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
The original article had the source of the line "Alles danke dem Herrn! Danket dem Herrn und rühmt seinen Namen und preiset seine Herrlichkeit" as psalms 105 and 150, however I've been writing program notes for this symphony, and after some searching I concluded that this passage is more likely derived from 1 Chronicles 16:8-10. The Lutherian German text from this passage in the Bible reads, "Danket dem HERRN, prediget seinen Namen; tut kund unter den Völkern sein Tun! Singet und spielet ihm; dichtet von allen seinen Wundern! Rühmet seinen heiligen Namen; es freue sich das Herz derer, die den HERRN suchen!" It would be much appreciated if someone more familiar with the Bible than me can verify this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Piatigorsky (talk • contribs) 22:09, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Also, the verse for the soprano and tenor duet originally had Psalms 28, 31, and 103 listed as its source, however after reading the German version of these three psalms I could not find anything in them that corresponded with the lyrics, so I removed the reference. Does anyone know of another source, or does the Lutherian Bible perhaps have a different ordering of these three psalms than the English version(s)? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Piatigorsky (talk • contribs) 22:14, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
For some reason that I cannot understand, from the first version of the article until in May 2007 until the revision in November 2011, the text has stated that there are nine vocal movements, and then proceeded to carefully list the TEN movements with their titles; starting in January 2012, the text stated that there at ELEVEN vocal movements, still followed by the careful list of TEN movements with their titles. It seems to me that after seven years, it would be good to have the text state that there are TEN vocal movements, and keep that careful list intact.
My source for this is the score as published by Mendelssohn-Bartoldy; see https://books.google.com/books?id=7EFeAAAAcAAJ, p. 198-223. On page 198, the section, numbered 10 in this article, clearly begins with the correct phrase, "Ihr Völker! bringet her dem Herrn Ehre und Macht!" At 223, we have the final words of that section, and nothing follows; we are at the end of the book, so there is no eleventh vocal section.
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the move request was: Move. We have a consensus that "Lobesang" is a better title, for several reasons. It seems to be in wide use and it fits the article titles policy's conditions on WP:NATURAL and CONCISE titles. Additionally, it dissolves the issue of whether or not this piece should be counted as a symphony. Cúchullaint/c15:38, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Symphony No. 2 (Mendelssohn) → Lobgesang – The article should be moved to the proper title "Lobgesang" (or alternatively "Hymn of Praise"), as it is the original title given by Mendelssohn. For the rationale, see the article's text, recently amended by me. Mendelssohn intended the work as a symphony-cantata, but never had intentions to have it count as one of his symphonies. The posthumous naming "Symphony No. 2", introduced in the old Mendelssohn complete edition decades after his death, had mere editorial reasons. The modern scientific literature has dropped counting the "Lobgesang" as a symphony, cf. Mendelssohn-Werkverzeichnis (2009). Also modern sheet music editions normally give the title as "Lobgesang" (sometimes quoting "Symphony No. 2" as a subtitle), cf. e.g. [1], [2], [3]. Of course, "Symphony No. 2 (Mendelssohn)" should remain to redirect to this article, as the work is known this way on a number of CD releases. FordPrefect42 (talk) 09:46, 23 July 2015 (UTC) --Relisted.George Ho (talk) 16:18, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Title page of the autograph score of Dvořák's ninth symphony, where he gives the symphony its nickname and numbers it as No. 8Oppose – At the WP:MUSICSERIES guideline the exceptions are described when not to use the standard format (with numbers): the Lobgesang Symphony-Cantata does not fall in these exceptions. I list here some examples of when the usual numbering "deviates" from the numbering given by the composer, following a posthumous re-numbering (the second example also deviating from the one laid down in the "official" catalogue):
New World Symphony No. 8 according to the composer (see image →), and despite it having a nickname (also given by the composer) Wikipedia retains the numbered format, Symphony No. 9 (Dvořák), with a numbering different from the composer's.
Schubert's Great: also having a clear nickname; No. 7 according to the composer, his brother, and even Schumann promoted it under that number (by then with the established nickname). Same numbering in Franz Schubert's Works (editor: Johannes Brahms). But No. 8 as well according to the Deutsch Catalogue as the New Schubert Edition. Nonetheless Wikipedia retains Symphony No. 9 (Schubert) according to Grove's 19th century numbering (without paying attention to Grove's renumbering in the early 20th century). See Schubert's symphonies#Numbering issues, and Newbould supporting the "usual" numbering (the one Wikipedia currently uses).
Numbering is rarely exclusively what the composer had in mind (composers publishing by Opus number rarely had an over-all numbering of all compositions of a specific group; the numbering of Mozart's symphonies e.g. contains a few not composed by him that erroneously turned up in early versions of the Köchel catalogue) – it's what history and habits do with such artistic works (and that's part of the history of these works too). When you've read thus far I think it is clear what I propose as !vote in this survey. --Francis Schonken (talk) 10:26, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Re @Francis Schonken: From my point of view, this is not a matter of applicable exceptions. In the first place, it is rather WP:MUSICSERIES not being applicable at all to the work of music in question, for the Lobgesang is not, and never was, part of the series of Mendelssohn's symphonies. If you have a look at any of the published scores till the 1870's, youj will notice that the Lobgesang was always referred to as "Symphony-Cantata" op. 52 without any reference to Mendelssohn's symphonies. It was only since sometime in the 1890's (haven't figuered out the exact date yet), when some editor obscured the matter by moving the Lobgesang to fill the numbering gap which he obviously could not stand. This numbering has certainly received some acknowledgement of it's own in the meantime, agreed, but the article should not obscure the fact that Mendelssohn did not conceive the work as a symphony, but as a symphony-cantata (different genre according to the composer). Its natural counterpart is rather Die erste Walpurgisnacht than any of the symphonies. And by the way, "Lobgesang" is not a nickname, but the official title provided by Mendelssohn, and the only one he did provide. --FordPrefect42 (talk) 12:51, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Basically, articles should be named by WP:CRITERIA. What genre a composition "is" has little to do with naming issues, nor the "history" of how compositions came to be named the way they are.
