Talk:Antar (Rimsky-Korsakov)
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[edit] Article Name: Symphony or Antar
A lot of sources and recordings refer to this as "nicknamed symphony". That is, something like Symphony No. 2 "Antar". This is partly because his next symphony was "No. 3". Should the article be renamed to be Symphony No. 2 (Rimsky-Korsakov) or Antar Symphony? Or were his intentions on reclassifying the work so strong that it should be labeled only a symphony suite (keep article the same). Either way, I think a sentence or two more of discussion is warranted to clean up any ambiguity. DavidRF (talk) 16:09, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
- I understand your point and the logic behind it. However, I would keep the article name as it is now. Rimsky was extremely adament in his autobiography, My Musical Life, that Antar was actually a symphonic suite and explains why. I've included the gist of his argument into the article. Jonyungk (talk) 17:03, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Version used by Svetlanov
Is it documented on his recordings that Svetlanov used the 1897 version? I had read that he used either 1875 or a variant of it for all his recordings, not just the one on RCA Red Seal. Jonyungk (talk) 19:10, 5 June 2008 (UTC)