Talk:Caprice No. 24 (Paganini)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

24th Caprice for the Guitar[edit]

  • Did Paganni himself also wrote the guitar version of 24 Caprice too? Or someone else transcribed it? Any one knows? Davilaser 20:07, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I really doubt that. Many people transposed this piece, so I guess that someone else did.--Elitefireninja 16:23, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Recent merge from disambig page[edit]

Sorry, I completely disagree with this recent merge. Firstly, the disambiguation list of pieces based on the caprice is not actually information about the caprice. Secondly, I don't think the caprice page is a valid location for a disambiguation list. Yes, mention the works based on it on the caprice page, but can we keep the disambiguation page, please? --RobertGtalk 17:45, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't seem to recall there being a disambig tag on the page you're referring to. Either way, it wasn't a disambig page because it talked specifically about works based on this caprice. Skiasaurus 20:23, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The disambig page is this one: Paganini Variations. DavidRF 04:46, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Until an hour ago, we were listing various works based on the 24th Caprice in no less than 3 places - (a) Works inspired by Paganini within the Niccolo Paganini article, (b) this article, and (c) Paganini Variations. Since the long list at (a) is meant to be about works based on works other than the 24th Caprice, I've removed the offending ones, but making sure they were listed in either (b) or (c) so they didn't fall through the cracks. That still leaves (b) and (c). Supposedly, this page (b) is just about the Caprice itself, not about any other works based on it. That means the long list shown on this page should be moved to Paganini Variations (which in any case should be renamed "Works Based on Paganini's 24th Caprice"). But is this really necessary? The 24th Caprice has become famous because of the material it has provided to so many other composers. If they had not written those works, would we even have a separate article on the 24th Caprice? We don't have separate articles on any of the other 23 caprices, so I very much doubt it. In any case, everything listed in (c) is repeated in (b). So, I see there being 2 choices:

(A) List the works based solely on the 24th caprice only at Paganini Variations (suitably renamed as suggested above), and leave this article a very short one, strictly about the 24th Caprice itself, but with a link to (c). That link would also appear in (a).
(B) Merge the two articles (b) and (c) into one.

I strongly support (B). -- JackofOz 02:50, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Composition Details?[edit]

I'd appreciate if anyone could add any of the following to the article:

  • When was the piece composed?
  • Where?
  • Over what time period?
  • Any inspirations?

My thanks, MyOwnLittlWorld (talk) 04:27, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Schumann[edit]

The list had previously cited Schumann Op. 3, but it seemed to me that, according to IMSLP, at least, neither of Schumann's Paganini sets actually included this one, the 24th - so I took it off. Please correct me if I'm wrong. Chuborno (talk) 02:32, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Silly list[edit]

I suppose it's not altogether unreasonable to include a lest of all variations ever composed, and I know in other contexts that alphabetical listing would be appropriate, but to have have Rachmininoff and Lutosławski somewhere in the middle of a list of over forty compositions that begins with "the main riff in the song 'Igra s ognyom' ('Playing with fire') from the 1989 album of the same name" is just crazy! Either the list should be chronological, or there should be some sort of order of importance. 86.41.25.97 (talk) 22:55, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Caprice No. 24 (Paganini). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:19, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]