it all add up to 1000? It seems like the numbers listed in the article don't really indicate how many players there actually are. How many singers are there in a "mixed boys chorus"? How many trumpet players are there? Yes, there are 4 parts, but there is no indication of the actual number of players. Some clarification is needed.RSido (talk) 03:42, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
 * "Symphony of a Thousand" is just a nickname. The piece has very rarely, if ever performed with 1000 players. Some critic called it this can the name stuck. Even in a high count, there usually would be no more than 400 at most. It just looks more impressive on stage and looks like 1000 players. Justin Tokke (talk) 19:43, 13 December 2007 (UTC)


 * The program notes of the 1910 premiere in Munich (reproduced e.g. in: Kühn/Quander (eds.), Gustav Mahler, Zurich 1982, ISBN 3-280-01377-1, p. 132) shows that there were indeed more than 1000 performers engaged in the first performance, most of them members of the choirs:

Singverein der Gesellschaft der Musikfreunde Wien    250 Riedel-Verein Leipzig                                250 Children's Choir of the Zentral-Musikschule München  350 - Total choirs                                         850 Soloists                                               8 Orchestra                                            170 Organ                                                  1 Conductor                                              1 - Total                                              1,030 =========================================================
 * Nonetheless, Mahler protested against the premiere being marketed as "fatal Barnum and Bailey performance" (Letter to Bruno Walter, March 1910) and against the surname "Symphony of a Thousand". --FordPrefect42 (talk) 20:57, 13 December 2007 (UTC)


 * About the 4 trumpets, they are usually not doubled at all in this piece, nor are any of the instruments, except the piccolo clarinet, and the piccolo flute. Therefore, the wind and brass instruments always number pretty much the same, so the real size comes in the strings and the harp compliment.  In the case of this piece, to perform it with about 1000 players while still not doubling wind and brass parts would require a choir of about 800 - 900 (which has been done).  Despite this, I have witnessed performances where they use 12 horns and 8 trumpets in orchestra, doubling some or all the parts, probably for a more massive sound24.161.53.152 (talk) 13:32, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

The Dover score does not mention 2 mandolins, but the piccolos, harps and mandolin, and offstage trumpet I, are marked 'several to the part' ['mehrfach besetzt']. I've changed this in the text.PhilUK (talk) 18:55, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

Brazil premiere and citations and references
I think this article needs citations and references. I am saying this because of a change on August 5 (2006) by an anonymous person. A Wang (talk/contrb.) 18:42, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

I added info about the Brazil Copacabana performance (which has been rescheduled for tonight), but someone else said it's the Brazilian premier. I can't confirm or deny that it's the first performance in Brazil... Mjbaldwin 19:12, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, the primeire was on the 19th, the day before the original beach performance. Went and fixed it back... Mjbaldwin 19:16, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Text
What about the text to the work? Anyone want to add it? Justin Tokke 16:57, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Good suggestion. I will add it in my spare time. Not sure about how to do the text formatting, though. -- A Wang (talk/contrb.) 18:00, 16 September 2006 (UTC)


 * See Symphony No. 9 (Beethoven). The text is lined up side by side with translation. I'd do it myself if I had time.Justin Tokke 00:35, 19 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I am planing on doing the text, Original German with English translation. I have already started but is is a lot! Should be done by the end of next week, time permiting. Justin Tokke 00:19, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

The text is enormous. (just like the symphony itself) I have taken the first step to put in the text, and it seems too long. First, I will put it all in small text. Any other suggestions? -- A Wang (talk/contrb.) 21:08, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Excuse me. I did not read that you were planning to do the text. I will revert my edit(s) because I would like to see what you (Mr. Tokke) will be doing. Anyway, my version does not look good. -- A Wang (talk/contrb.) 21:15, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

I've started the text (finally), should be done by end of week. Justin Tokke 01:13, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

It is true that the text is enormous. The page would have to be so long. Even though this is not an extremely long work (by Mahler's standards), it is continuously vocal, which adds a bunch of bulk to the text. My suggestion is to create a separate page with the text and link it to the main page.--72.229.240.25 17:14, 3 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Please don't! Rather put the text in Wikisource and link to that. --FordPrefect42 01:05, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Spoiler warning?!
Is the spoiler warning a joke? I'm having a hard time seeing how that is a spoiler in any meaningful sense of the word. I mean, what is it spoiling? The first several notes? Derobert 04:54, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

