Talk:Symphony No. 1 (Prokofiev)

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Symphony No. 1 (Prokofiev) article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Classical music: Compositions

	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.

Russia Low‑importance

	Russia portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Russia, a WikiProject dedicated to coverage of Russia on Wikipedia. To participate: Feel free to edit the article attached to this page, join up at the project page, or contribute to the project discussion.RussiaWikipedia:WikiProject RussiaTemplate:WikiProject RussiaRussia articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Classical?[edit]

"Prokofiev gave the symphony the nickname Classical partly in the hope that his piece might indeed become a classic someday, and also because of his attempt to imitate the classics of Haydn."

Does this make very little sense to anyone else? Surely it's nicknamed 'Classical' because it's a neo-classical work? Masily box 00:06, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Name or Nickname?[edit]

Prokofiev actually titled this work "Classical Symphony." It's not a nickname. It was later given the "No. 1" designation, only after Prokofiev's other adult symphonies began to be published (as a youth, he'd written two symphonies even before the "Classical"). This article should really be retitled as "Classical Symphony (No. 1) in D major, Opus 25". QwertyUSA 10:59, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Instrumentation[edit]

It's called the "Classical" because it uses the same instrumentation and movement order as one of Haydn's symphonies, even though it uses 20th-century musical language. Asriel (talk) 21:58, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Heh - not to speak of its structural elements, both symphony and within the movements (sonata and rondo forms and use of fugue). <Wow! my first utterance as a music critic!> SkoreKeep (talk) 21:50, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Piano Transcription[edit]

I notice that no mention is made of the transcription for piano duet that Prokofiev supervised. It's quite relevant... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.226.1.229 (talk) 13:37, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Recordings[edit]

Is this list really necessary? Especially since it is icomplete. Arturo Toscanini also recorded this in 1951 with the NBC Symphony in Nyw York, but it's not on the list. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.100.219.111 (talk) 17:39, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"As if Haydn lived in our time"?[edit]

I (vaguely) remember that Prokofiev wrote the symphony "as Haydn would have written it, if he lived in our time", or something similar. Is that a quote from Prokofiev himself? It would make for a good motivation in the article. -- megA (talk) 13:52, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Criticism?[edit]

There was some criticism of this symphony was there not? Martin Hogbin (talk) 16:52, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Neoclassical[edit]

Surely "Thus it can be considered to be one of the first neoclassical compositions." is weasel wording. No one listening to it could deny that it is neoclassical, as Prokoviev obviously meant it to be, regardless of whether the word was in use at that time. I would change this to "Thus it is one of the first neoclassical compositions." But I'm not enough of an expert to know if there is any reason to be so reserved about the designation. Zaslav (talk) 03:04, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]