Talk:Symphony No. 6 (Nielsen)

	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.

Denmark Low‑importance

	Denmark portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Denmark, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Denmark on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.DenmarkWikipedia:WikiProject DenmarkTemplate:WikiProject DenmarkDenmark articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

I removed this passage: Several symphonies in the 20th century had wind-only scherzos and string-only slow movements, for example the Sinfonia Serena of Paul Hindemith, and the Eighth symphony of Vaughan Williams, though Nielsen does not follow this pattern very closely here since his scherzo includes percussion instruments and the slow movement includes important writing for winds. It seems less than coherent as it stands. Firstly, this article is about Neilsen 6, not the structure of 20th century symphony. The symphony predates the Hindemith (1946) and the Vaughan Williams (1955), and so Nielsen was not following their pattern. Two is not "several" - although there may obviously be other examples I can't think of. Finally, as the passage says, the "scherzo" isn't winds-only, and the Proposta seria is not for strings-only. In fact, now I think about it, the statement is actually saying "two symphonies in the 20th century had wind-only scherzos and string-only slow movements, but this is not one of them." --RobertG ♬ talk 16:10, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I also removed this: The opening is just a bit similar to that of the slow movement of his Fourth symphony. This seems to me a bald and arbitrary statement. Is it being presented as evidence of the autobiographical nature of the work? Did Simpson say it? If it's not referenced, then it's original research. --RobertG ♬ talk 16:10, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, "Several symphonies in the 20th century had wind-only scherzos and string-only slow movements, for example the Sinfonia Serena of Paul Hindemith, and the Eighth symphony of Vaughan Williams, though Nielsen does not follow this pattern very closely here since his scherzo includes percussion instruments and the slow movement includes important writing for winds." (or rather the version I wrote, which was even less coherent) didn't belong in the article - was an offhand observation that didn't contribute to understanding. (hrm, the HTML <q> doesn't work here...)

I think I can remember some other works that have almost entirely strings-only slow movements - almost entirely, as their endings serve to introduce the finales, so it only stands to reason that the rest of the orchestra would re-enter by way of transition - like Havergal Brian's 12th symphony, say. But Nielsen's preceded all those that come to mind offhand. Schissel-nonLop! 17:39, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sub-title

Did Nielsen ultimately keep the subtitle or remove it? I have seen the symphony listed both ways. --Wspencer11 (talk to me...) 15:54, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Simpson editions

There are two editions of this book (1952, revised 1979 with substantial updates) with reprints of both, a paperback version of the second and different dates in the UK and USA. The fist edition included birth and death years in the title and had fewer pages. To add to the confusion, one seller gives 1989 instead of 1979 as the date of a first edition reprint, the second edition was also published in 1979 and reprinted in 1989!

This book is a key secondary source and particularly for the 6th Symphony the changes in the revised edition are significant. I want to make all the references consistent (so the more casual reader is not confused—as I was when first reading these articles), for it to be clear to which edition and printing any page numbers refer, and to to cite both editions as this illustrates how expert understanding of Nielsen's music has evolved—particularly where the changes are significant. A summary of the publishing history is:

1952, 1st ed., hardback, published in UK, reprinted 1965 (UK), 1979 (USA)
1979, 2nd ed., hardback, published in UK and USA (paperback version published in UK (1986) and USA (1989)) with various reprints

Since the page numbers are so different for the two editions, I suggest we retain both where they have been provided, at least for now (I only have the 1979 2nd edition so any refs I add refer to that) and make it really clear to which version the page numbers apply. In order to avoid confusing dates we should cite the first printed editions of each revision.

I currently have fuller details of some of these printings on this user page. Mirokado (talk) 00:51, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]