The spoiler is there for the people that just want to enjoy it fully for a first time without any expectations of the piece. Such a spoiler is useful to me because I want to hear a piece in its entirety without hearing stuff before. Anyway, I am removing the spoiler. -- A. Wang (talk/contrb.) 20:47, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Instrumentation reformatting
I noticed that Mr. Tokke has reemerged, reformatting the instrumentation section, which I am completely agreeing to. Debates similar to this have been voiced. Defending Mr. Tokke, I should say that the edits are acceptable to this article and symphonies related to this. — Andy W. (talk/contrb.) 01:33, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the support. All of the Mahler Symphonies are like this and continutity was the ultimate goal. Justin Tokke 15:04, 10 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I've undone this, again. It's simply wrong, for reasons that have been amply explained and discussed to death all over the place here on various "talk" pages. You're just wrong, Mr. Tokke, but what's happened is that other people have grown tired of fighting with you, the sole instigator of all this controversy, over this matter. +ILike2BeAnonymous 15:21, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Reply, I suddenly have another suggestion: why not put the text around a "blockquote"?. Adding the text: "" around text makes it smaller. I know I did not bring this up during the large discussion on the WikiProject page; it just occurred to me now that this may work for large instrumentations, especially for this page, if a list is used. Opinions? — Andy W. (talk/contrb.) 20:50, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Can you put a little demo here in this discussion? Don't know what you're talking about would look like; would like to see it before trying. +ILike2BeAnonymous 01:19, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I did the "blockquote" on the page. I am thinking about bringing this up on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Classical Music although instrumentation was discussed already. — Andy W. (talk/contrb.) 11:13, 11 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Don't like it. I'm reverting to the standard form. If it's good enough for the vast majority of scholarly writing on music, then we should use the standard, recognized formats here, not some made-up idiosyncratic style that some young eager writer thinks is better. +ILike2BeAnonymous 16:11, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
 * The vast majority of scholarly writing on music?! Cite at lease five sources that look just like this one. In fact, no page on Wikipedia looks like this with the ugly bullet point squares. You are just mad that you don't get your way every single edit you make. I can tell from your editing history that you HAVE to have your way no matter the cost to others. It's really a disgrace. Justin Tokke 17:38, 11 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Andy, in therms of the block quote style, I think it's a good idea. However, it ultimately doesn't save space. Just because Mr. Anonymous here doesn't like it doesn't mean it's not worth something. I think it would work but the spaces between the lines of text don't change. So ultimately you're just straining your eyes to look at what's on the screen. Anyways, my $0.02.Justin Tokke 17:41, 11 August 2007 (UTC)


 * (To Andy, mainly.) This is how I see it. This is essentially the same kind of list that we've already established consensus against (and I'm sure you know where I stand), only smaller. The main thing, as I see it, is if it ain't broke, don't fix it. We already have a consensus-backed format that works, and I'm not convinced that there's really any problem with it. EldKatt (Talk) 20:25, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Re. Tokke's edit summary (in reverting ILike2BeAnonymous' revert) "Why do you revert but not reply on the talk page?" Because consensus at the moment is against the format you're trying to insert. The proper thing for you to do if you want it, is through discussion to try to establish a new consensus. I don't see what it is about this that is so difficult to understand. EldKatt (Talk) 11:45, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Article reconstruction
As part of a general pro-Mahler drive this year (150th anniversary of his birth) and next (100th anniversary of his death) I am working on several of the more important Mahler articles. The Eighth Symphony is doubly important because it has its own centenary this year (September 12). The chief areas of revision proposed for this article are:
 * Adoption of an article structure closer in character to that of featured works such as Symphony No. 3 (Górecki), and drafting of new sections.
 * Removal of the full texts and replacement with external links to online editions. It is not necessary or desirable to have such lengthy texts within the article; their retention creates potential copyright issues, and the space can be far better used to develop the article.
 * Other sections, e.g. "Duration" and "Premieres", will be absorbed into larger sections dealing with reception and performance history
 * Increase number of images
 * Expand lead to conform with the requirements of WP:LEAD.

