Talk:Symphonia Domestica

	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.

Saxophones or Saxhorns?

Most of the information I've seen about this piece mentions its use of saxophones. What information do we have to contradict this?

Clearly saxhorns. The autograph score is only marked Sax (not saxophone), hence the confusion, but the parts themselves are too low to fit into the comfortable range of the saxophone, but perfect for Saxhorns. Historically, the saxophone was not present in Germany during the time of composition of this work, but the saxhorn was used in German military bands.

There are quite a few published sources which treat this issue and it seems quite clear among Strauss scholars that the so-called saxophone parts are indeed for Saxhorn. I'll have to dig a bit, but it seems that only saxophonists think that these parts are really for saxophone. Gretab 20:35, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you had actually taken the time to examine the score you would see that the majority of the parts are written above the staff where the saxophone is more comfortable playing. The parts are not "too low to fit into the comfortable range of the saxophone." Furthermore, Strauss calls for a soprano in C, alto in F, baritone in F and bass in C. There is no such thing as a baritone saxhorn in F. Baritone saxhorns were usually built in B-flat or C. It may be entirely possible that Strauss originally wanted saxhorns but the final parts he gave us are indeed saxophone parts. To finally quote Norman Del Mar in his book Anatomy of the Orchestra:

"Opinions have been aired that he muddled them with the saxhorns but, apart from the imputation of ignorance against one of the most knowledgeable and forward-thinking masters of the orchestra, this suggestions is wholly belied by the woodwind-style of the parts given to the ill-fated foursome." (p.206) TrumpetMan202 (talk) 04:30, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sinfonia or Symphonia?

Sinfonia wins out on Google, but it looks like Strauss himself used the word "Symphonia". Do we know that he ever sanctioned the "Sinfonia" spelling? -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 21:36, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Another case of authenticity vs. common usage. P0mbal (talk) 22:03, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Bote & Bock score itself seems pretty unambiguous...

http://imslp.info/files/imglnks/usimg/d/d8/IMSLP13130-Strauss-Sinfonia_Domestica__Op.53.pdf Pfistermeister (talk) 22:11, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Which, for the sake of clarity, I should point out uses Symphonia, not the anomalous wording in the link (Sinfonia). -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 00:17, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The 'New Grove' Strauss entry has 'Symphonia' in the biographical section (8 times), as well as in the 'Works' section. And the 'Oxford Dictionary of Music' agrees. Add this to the evidence of the score, and 'Symphonia is clearly the correct form. Pfistermeister (talk) 01:24, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Verlag Dr. Richard Strauss uses both at http://www.richardstrauss.at/html_e/16_hauptwerk/fs_sinfonia.html. I tend to agree with P0mbal: "authenticity vs. common usage". Note that the German and French Wikipedias also use "Sinfonia". On the other hand, about half of the links to this page come via Symphonia Domestica.

I just noticed that it was me who moved the article on 21 October 2009. There's a remark in my edit summary "see talk page", but I can't find any prior discussion about the spelling there. Frankly, I can't remember my reasoning at the time, but it was probably based on the entry at Verlag Dr. Richard Strauss: Overview of works.

I don't understand the remark about "the anomalous wording in the link Sinfonia" — that article seems more appropriate than Symphonia. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 06:57, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

All I'm saying is that if you read Pfistermeister's post on the surface, it looks like a link to something called "Sinfonia Domestica". But if you actually click on the link, it reveals the work is called "Symphonia Domestica". That's why I called the wording in the link "anomalous". -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 07:10, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I've made the change. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 09:55, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's Sinfonia, in Italian, NOT symphonia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.87.248.162 (talk) 20:21, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not unambiguously; did you read the avove? -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 07:12, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Page move

I've reverted the move to Domestic Symphony. This was listed in the "Uncontroversial requests" section of Requested Moves ([1]), then moved less than a day later. There was no discussion anywhere, not even an alert that such a move was happening. Well, I object to that utterly non-transparent process. But most importantly, I object to the move on the ground that the work is most commonly referred to by the title Strauss gave it, "Symphonia Domestica". -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 12:16, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with JackofOz's objection, his reasoning and his action. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 12:54, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]