Talk:Turangalîla-Symphonie

Futurama character
What is the connection between Messiaen' work and the FUTURAMA character? Is the "little song she hums to herself" an excerpt from it? Is her name directly derived from the work's title? What is the origin of the word, "Turangalila"? Did Messiaen make it up?


 * I'll add a note to the article about the derivation of the title. It's unlikely the name "Turanga Leela" was arrived at independently of the symphony (I mean, it's not exactly "Rachel"), but I don't know for sure. I don't know whether the "little song" is related to the piece - ages since I saw Futurama, can't remember. --Camembert


 * I am pretty sure the futurama girl's name is derived from that, but here is an excert of the symphony
 * http://www.obsolete.com/120_years/machines/martenot/turungalila2.aiff
 * felinoel 18:06, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I tacked that link onto the article. It's remarkable how much useful encyclopedic content you can find hidden on talk pages!  &mdash; Turangalila  (talk) 03:26, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
 * The Futurama trivium came back, and I deleted it again. Reference WP:TRIVIA and the emerging consensus against trivia sections in Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Classical music. David Brooks 03:14, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
 * What's the point of deleting an interesting piece of information? Wikipedia doesn't have the space restrictions of a physical encyclopedia.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.83.145.110 (talk) 17:59, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Agree, this is a notable fact about the piece's influence upon popular culture. Compare: William Tell Overture and Hungarian Rhapsody No. 2. --Gargletheape (talk) 01:33, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Disagree. As I've said before, the name is a fact about Futurama, not a fact about the symphony, and I don't think there is a single person who will come to this article first to read about the TV show. The right place to discuss and come to a consensus on such conventions is in the project pages, not by picking a few extant examples, and WP:POPCULTURE would seem to support me. But, seriously, I give in. Not worth any more effort. David Brooks (talk) 22:36, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

I removed the bit of television trivia. It's obviously not relevant to the article. TheScotch (talk) 07:01, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Honest question. Other than the blatant elitism of those who consider popular culture to be beneath any discussion of classical music, is there an actual reason to not include the fact that a major TV character is named after this symphony?
 * As long as it's well documented that the name of the character is inspired by this piece, I don't see why it should be removed. And about the "I don't think there is a single person who will come to this article first to read about the TV show", you're wrong. I came here to verify that exact information and was surprised it's not mentioned. I had to take my information from the talk page instead because some people believe classical music to be a morally superior form of entertainment that shouldn't mix with "lesser" forms. PraiseVivec (talk) 14:36, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
 * "Blatant elitism" and "morally superior" to describe those you are addressing may not be the best way to bring them to your side. That said, as I said, I was driven not by elitism but by the concept that "an article is about its topic" to object to its inclusion, but I wouldn't nail myself to the mast for it. How about a compromise: a Template:For or Template:About hatnote? I don't like that either but wouldn't delete it. ping. David Brooks (talk) 19:10, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry if I offended anyone (but, honestly, as far as invectives go, "blatant elitism" and "morally superior" are rather on the mild side), but as a lover of classical music I get fired up when people try to put it on a pedestal, away from the "common" entertainment. If you ask me, the fact that a major popular culture character was named after this symphony IS about the topic, as it demonstrates its influence in global culture. PraiseVivec (talk) 22:39, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

Mildly amusing
I find it funny that "î" turns into "%EE" in the URL, so the name in the URL is "Turangal%EEla_Symphony". Nyuck nyuck. – flamuraiTM 08:20, Feb 6, 2005 (UTC)