I expect to post some of the changes later today, and will continue with the development during the next week or more. Brianboulton (talk) 19:08, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Why The Symphony No. 8?
Why the prefix "The..." in the first line of the article? So far as style is concerned, Wikipedia gives mixed signals; the Beethoven symphony articles tend to start with "The" while the Mozart ones don't. Neither does the Górecki No. 3, the only symphony article with featured status. Some (e.g. the Bruckners) evade the issue by adopting a different beginning. This is not a major issue for me, but I feel there needs to be a reason for puutting "The" there. My instincts are to go for the less assertive opening: "Symphony No. 8...", but I am open to persuasion. Brianboulton (talk) 10:03, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Brian, definitely not. It doesn't sound right, and articles should never begin with "symphony", nor should the piece be referenced as "Symphony No. n", but rather "nth symphony". I hope that has also been established as a style guide at WikiProject Classical Music. I suggest this style be changed in the Górecki symphony, if possible. Another way to look at it: "The Eighth Symphony". It's not "Eighth Symphony". "Symphony No. 8" does not serve as a title for the piece. It refers to the eighth composition in the form of a symphony that Mahler wrote. I hope this claifies the issue. Other ways to introduce the article: see Symphony No. 2 (Tchaikovsky), Symphony No. 1 (Bernstein), Symphony No. 28 (Mozart), and String Quartet No. 3 (Carter). — Andy W. (talk/contrb.) 15:07, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Text of the Symphony
I do fully agree that the article is much much better after Brianboulton edited it. It's the best out of all the Mahler symphony articles. However, in the process the text of the symphony was removed. There are no equivalents given in the links; it's either the fully German text or the fully English translation. Is there a way to restore the previous arrangement of the text, i.e. a side by side comparison of the German and English translation, without affecting the quality of the article? Because previously I could find no other site than Wikipedia to follow the text in that way when listening to Mahler 8. Now there are none. All the other Mahler Symphony articles have such English-German running comparisons. I think for such an extensive article on the Symphony it would not be uncalled for to have the text included. Perhaps in a separate article, if possible? Dga471 (talk) 18:19, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I apologise for not responding to this earlier. There are two reasons why I removed the text:-
 * Possible copyvio. There was no indication as to whose English translation this was, or on what date it was originally published. It could not safely be considered free of copyright. The same applies to most other translations that are currently in use. The best solution, to avoid this problem, would be to find a website with the English-Latin and English-German comparisons side by side, and to create a link in External links. At present the external links offer a side-by-side comparison for "Veni Creator Spiritus", and separated English and German versions of the Goethe text.
 * The text is very long, and adds many KB to an already fairly long article. It's almost the length of a short opera libretto, and we don't include libretti within opera articles. We link to them when we can. Brianboulton (talk) 00:24, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Regarding copyvio: the original texts are public domain of course. Veni Creator Spiritus is from the 9th century, Faust II by Goethe (d. 1832) was published in 1832. It should be no big deal to find older English translations, that are in the public domain themselves.
 * Ack, the complete lyrics would certainly get the article out of proportion. Would it be possible to have the lyrics on wikisource and then link to them? In the meantime link to something like or . --FordPrefect42 (talk) 11:47, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

The second of these two links is to the text from the 2005 Naxos recording under Antoni Wit. I think it does the job, and have included it in external links in place of the piecemeal translations. Brianboulton (talk) 17:11, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, thank you, the link solves the problem wonderfully, without having to put the whole text in the article. Dga471 (talk) 12:50, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Recent Reversion
I'm a little puzzled why my edit was reverted, or how I 'deleted' material. Section by section, let me go through the changes Brianboulton reverted:
 * Section 3: Material was moved to another paragraph, so that the section in question concerned the piece's position in Mahler's career. Paragraphs need to address distinct issues, after all.
 * This section also makes talk of Mahler's middle period far more concise and readable. The original was... putting it bluntly, a little clumsy and redundant. In fact, my shorter revision takes pains to pose the Eighth not just apart from the 'Middle period', but also as separate to the 'Late era' - and it's still shorter.
 * Section 4 becomes completely concerned with the work's thematic content, 5 completely with performance history.

I'm not so bothered about people disagreeing with me, but I do think it would be productive to discuss the style of this section. I believe mine is the better version. But, I would!

Thanks.

