Talk:Symphony in D minor (Franck)

Shouldn't this be Symphony (Franck) by the MoS? &mdash; $PЯINGrαgђ  Always loyal! 04:10, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

a redoubt of german music?
What the heck is that supposed to mean? Shouldn't one should understand a word before using it? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redoubt PJinBoston (talk) 16:51, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Selected discography — External link broken
In section Selected discography the external link to Classics Today is broken. It links to the top-level index, not the specific review quoted. I could not find the relevant review; searches on "Franck Symphony" and "Chicago Symphony Monteux" found nothing or gave me a 404 Page Error. And BTW, there are at least 2 early authoritative recordings by Monteux, 1951 and 1961. I expect the 1961 recording is meant, but without the source, this may have to go. --D Anthony Patriarche (talk) 17:08, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

More extensive analysis
Suggest expanding to a more detailed analysis.

The first movement analysis talks only about the first subject. It should also talk about the second subject, called the Faith Motif by some critics, and it might mention that the movement has one of the most harmonically adventurous development sections of any romantic symphony.

The second movement analysis talks only about the English horn solo. Of course that's fine, but a lot else also happens in this movement.

The third movement analysis talks only about the opening melody. Again, that's fine, but a lot else happens in this movement. In particular, this is where most of the symphony's cyclicism happens. The movement quotes the 2nd movement English horn melody three times, once as a solo for English horn, once (rhythmically altered) as an oboe solo, and once as a forte tutti section scored for full orchestra. In the coda there are quotes of the Faith Motif and the first subject from the 1st movement. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.159.248.94 (talk) 22:29, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your suggestions. Feel free to be bold and expand the analysis as you see fit. Do remember to cite your sources though. I feel like broad descriptions that are immediately obvious from the score (like tempo or key) do not need a citation, but detailed structural and harmonic analysis need sources, as that would be original research otherwise. I also encourage you to make an account. Cheers and happy editing, intforce (talk) 22:43, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

OK, I've made my suggested changes. I realize they're lumpy and could stand to be smoothed out into regular prose. And I don't have music notation software, so I've tried to indicate melodic material in ASCII text. Also I'm a bit worried that my remarks may count as independent research, though I've tried not to include much of my own interpretation. Feel free to back out my changes or make any additional changes you feel called for, of course. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.159.248.94 (talk) 20:35, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Hey, right now what you added needs a lot of work. The analysis needs to have a citation; I can suggest that you summarize Tovey's remarks on the symphony in your own words. Please use prose for the analysis. The ASCII melodies are completely unreadable to the reader and so should be omitted. Thanks, intforce (talk) 21:11, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

I suggest that you just back out the changes I made, then. If you have a better analysis that you can paraphrase and cite without it counting as independent research, I'd say swell, let's use that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.159.248.94 (talk) 21:44, 2 February 2021 (UTC)