Talk:Hungarian Rhapsody No. 2

Editing Talk:Hungarian Rhapsody No. 2

I hope to add to the completeness of information on this Article. Some details of the original Article may be modified. I trust the contributor of this Article will be prepared to discuss various points, as the article progresses. Prof.rick 08:53, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Background

I have added a background to this Rhapsody. Seems we should be careful to see it as it is...Liszt did not compose it as "cartoon music", and therefore this application should not be the central focus of the article. I will be doing further editing, but would like your comments as I try to move along. (I have enjoyed performing this work in concerts for decades, and hope to add some "meat" to the Article.) However, I would really appreciate the comments/feedback of the author. Prof.rick 15:34, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

References

Added References for my contributions. Prof.rick 16:43, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Plans

I would like to review the Analysis, and make revisions if required. Would also like to "downplay" the modern applications of this Rhapsody...Liszt did NOT have them in mind! Prof.rick 16:46, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Major Changes

It is hard to believe that I had to create a Discussion Page for this Article! I have removed the lengthy analysis, finding it often vague, often redundant, and often simply inaccurate. I felt it was not up to the Wikipedia standard. It also had numerous errors in spelling, grammar and punctuation.

Whoever wrote it, remember, this is NOT a personal attack, but simply an attempt to improve the encyclopedia. Your efforts are respected and appreciated.  : ) Prof.rick 05:29, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

"By the late 19th century and early 20th century, the excruciating technical challenges of the piano solo version led to its acceptance as the "unofficial standard" by which every notable pianist would "prove his salt", usually as a smashing finale. It had become an expected staple of virtually every performance of the greatest pianists of the time."

"Eventually the piano solo version of Hungarian Rhapsody No. 2 had run its course with audiences. However, it retains the dubious honor of being perhaps the most over-played composition in the entire piano concert repertoire."

Who on earth wrote this unproven (not to mention inaccurate) claptrap? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.214.201.90 (talk) 13:02, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Image and image change

I first entered an image of the melody only, of the Friska's main theme. I have changed it to a complete harmonized version (arranged by me). Prof.rick 10:09, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Movements?

Whoever changed "movements" to "sections"...I disagree. First, aren't Sonatas supposed to have more than one movement? (Not according to Liszt!) So why should Liszt accept a definition of a Rhapsody as a single-movement work? Who says it must?

Also, look at the end of the Lassan. There is a heavy double bar-line, such as found at the ends of movements of sonatas. Show me any single-movement work with the heavy double-barline part way through the piece, please. Furthermore, it is hardly appropriate to title a section of a single-movement work.

Liszt doesn't have to announce, "This is the second movement". He expects us to gather this, upon a little intelligent observation.

Finally, notice that the Lassan is one key, (C# minor), and the Friska in another (F#major). This is characteristic of a sonata. Can you point to examples of any single-movement work of Liszt which begins in one key, but ends in another, with a different key signature. Prof.rick 03:08, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Rhapsodies don't have movements. That is why they are called rhapsodies. Look in any major music dictionary and you'll see this is the case. The Sonata in b minor is a one-movement work despite numerous double-bar lines, and the Harvard Dictionary of Music shows a Rhapsody is a "fragmentary work." Merriam Webster says "a musical composition of irregular form having an improvisatory character" In the music community I've never once heard of a Rhapsody as anything OTHER than a onemovement piece with many sections. I've taught music analysis at Cambridge University. A Rhapsody is not a Sonata, and Liszt is on the record stating that his Sonata is a one-movement piece, despite having many sections. What's your qualification or argument to back up your claim?

You claim that Rhapsodies are called Rhapsodies BECAUSE they don't have movements? Shall I therefore conclude that any single-movement work is a Rhapsody???