Bosola (talk) 19:58, 12 September 2010 (UTC)


 * The revert that I made, here, was of your attempt, without discussion, to restructure the article's lead significantly. As is clear, this involved both rearrangement and removal of material. For what it's worth, I don't share the view that the changes make talk of Mahler's middle period "far more concise and readable", or that the original wording was clumsy and/or redundant. These are your untested personal opinions and are by no means indisputable. If you believe that a discussion on the style of this section would be useful,   you should have instigated it here before making your unilateral edits. Since you have belatedly done so now, we can have the discussion, but you will have to excuse me if I don't address the matter for a few days, as I am occupied with other things at the moment. Brianboulton (talk) 22:22, 12 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Take stock a moment. I was only being bold. And it's pretty clear I mark the above as my own opinion. I didn't want to offend, and I didn't want acrimony. I think I'm just going to walk away from this page. Bosola (talk) 22:44, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Ideas/Questions
Wow! Great article, easily vastly superior to all the other Mahler symphony articles. I just have 2 thoughts to throw into the mix: 1. Shouldn't the instrumentation mention the string section (and the need for a large one)? Currently everything else (winds, brass, percent, voices, etc.) is perfectly laid out and described, but the string section gets no mention. 2. Not really a question, I guess, but that huge Stokowski performance photo right in the lead is really throwing me off. I can't think of any article that features two photos in the introduction, let alone one that's so darn big. It is a great photo, though, so maybe it can be included in another section. Thanks ExplorerPlus (talk) 07:36, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree with you, but the main editor should check this, not me OboeCrack (talk) 14:25, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Dead link ref 22 and 26
There is a dead link of reference 22: Mahler's Symphonic Premieres". British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC). http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/alabaster/A65204390. Retrieved 8 May 2010. I would rather repair it myself as I found the new link, but it has two parts and I'm not sure if its the right one: Could somebody check this, and, in case is the right one, place the two separate links in two separate cite webs when appropriate? Thanks, OboeCrack (talk) 18:30, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) Mahler's Symphonic Premieres - 8th Symphony: Part One from BBC http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/A66568963
 * 2) Mahler's Symphonic Premieres - 8th Symphony: Part Two from BBC http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/A66568981
 * Happened the same with: Gibbs, Christopher H. (2010). "Gustav Mahler: The Symphonies in Sequence". The Weill Music Institute, Carnegie Hall. http://www.carnegiehall.org/article/sound_insights/Mahler/art_symphony8_mahler.html. Retrieved 7 May 2010. I found this one but again I'm not sure:

OboeCrack (talk) 18:30, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) http://www.carnegiehall.org/Article.aspx?id=4294967687
 * ✅ Links repaired with the correct ones as cited here, OboeCrack (talk) 18:30, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

"Subsequent performances"
There is a tendency by some editors to add details of recent performances of the symphony even when such performances do not have any great notability. The fact that a particular city has a "Mahler festival" is not of itself notable; there are dozens of such events every year. Additions to this section should be confined to performances that have a real historical significance, and of course must be cited to a reliable source. Since this is a featured article, it is necessary to maintain the standards required by the FA criteria. I have therefore removed uncited content, and also details of a performance that does not appear to have more than local notability. Brianboulton (talk) 19:35, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Symphony No. 8 (Mahler). 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/20160603163519/http://www.chandos.net/pdf/LM%207415.pdf to http://www.chandos.net/pdf/LM%207415.pdf
 * Added tag to http://www.gustavmahler2010.eu/Mahler-Dilo.aspx
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160603163519/http://www.chandos.net/pdf/LM%207415.pdf to http://www.chandos.net/pdf/LM%207415.pdf
 * Added tag to http://www.gustavmahler2010.eu/Mahler-Dilo.aspx

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) 09:16, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Symphony No. 8 (Mahler). 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/20160323193453/http://www.carnegiehall.org/article.aspx?id=4294967687 to http://www.carnegiehall.org/Article.aspx?id=4294967687
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160323193453/http://www.carnegiehall.org/article.aspx?id=4294967687 to http://www.carnegiehall.org/Article.aspx?id=4294967687

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) 06:27, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

Layout
Whitespace is a benefit to the reader rather than a detriment; if addition details are "wanted" please explain why. The version that passed FA had not only an expanded TOC but also only a caption accompanying the image. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:46, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

 Infobox

I prefer clear communication to dialogue per edit summary. I noticed that - to my surprise - this Mahler symphony was the only one without an infobox, and following the example of the Second. There are also Das klagende Lied, Lieder eines fahrenden Gesellen, Kindertotenlieder, Das Lied von der Erde. Several parameters were removed, and I don't understand why. Why not tell readers at a glance - as in comparable works:
 * when and where this was composed
 * that - surprise - it's in two languages
 * which singers and players form the "Thousand" - highly unusual scoring!
 * when and where it was premiered by which orchestra (and please note that an image caption is no equivalent to a parameter, - better drop duplication in the caption)
 * when it was published

