Talk:Pastoral Symphony (Vaughan Williams)

Disambiguation

I am aware that there has been some discussion on whether the composer's name should be in the article title. I was going to say that I think it would be preferable, even if no ambiguity arises, since the distinction between "Pastoral Symphony" and "A Pastoral Symphony" is pretty slight, and may confuse the non-specialist. Then I discovered that there is, in fact, another piece called A Pastoral Symphony, in four movements for brass band by Robert Redhead. I would propose that (Vaughan Williams) be added to all the article titles. Myopic Bookworm 16:32, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

The Boosey & Hawkes miniature score (Copyright 1924) baldly states Pastoral Symphony with neither the definite nor indefinite article and, as stated, no number for the symphony. So I agree that the title should be Vaughan Williams: Pastoral Symphony. Incidentally, the composer himself conducted the first American performance of the work in a concert in Norfolk, Connecticut, on June 7, 1922. Philipson55 (talk) 07:43, 25 March 2011 (UTC) Philipson55

Alternative scoring

The scoring for the final movement provides for Soprano or Tenor Solo. In his BBC Symphony Orchestra 'Proms' performance of 21 July 1998, Andrew Davis opted for the alternative by engaging Paul Agnew to sing the wordless part normally taken by a soprano. This same solo is also cued into the clarinet parts and is "to be played by 1st Clarinet, when there is no vocal Soloist." This scheme was adopted by Andre Previn when he was Principal Conductor of the London Symphony Orchestra. Although in 1971 he had made a commercial recording for RCA with Heather Harper as soloist, for a subsequent concert at the Royal Festival Hall, the finale's solo was played by the LSO's principal clarinet, Jack Brymer. Philipson55 (talk) 19:12, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Original research

The commentary on the score has been flagged as possibly original research. I would argue that a score is not original research, and that anyone who can read a score can write what's happening in it for the benefit of those who cannot. It's no more original research than synopsising a printed text. The flags should be removed. Rconroy (talk) 17:59, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

I might agree with you about some of this material, but there are also interpretations about which even experts in score reading might have differences of opinion. These cannot be read directly from the score by anyone with the requisite skill. For example:

• "The trio, ... has a quicker, brighter quality but retains some of the heaviness of the earlier music."
• "This is the only time truly fast music appears in the symphony."
• "The high point of the symphony comes when the violins all state the opening soprano melody appassionato."

Perhaps this is more a question of documenting POV statements than original research, but there is no sharp line between these categories.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 00:04, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

However, statements such as:

• "The entire cadenza is played over a pedal note in the strings."
• "The movement ends with a quiet chord in the violins' high register."
• "The movement ends in a major chord."

are neither original research nor matters of opinion: these can be read direct from the score.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by NickBennett (talk • contribs) 00:23, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

I agree, I'm removing these tags. All the best: Rich Farmbrough 14:51, 12 February 2024 (UTC).