Talk:The Wand of Youth

Title
I wonder whether we shouldn't call this article The Wand of Youth Suites. It's not as if he wrote a complete incidental music, from which he later extracted two suites (a la Bizet's L'Arlésienne). All he ever wrote initially were some childhood sketches. Much later he revisited them and created the 2 suites. Whenever the work is performed or broadcast, it's not called "The Wand of Youth", but "The Wand of Youth Suite No. 1", or "No. 2", or perhaps both. Essentially all we've ever had are the suites, so shouldn't the article be named accordingly? --  Jack of Oz   [pleasantries]  00:00, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Considered, but please not to change the title as you suggest. Even though each of your statements is correct, the conclusion does not follow. They are indeed The Wand of Youth suites. Please see the published title pages and consider: Elgar wrote a set of music pieces he titled "THE WAND OF YOUTH." [note the full stop, customary at the time in titles]. In parentheses beneath both titles was his explanation "(Music to a child's play.)" This music was assembled by E. into two sets called "FIRST SUITE." and "SECOND SUITE." See Kennedy, Moore et al.: the pieces are collectively known as The Wand of Youth, or The Wand of Youth Suites ... but never The Wand of Youth Suites. I hope the BBC called them "The Wand of Youth Suite No. 1" and not "The Wand of Youth Suite No. 1" ... but do not have high expectation from their copywriter! They are sets of pieces (Suites for want of a better name) titled The Wand of Youth. They were incidental music, yes, not suites generated like Bizet's L'Arlésienne but more akin in generation to Handel's collection of Water Music. But never minding what happened to Bizet's or Handel's music, the subject is a pair of suites with title The Wand of Youth. P0mbal (talk) 23:39, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Ballet
I have added a short section on the 1985 ballet based on the suites, but it hasn't remained in the repertory, as far as I can discover, and I am wondering if it is really of enough encyclopedic interest for mention here. Thoughts welcome on this, from Jackof Oz, P0mbal and any other interested editors.  Tim riley  talk   13:02, 29 February 2024 (UTC)