Talk:Till Eulenspiegel's Merry Pranks

	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.

Comment

I think it should be added that the horn solo at the beginning is in the rythm of the spoken "till eu-len-spie--gel". And a citation would be nice.

Quoted from San Fransisco Symphony's program notes: 'In his own score, Strauss added several annotations in longhand. Underneath the opening four measures of the first theme, he wrote, “Once upon a time there was a roguish jester . . . ,” and underneath the first horn call, “. . . whose name was Till Eulenspiegel.” Underneath the D clarinet’s musical raspberry he penned the words, “That was a rascally scamp!” He added several other comments at various places in the score-as did his wife Pauline, whose comments typically tended toward the caustic (“awful” and “mad” were some of her terms).'

It doesn't really say it but in the pre-concert talk the guy said so.

Here's a link to the Program notes: http://www.sfsymphony.org/templates/pgmNotePrint.asp?nodeid=4053

Wikidiego 02:29, 29 January 2007 (UTC)wikidiego[reply]

Suggested move

Per WP:UE: changing to a commonly-used English name rather than one in a foreign language, similar to our recent move of Tod und Verklärung to Death and Transfiguration. I do not intend to continue suggesting move for the other Strauss tone poems, as they are rarely referred to in translation, but this one seems a good candidate for a move. Heimstern Läufer 04:03, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strongly support; even more clearly English usage than Tod und Verklärung. I would move the Alpine Symphony, too, but not Ein Heldenleben. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:32, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Moved. Kyle Barbour 00:46, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Physical Impossibility

The cadaver would still change directions while ondulating at the same speed as it would in its initial speed. The period of a pendulum stays constant. 67.232.192.171 (talk) 00:44, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Instrumentation section formatting

The formatting of the instrumentation section here is covered by a Classical Music Project guideline entitle Specifying the musical forces used in a work which is located here. This is an extract:

"This simple format is applicable to most works, even most of those calling for larger orchestras, more percussion, and doubling on auxiliary wind instruments. For example:""

The symphony is scored for an orchestra consisting of 2 flutes (2nd doubling piccolo), 2 oboes (2nd doubling cor anglais), 2 clarinets (1st doubling E-flat clarinet), 4 bassoons, 4 french horns, 2 trumpets, 2 cornets, 3 trombones, 2 ophicleides (usually replaced by tubas), 2 pairs of timpani, snare drum, cymbals, bass drum, bells in C and G, 2 harps, and strings."

Justin Tokke took part in a discussion about this on CM in April (see here, foot of page). So what is the point of reverting efforts to clean up the formatting and capitalization of these sections according to the guideline, see [1]? I suggest that Justin Tokke should either cancel his revert or ask the Classical Music Project to change their guideline — but not resort to point attacks. --Klein zach 05:40, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, how specific quoting is useful! See the aditional quote afterwards.

However, for works employing particularly large orchestras, complex wind doublings, large percussion sections, offstage instruments, and the like, it may be useful to expand the above format, dividing the instruments into several (possibly bulleted) paragraphs, according to their respective families (woodwinds, brass, etc). One example of an acceptably expanded description can be found in this article.

Tables, columns, and long multi-level bulleted lists are to be avoided, except perhaps in the most extreme cases. Consult other editors on the article's Talk page to obtain consensus for such arrangements.

I would think that this piece satisfies being a particularly large orchestra. Also, look at the vast majority of pieces that haven't been reverted:

Shall I go on?

I think a new standard needs to be set on the guidelines page.Justin Tokke (talk) 14:56, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you think a new guideline needs to be set then go to the WP:CM and propose it. Otherwise please stop editing against the guideline. Regarding your quote from the guideline I note you removed the link to the suggested alternative bulleted example, Symphony No. 3 (Lutoslawski). Here it is, with the link:

"One example of an acceptably expanded description can be found in this article."

As you will see it is not in list form and it does not (contra MOS) capitalize the names of instruments. --Klein zach 01:24, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]