Some comparable articles also note number of movements, duration, first recording. I don't believe that Brianboulton would have done any of this "condense". Compare FAs Messiah (Handel) and Lieutenant Kijé (Prokofiev). --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:09, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Seeing as he did not add such a template himself, and was himself the creator of the "identibox" model, I have no reason to think that. I also have no reason to think that intricate details like the first publisher are key facts warranting such prominence, or that "orchestra" conveys the scoring of the work (and of course to include full scoring there would be overwhelming), etc. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:08, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
 * The article was made FA in 2010, well before the infobox was even created. Brian rarely spent time on creating infoboxes, but didn't object to a detailed one for the two works mentioned, among others. Also: we are in 2021, and I thought we left the infobox wars behind in 2018 the latest. The world doesn't need this waste of time. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:13, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I'd support the inclusion of a more detailed infobox, keeping this article in line with the other Mahler symphonies. I also do not think that the introduction of more detailed information has made the article worse. intforce (talk) 12:54, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
 * What specific more detailed information do you want and why? We don't set up these templates according to what's on another article - it's a case-by-case discussion. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:54, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
 * The specific detailed information Gerda mentioned. intforce (talk) 02:19, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Again, please provide a rationale. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:48, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
 * See MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE. Composition date, scoring, premiere and publication dates – those are all what I would consider "key facts" to any musical work. intforce (talk) 01:11, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't agree that something like publication date would be a "key fact" for the average reader, and as noted above scoring cannot be adequately conveyed in that form. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:00, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Case-to-case basis, you say. This is Mahler, a work that pops up if you only search for "Symph", and we may perhaps provide a bit more detail at a glance. Mahler was predominantly a conductor (time-wise) so to see which summer vacation he used for a major work is an interesting fact. If the scoring is not adequately conveyed (which I don't find "noted above"), then let's find a better way, but I believe to say precisely how many soloists of which voice type, and how many choirs of what type, already gives a better idea than the vague "a Thousand". I also hear for the first time that the infobox should only contain facts "for the average reader". Who says so? Why exclude the specialists who may want to know when and by whom this was published, without having to search in the article? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:01, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
 * We write for the average reader, not the specialist, because we are a general encyclopedia and aim to make our articles accessible for the "layperson" - so tailor our level of detail. Besides, someone with enough intimate familiarity with Mahler to understand that "Maiernigg" means a particular summer vacation would likely not need to be told when the work was written. And neither the average reader nor the specialist is well served by overgeneralizing the scoring. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:01, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I talked about publication, not composition, for specialists. When and where composed should be there for all, and the number of vocal soloists with voice parts, and the types of choirs (children's) also for all. Compare Beethoven's Ninth. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:41, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
 * The scoring in that case is considerably simpler, which makes it somewhat more reasonable to present in that form than here. FWIW, that example also has neither publication nor place of composition. I have however added in some other details, which will hopefully be a reasonable compromise. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:12, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you for adding, but I feel we owe readers some view at the number of soloists and their voice parts, and the number of choirs and their types, exactly because its unusual. What would you suggest? I can give up publication if needed, but look at all the detail in Bruckner symphonies, look at the Third. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:51, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I would suggest leaving this detail to the body where it can be properly displayed; I'd also suggest trimming the excessive publication detail from the Third. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:46, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Bruckner: what you call "excessive" has been . --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:25, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