A first indication of how articles can be named is how it is named most often in reliable sources, a.k.a. the WP:COMMONNAME principle. WP:NCM#Articles in series can override that principle (per the 5th of the WP:CRITERIA). It has done so for Moonlight Sonata, which in fact is not correctly qualified as "sonata" (it is a Sonata quasi una Fantasia, like Mendelssohn's 2nd is Symphony-Cantata, not a Symphony), to put it simple:
Whether it is a nickname or an official name has little to do with this, explicitly, see WP:OFFICIALNAME, and the WP:COMMONNAME policy description.
Who did it or when or why a composition started to become part of a series has little to do with it, none of these rationales are remotely picked up in WP:CRITERIA, or in the applicable Criterion #5 guidance at WP:NCM#Articles in series.
Re. "As the article says: "The new Mendelssohn-Werkverzeichnis (MWV), published in 2009 by the Saxonian Academy of Sciences and Humanities, no longer lists Lobgesang among the symphonies, but rather among the sacred v"" [4]
Please don't discuss via edit summaries, is more laborious to reply to
As already explained above:
What the instances do that control the official catalogue isn't always followed by habit (and Wikipedia), see e.g. Schubert's No. 9 example, not conforming to what the experts of the Deutsch catalogue do.
The official instances that control the latest version of the Köchel catalogue have extradited several numbered "Mozart" symphonies from the catalogue alltogether (while not even by the composer), yet the numbering that includes these is maintained in habit and Wikipedia. "Not a work by the composer" trumps "requalification as another type of work" imho. One can discuss forever, advocating official instances and whatnot, whether An Alpine Symphony is "truly" a symphony or "truly" a symphonic poem as intended by the composer, yet the Wikipedia article carries "Symphony" in the page name, by habit & convention. --Francis Schonken (talk) 11:18, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment and thanks, a very educational discussion. I'm far from an expert on music naming formats, but am surprised to learn that the "New World Symphony" page isn't named after the common name. Maybe a larger overall discussion about symphonic music titles on Wikipedia could cover these pages. Randy Kryn13:38, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support - this symphony is akin to the Manfred Symphony: the name was given to the work by the composer and it is still the name preferred by musicologists. The only difference is that the Manfred does not also have a number, but that difference is immaterial here. R. Larry Todd in his book "Mendelssohn: A Life in Music" refers to this Mendelssohn symphony (or symphony-cantata) as the "Lobgesang", Op. 57, and not as the Symphony No. 2. See also "The Mendelssohns: Their Music in History" (chapter by Christoph Hellmundt) for similar treatment. In that way this work is different from the "named" symphonies of Mozart, Haydn and Beethoven, which should be referred to numerically rather than by their unofficial names ("London", "Jupiter", "Pastoral", "Eroica", etc). It is also different from Dvorak's: Michael Steinberg, for instance, refers to that symphony as Symphony No. 9. Syek88 (talk) 23:36, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This comment seems to be wandering very far from WP:CRITERIA:
Manfred Symphony was never numbered, which makes it impossible for Wikipedia to number it without WP:OR, I don't see a beginning of a comparison with Mendelssohns symphony-cantata.
For Mendelssohn's work two sources are cited (Todd, Hellmundt), for Dvořák's a totally unrelated source (Steinberg). Nothing about what Todd and Hellmundt say about Dvořák's, nor what Steinberg says about Mendelssohn's. Nothing in this remotely indicating "... the name that is most frequently used to refer to the subject in English-language reliable sources ..." as if two sources using a particular format would be a significant sample of the hundreds of reliable sources referring to Mendelssohn's work.
And even when the common name could be established (as it can be established very easily on the Moonlight Sonata) WP:CRITERIA easily takes precedence for compositions, precisely while names given by the composer or others can be quite confusing: the most recognizable/natural/precise/concise/consistent name should be chosen, and WP:NCM does not show a defect in eliciting that in the context.
I oppose giving weight to parameters that according to policy don't carry weight in naming discussions, e.g. "Wikipedia does not necessarily use the subject's "official" name as an article title", as it is in the policy, or, the composer's intentions not even mentioned directly or indirectly in all what is said in guidance on article titling of compositions. --Francis Schonken (talk) 09:42, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Listening to radio announcement from a Leipzig concert: Lobgesang, a Symphonie-Kantate (Symphonic cantata), - not a symphony, supporting move. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:23, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Gerda, please recognize you're speaking about a German announcement in a German-speaking country, so has little to do with English-language use of the name of the composition. And, however often a certain sonata quasi una fantasia is announced as Mondschein on German-speaking radio stations the article title is now at Piano Sonata No. 14 (Beethoven), and as far as I can remember you supported that move. --Francis Schonken (talk) 06:15, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No serious German radio announcement would say "Mondschein" other than mentioning it as a nickname. That's why I supported to move it back. (It had been moved to the nickname by a now banned user after a strange "discussion", and the move back took two weeks I would have enjoyed to spend differently.) Had Beethoven himself named his work Mondschein, things were different for me. - I hope English stations will announce this piece as Lobgesang. It is not a symphony, and some notice. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:27, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
Done since 23 October 2013. --FordPrefect42 (talk) 19:40, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
