Talk:Antar (Rimsky-Korsakov)

	Classical music portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Classical music, which aims to improve, expand, copy edit, and maintain all articles related to classical music, that are not covered by other classical music related projects. Please read the guidelines for writing and maintaining articles. To participate, you can edit this article or visit the project page for more details.Classical musicWikipedia:WikiProject Classical musicTemplate:WikiProject Classical musicClassical music articles
	This article is supported by Compositions task force.

Article Name: Symphony or Antar

A lot of sources and recordings refer to this as "nicknamed symphony". That is, something like Symphony No. 2 "Antar". This is partly because his next symphony was "No. 3". Should the article be renamed to be Symphony No. 2 (Rimsky-Korsakov) or Antar Symphony? Or were his intentions on reclassifying the work so strong that it should be labeled only a symphony suite (keep article the same). Either way, I think a sentence or two more of discussion is warranted to clean up any ambiguity. DavidRF (talk) 16:09, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I understand your point and the logic behind it. However, I would keep the article name as it is now. Rimsky was extremely adament in his autobiography, My Musical Life, that Antar was actually a symphonic suite and explains why. I've included the gist of his argument into the article. Jonyungk (talk) 17:03, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cool, thanks. DavidRF (talk) 17:39, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Version used by Svetlanov

Is it documented on his recordings that Svetlanov used the 1897 version? I had read that he used either 1875 or a variant of it for all his recordings, not just the one on RCA Red Seal. Jonyungk (talk) 19:10, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Potential Typo in Version Dates?

The first paragraph and infobox talk about an 1891 version, but everywhere else I've seen (including scores recordings, and elsewhere in this article) mention a 1897 version, but no 1891 version. Is this a typo in the first paragraph and infobox? Daven Ehrlich (talk) 01:45, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]