I listed this discussion at project Classical music. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:52, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Reverted to the agreed FA version. The addition is pointless and the attempts to justify above are specious.  Tim riley  talk   07:27, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
 * G. Arendt: I find your edit summary references to Brian Boulton rather distasteful. He was a friend of mine IRL as well as a Wikipedia colleague, and your attempt to co-opt him posthumously does not seem to me very nice. As to your attempt to excuse the insertion of a pointless and unnecessary info-box: just because we have done something stupid in some articles does not require us to go on doing so in others.  Tim riley  talk   12:55, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
 * The edit summary read "... when this became a FA, the infobox option didn't exist. Please discuss on the talk why this article should differ from other articles on Mahler's symphonies, or Bruckners, or articles by sorely missed Brianboulton". I miss him, but don't want to add more personal things to this discussion about an article. Bruckner's symphonies have infoboxes dating back to 2007, Mahler's (all but this one until I noticed that last week) followed later, but also have been stable for a while. There hasn't been any debate about infoboxes for musical compositions in years, and I'd appreciate if we didn't start this time sink gain. Some find them useful, others find them "stupid" but they could just opt for not seeing them. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:37, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I checked the article history, and to spare others the trouble, this is what I see:
 * 2017/04/13: an infobox was added by an IP, - The same IP added infoboxes for Mahler's other symphonies the same day. They were all in place when Brian Boulton died. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:18, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Am I misremembering or was G. Arendt sanctioned some time ago for bullying about info-boxes? I hope we shan't see a recurrence. –  Tim riley  talk   20:16, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Today is International Day of Peace. All my arbcom restrictions were rescinded in 2015. We could start today to assume good faith. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:46, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
 * , A little heavy on the incivility and assuming of bad faith? Just because you feel something is stupid doesn't make it so for others. The whole point of Wikipedia is to collaborate while assuming good faith. Civility is not an article of clothing you can choose to put on or take off as you wish while editing here. Brian was a phenomenal editor and left a lasting impact on people here that knew him and had a chance to engage in discussions with him. You are obviously someone that has felt his impact. Attacking other editors or their opinions doesn't do the good working relationship you both had justice. Please consider engaging in a more collaborative effort. Thank you. -- A Rose Wolf  14:01, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I object to the accusation of incivility. If you reread why I have written you will see that I have been uncivil to nobody; nor have I accused anyone of bad faith. I say that we may have done something stupid, which is surely incontrovertible unless you think Wikipedia is infallible and we collectively never err, and that I don't find G. Arendt's comments about a dead friend of mine very nice, which is a matter of fact. Others may not agree with me as to what is stupid and what is distasteful, but kindly lay off the accusations of incivility.  Tim riley  talk   15:23, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I hope I never said anything "not nice" about Brian Boulton. Please enlighten me what you think was not nice; I may have a language problem. I envy you a bit for having known him in person, but feel blessed that he was my friend on this project: helpful, great in reviewing, suggesting compromise in 2013 when others only reminded me of restrictions, and leaving me his accumulated references about Monteverdi's Vespers as a legacy in 2019. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:37, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
 * , I wholeheartedly disagree with your self-assessment. I will not lay off calling it incivility when that is my view of it based on policy. You want to make statements of opinion and call them facts and that's okay. As I stated, it doesn't make it so. I can choose to disagree and have done so. Others can judge for themselves based on the comments made here. I will say that the discussion is getting away from content and more into a discussion of editors and their character/intent. That is not the purpose of the article talk page. -- A Rose Wolf  17:42, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I apologize, I didn't mean to tag you again here, Tim. I meant to add the @ sign in front as I know you did not specifically tag me, I should not have tagged you in return. -- A Rose Wolf  17:50, 21 September 2021 (UTCv)


 * I don't think I understand the significance of "tagging" but I assure you no offence is taken.  Tim riley  talk   17:57, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I just try to remain courteous at al times, @Tim, that's all. Thank you for being gracious in your response. Ched is correct, the focus needs to remain on the content. I apologize for any disruption my comments may have caused that took the emphasis off that point. -- A Rose Wolf  15:45, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

Perhaps instead of discussing personal views of editors/people it would be better to return to discussing what is best for the article. — Ched (talk) 10:26, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

Factual errors in “Recordings”
The article asserts that Stokowski’s NYPSO broadcast was the first commercially available recording, but this isn’t true. That recording was not made for commercial sale and, I think, was never available (at least officially) within Stokowski’s lifetime. The first commercial recording was Eduard Flipse’s live performance at the 1954 Holland Festival with the Rotterdam Philharmonic. It was issued by Philips.

As for the 1948 Ormandy, he didn’t just record Part I for broadcast, but the entire symphony. However, when that recording was first issued for commercial sale on a Biddulph CD in the early 1990s, only the acetates of Part I and a portion of Part II had been found. Since then, the acetates of the entire performance have been found and copies have been circulating among private collectors for a few years now. —CurryTime7-24 (talk) 12:06, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Do you have sources for this information? Nikkimaria (talk) 13:38, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, I don’t at the moment. The discographic error was just something I happened to catch while reading. I’ll look for a source later today. The section’s cited source is only a discography and doesn’t confirm what the section asserts.
 * As for Ormandy, I’m not sure if the complete performance has ever been available commercially. It certainly does exist; I listened to it a week ago. It has been circulating among private collectors since at least 2016. —CurryTime7-24 (talk) 13:59, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
 * OK, I found at least one source for Flipse, courtesy of the late great Tony Duggan. —CurryTime7-24 (talk) 14:08, 29 December 2021 (UTC)