Talk:Symphony No. 2 (Borodin)

	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.

Revision

It says here that the symphony was revised later by Rimsky-Korsakov and Glazunov. Why was it revised anyhow? Which is the version generally performed today? Is there a modern routine of returning to the originals as in Mussorgsky's case? AdamChapman (talk) 13:29, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The symphony was revised because Borodin's thick orchestration appealed neither to audiences nor to performers. Borodin, like Schumann, was a notoriously thick orchestrater. 06ligeti (talk) 03:47, 6 May 2009 (UTC)]][reply]

For another account, see the "Miscellaneous Comments" at http://imslp.org/wiki/Symphony_No.2_(Borodin,_Aleksandr). Kostaki mou (talk) 00:58, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

According to this account, the orchestration was substantially Borodin's own, though Borodin did make modifications to it according to advice from Rimsky-Korsakov. If it was anything like the orchestration for Borodin's tone poem In the Steppes of Central Asia, which appeared well within Borodin's lifetime (1880), I doubt it was "heavy."Kostaki mou (talk) 03:42, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Is it possible that between 1877 and 1887, Borodin's full scores/parts were again lost? I'll have to have a look at that discussion etc. again... Schissel | Sound the Note! 11:34, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Remote? What do we mean?

We say "The second movement is unconventional in many ways, as it moves to the key of F major – a very remote key; which may have been Balakriev’s idea originally." What do we actually mean by that?

F major is not remote in terms of being an unusual key - it's just one flat. It's also not terribly remote from B minor, although it's not right next to it. What is actually meant? 86.164.69.239 (talk) 22:26, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Although I didn't add or paraphrase that observation, I might suggest that the remoteness of F might be explained by the fact that it is a tritone away from B, which makes the relationship quite unstable; furthermore, in the circle of fifths F is six fifths away from B in either direction, which is about as far away as you can get: F - C - G - D - A - E - **B** - F# - C# - G# - D# - A#(Bb) - F. One thing to double-check on: if I'm not mistaken, Balakirev suggested the first chord of the 2nd movement as a way to transition from the tonality of the first movement. (Gerald Abraham might have mentioned that, but I'm not sure.) Mademoiselle Fifi (talk) 11:29, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. What is meant is that F major is remote from B minor, as Borodin, who knew his stuff here, knew. We've lost that "ear" for how music was heard then, now in the 21th century (and not just because of modernism or whatnot- for about 5 dozens of reasons) - but that sort of circle-of-fifths understanding of musical relationships, though a little attenuated post-Liszt ;), was still the thing... (BTW- Ekaterina Borodina?... I thought Liszt was the dedicatee of this symphony, in exchange for (Liszt's) having helped get Borodin's 1st symphony more widely heard some years back, btw. Hrm. I think I have some things confused...) Schissel | Sound the Note! 11:31, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

3rd movement and finale

at least in the posthumous first full score (I'll have to check the piano reduction published during Borodin's lifetime - there is, as noted on IMSLP and should also be noted here, some issue as to the "editing" by Glazunov, etc. esp. in the full score, I think)- the 3rd movement ends in a full pause followed by an "attacca" - and that "attacca" (however authentic or no) is audible in every performance of the work I've ever heard, though not mentioned (yet) in this article (though much of less interest is, I think...) Schissel | Sound the Note! 11:25, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]