Uncited claims
I restored the tag, because although I have provided citations for a few facts, there remain other unsourced statements: that Loriod played OM in many performances, the "amoresong" quote, and the movement analyses. Or should I just put a few tags in? David Brooks 02:14, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Whoops, didn't notice those. Personally I think specific  or  tags are a little more useful for future editors.  I added one but I may have missed spots.  &mdash; Turangalila  (talk) 03:26, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Changes made by 86.141.195.137
At the risk of invoking 3RR, I reverted most of these changes. First, it is normal in Wikipedia to leave redlinks if there is a reasonable presumption that the article will exist (under that title) some day. Second, there is only one celesta listed in the full score instrumentation list - I'm looking at it now. Don't be confused by the recommendation to use two glockenspiels; that is Perotin's solution if the orchestra doesn't have a keyed glockenspiel. Third, the flower theme ends with a pizzicato chord and string trill, according to these old ears, but they're not part of the theme itself. Finally, if Messiaen did say "it's a love song", it still needs a cite. Sorry to sound so harsh though. David Brooks 01:05, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
 * OK, there's a sting of some sort at the end of the flower theme, but it's not just cymbal, and I still don't think it's important to the theme. David Brooks 01:16, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually I thought I heard a muted horn at the end of the flower theme, but I'm just going by ear. I don't believe it's invariable through the whole work, though.  Perhaps some qualifier, like "first introduced" or some such, is in order?
 * Also the statued theme as presented seems at least partially transposed from the first appearance in the intro, unless I'm mistaken (I think the 1st tbn starts on B-flat). I assume though, that you just transcribed Messiaen's own examples to create the image on Sibelius?
 * I thought 3rr meant re-reverting 3 times, not reverting a family of 3 edits... &mdash; Turangalila talk 10:16, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, the examples are from Messiaen's own handwritten examples in his notes on the Chung CD (1991 recording of the 1990 revision). And I had already re-linked the redlinks that were unlinked by the same anon user last week, so that's two and counting. David Brooks 16:51, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I got the 1990 score on rental. The first few times, it's two clarinets in the 1st 2 bars, flute and bassoon in the 3rd (this is quite clear on recordings anyway), with stopped horns on the sting. Pitches are as shown. In later movements, the three held chords are doubled by a tremolo on the ondes, and (our friend is here correct), a cymbal joins the sting. You're right about the statue theme B-flat but I'll still go with M's handwritten notes. David Brooks 05:22, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Oh, I just realized what's wrong. I simply mistranscribed the first chord (I should have noticed the interval was wrong). Yes, it's G-flat/B-flat. David Brooks 05:30, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Ha! Vindication! :-)...seriously though, that's some intense orchestration.  The man studied his Debussy (you'll say, "hey, T, you mean Ravel", but I'm thinking of Faune -- bars 51-54, check it out...).  Nice job on the Sibelius examples...gotta see if my old version can do that...&mdash; Turangalila   talk  06:19, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Unreferenced tag removed
I think there are only two unreferenced claims: Koussevitsky's illness, which I can't find mentioned anywhere else, and the "It's a love song" quote. However, there remain the subjective descriptions of some of the movements which I have also not seen elsewhere; perhaps someone can get around to those later. David Brooks 18:01, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I got around to them, in line with Wikiproject guidelines. The subjective elements that remain all quote (or slightly paraphrase) Messiaen's notes for the 1991 recording noted in the references. Of course, the guidelines allow for other commentators' subjective descriptions so long as they are sourced and contain "according to" language. Our performance is just two days away! David Brooks 19:52, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Revised in 1990
"The work was revised in 1990". Presumably by Messiaen (I don't know) and if so, wouldn't it be better to make the sentence active "Messiaen revised the work in 1990". Redlentil (talk) 20:12, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Good points. David Brooks (talk) 01:58, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Bass trombone interpretation
In the first example, which I uploaded in 2007, I acknowledge that it doesn't actually replicate the 1990 score. The third trombone's third note is actually an octave higher, D3, unison with the first trombone, which looks a little odd visually in the score. When my orchestra played it, we substituted the D2 here and in a later repeat; there's also a sustained C3 somewhere that we "restored" to a C2. Sorry about that; after ten years I just noticed what I had done. If there's a clamor, I'll try to resurrect the original and fix it.

I have nothing to back this up, but I believe it was normal in the early part of the century for French orchestras to employ three tenor trombones, whose range ends at E2 unless they have a "plug" (most do these days). Most orchestras also employ a genuine bass trombone. Messiaen was happy to write the 3rd part down to the E, which makes me even more certain that he was intentionally staying in the tenor range. However, it's possible that his ear was so precise that he didn't want the sound of the low D and C in these chords. I don't know if there's any definitive explanation out there. David Brooks (talk) 22:15, 5 February 2017 (UTC)


 * I just remembered where I got the D2 from. See the footnote. Also, the instrumentation list in the score itself says just "3 trombones", which even more strongly suggests he wanted a matched tenor trio. This has been bugging me for almost ten years, I guess! David Brooks (talk) 20:35, 12 February 2017 (UTC)