First, my argument is LOGICAL observation, presented above. However, I don't want an edit war! "Sections" can remain. But do keep in mind Liszt's disregard for dictionary definitions! (Who else would write a one-movement sonata?) Certainly, these bear every mark of being "movements", as I have argued before. And what of Alkan composing Symphonies and Concerti for solo piano? I have already presented my arguments. To me, the true essence of a rhapsody cannot be expressed in terms of its structure...it is necessarily a free structure, as implied by the term "rhapsody". If all composers simply followed "dictionary rules", music would hardly evolve! It's the successful breaking of rules which result in fresh musical thought. All the same, I don't think Liszt would be too concerned about the matter! So I'm not! I have frequently performed this composition, and I don't think the audience really cares what we call them...sections or movements. (On the printed program I simply calls them "Lassan" and "Friska".) So enjoy the music! There will be no edit war!

By the way, I am also a composer, with over 70 published works. When I compose a piece in a particular "form", I never consider such nonsense as, "what are the correct rules for this form?"

You have made some very impressive claims about yourself! But please, sign your talk-page comments in the customary manner, and indent your responses by using : to indent. Prof.rick 11:11, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

YouTube video

An IP replaced the video link with a different one, which was reverted. Neither one gave justifacation. Looking at both videos, IMO the Hamelin one is simply better. I'm not talking about performance -- I didn't listen to much of either, but Hamelin's sounds better, and it doesn't look like the video is being played too fast. If anyone can give justification for the other video being linked, kindly do so. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ 10:46, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Sorry about the use of rollback - that was a stupid thing to do; it was reverted before without explanation so I thought it was some sort of vandalism. Anyway, Marc Andre Hamelin's performance sounds very good - I haven't listened to the other one. My problem with linking to YouTube is that it is difficult to tell whether the video uploaders there are infringing on copyrights. The uploader may have permission to post that video - he may not. However, it could be a copyright infringement. The external links guidelines state that linking to sites that infringe the copyright of others is not allowed. The music itself is in the public domain hence it is possible to have the free content media in the article. However, If I uploade the Youtube video to somewhere like Wikimedia Commons, it would rightly be deleted as unlicensed. Graham87 13:15, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Though that would be an issue with BOTH videos (as far as I know). And just to be sure, what I meant about "sounds better" was sound quality, not related to the music and performance in any way. I'm not quite sure if concerts of public domain music have copyright or not (I have a feeling they do), but considering how many there are on YouTube, at THIS point I don't see an issue with them being an external link, until there's some ultimatum about it. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ 13:59, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Yep - individual performances of public domain music are definitely copyrighted. I went to a concert of Verdi's Requiem, and the audience were not allowed to record the concert. The fake recordings of Joyce Hatto were certainly copyright violations as they were cut-and-pasted from other recordings (see the article). Just because the Youtube links are a major problem in Wikipedia, it doesn't mean they should be ignored; Wikipedia should always link to sources that are known not to be copyright violations. For more debate on this topic see wikipedia talk:external links, particularly the sections entitled "External links to notable copyright violations" and "YouTube". Graham87 14:15, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Rhapsody Rabbit.png

Image:Rhapsody Rabbit.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 04:19, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Tom Lehrer's Lobachevsky song

Tom Lehrer uses a bit in his Lobachevsky song. It accompanies the lines "and then I write by morning, night and afternoon, and pretty soon..." --Poncignac (talk) 07:08, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

I added that to the "Popular Culture" section. Bgoldnyxnet (talk) 06:17, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with File:Convict-paly.jpg

The image File:Convict-paly.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
• That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --17:24, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Resolving "citation needed" in Arrangements section

First paragraph in Arrangements mentions several transpositions ending with Berghaus dropping the key to C minor. This has been tagged with citation needed.

All of these arrangement details can be found in the IMSLP page for this work, under Arrangements and Transcriptions. I added a web citation but reverted it when I noticed that External Links points to the same page. I try to avoid such duplication.

So, is it possible to directly refer to an entry in External Links as an inline citation and thus resolve the citation needed tag?

- Steve Stevensims (talk) 03:24, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

@Stevensims: It's fine. It might be better to link to the original PDF's but I have neither the energy nor the interest to do so right now. Graham87 (talk) 13:51, 6 May 2024 (UTC)