Talk:Rhapsody on a Theme of Paganini

	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.

Link appropriateness

How is * Listen to Rhapsody on a Theme by Paganini MP3 audio an inappropriate link? I think it is a very appropriate link!—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.159.252.141 (talk • contribs) .

We do not link to sites that distribute copyrighted works without permission. - mako 08:24, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Three Movement Analogy

There was an "or" tag on the three-movement analogy in the structure of the piece. This analogy is not in the books I have but I have been able to find it in almost every online program notes article on the work that I could find. Here is a non-exhaustive list (surely there are many more):

Plus its mentioned at allmusic.com as well. So, I've switched it to a "cn" tag. If anyone can find an appropriate citation to use for this (program notes pages tend to be transient), then we can remove the "cn" tag. The three-movement analogy is worth including as it gives the listener an optional way of grouping the large number of variations to make the piece easier to listen to. DavidRF 02:50, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I added this source to that cn, before checking the Talk, sorry. If it is inappropriate, please remove; I don't want to make redundant edits by reverting myself. ✗ Zen. ^∞ 10:31, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Rachmaninoff" instead of "Rachmaninov"

I've just made the article consistent re. the English spelling of the composer's name. For more details on why "Rachmaninoff" was chosen over "Rachmaninov," see the discussion at the page on the composer. --Todeswalzer|Talk 00:31, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Needs more credit

I'm listening to it right now and it is so amazing. The article needs more about it's beauty, especially the 18th variation. It doesn't get enough credit.

Would anybody object if I described the 18th Variation as the Paganini when played upside down, in addition to what's been said about the inversion? I read that in the liner notes of a CD that included Lutoslavski's variations, and I was amazed that anybody could think of doing that and coming up with something that surpassed the original tune. To put it in layman's terms would fascinate new readers, but I thought I'd better build consensus before attempting, in case I am inaccurate. MMetro 19:13, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Inversion means "played upside down". A parenthetic remark in addition to the link would be fine. Steinberg even spells out the score for the theme vs the 18th variation. You could do that as well. Check out the Goldberg Variations and Diabelli Variations articles where variation by variation play-by-play is done with score examples mixed in. That could be done here as well. DavidRF 20:34, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Popular culture

I'm not qualified to do this, but it would be nice if there were a section listing the uses of the 18th variation in popular culture, particularly film. --MM (talk) 18:15, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I just removed these. Check the article history. There's been quite a bit of descrepancy as to what constitutes a pop culture reference and what does not (specifically, the rendition in Groundhog Day was considered too jazzed up for some to "count"). Turns out that there's been a movement away from these "pop culture" sections in classical music articles on wikipedia. They've had a tendency to grow unwieldy and take over the article... especially for very popular pieces like Pachelbel's Canon, Dvorak's 9th, The Blue Danube, etc. So, these sections have been marked with {{trivia}} tags and removed. There are places off wikipedia that collect this information. imdb is one example, but I've seen others that collect the information better. If an appropriate site was found (i.e. one that wouldn't be labeled as "spam") then I be for adding a single line in an external link section for this type of thing, but this is really a question for Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Classical music as this type of thing comes up across many other articles. Cheers. DavidRF (talk) 18:42, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ironically, this information was exactly what I came to this wikipedia article to find :P Thanks for the IMDB link, though. 77.103.197.181 (talk) 03:53, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Change title?

I suggest changing 'of' to 'by' (which I think is the only correct way in English). The new title would be "Rhapsody on a Theme by Paganini". Analogues are also titled like that, for example Variations on a Theme by Haydn, a composition by Brahms. Sawtoothcoriander (talk) 16:03, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Reference 9

It seem to be a dead YouTube link, without a description which could have indicated what it was. 37.168.24.59 (talk) 09:02, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]