Talk:Symphony No. 7 (Sibelius)

	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.

Finland High‑importance

	Finland portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Finland, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Finland on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.FinlandWikipedia:WikiProject FinlandTemplate:WikiProject FinlandFinland articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Untitled[edit]

Cleanup tag removal - debatable. Wikification tag added because this isn't a Wikipedia article - compare existing articles on works. (E.g. - String Quartet No. 16 (Beethoven), Symphony No. 5 (Mahler). There's a Wikipedia:Wikiproject Music which I believe is hashing out how to write these things in a standard manner?... (Also just check the links from the Wikification tag itself etc.) Started doing some of the Wikification but need to catch a bus.

Note that where evidence is claimed it should be provided in some way; works mentioned might (... convenient for the user, even if the article doesn't exist yet they should at some point if they're interesting and well-enough known pieces) be linked (e.g. [[Symphony No. 5 (Sibelius)|fifth]], the braces fit in with nowiki tags here so that it doesn't become a link on this page...

And in my opinion but importantly - you haven't described what happens in the piece (e.g. the scalar opening starting on an A, the scherzo-like part towards the middle, the twice-occurring climax, the closing section) - in my opinion again such a description should about balance (in the articles I've written - e.g. Cello Sonata No. 1 (Brahms) it's been much longer than, which may be very bad; don't follow my example :( ) - should about balance the history section, and start a new section (with ==Form== or something like that, the == or === you need but Form you can change.) Enjoy... Schissel : bowl listen July 8, 2005 14:15 (UTC)

There's another problem with this article. A lot of it is taken verbatim from an Inkpot article about Sibelius. Robert Happelberg 21:01, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hrm. If this is not still true (will compare the two later) - then since this article is so close to what I think of as a very good music description article indeed!... (except for the fact that the images can only be used once, I think, not copied by students or Wikiclone sites, by the copyright conditions) - I'm considering whether it could be nominated as a featured article?... It's been edited a lot since then, it's true. Schissel | Sound the Note! 17:12, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I need to add a lot more description/sound clips -- right now only the first part of the symphony is covered. Need to find time for this -- or if anyone else is interested, please go ahead Grover cleveland 19:04, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Beatles' "Number 9" Snippet of 7th[edit]

Dunno if anybody cares. A good citation for this is the "New Yorker Magazine" which has large staff devoted to fact checking. See final sentence of item for reference.

[[1]] Calamitybrook (talk) 22:47, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the link to the Inkpot article[edit]

Hi, owner of the article at http://inkpot.com/classical/sibsym7.html here, formerly known as the Inkpot Sibelius Nutcase. I understand if it is perceived that changing the link to my current blog is considered a conflict of interest. My intentions are completely altruistic. To demonstrate this, I have undone the edit. My conscience is clear but I do not want anyone suggesting I have a "conflict of interest". I have never earned a single cent championing Jean Sibelius. I no longer maintain the article at the Inkpot - those pages were handcoded more than a decade ago and are just too impractical to manage now. By linking to the same content at my current blog, my intention is to point readers to the most updated version of the information. I am slightly disturbed that my words from 1998 have been quoted verbatim (as Robert Happelberg and Schissel note) without appropriate context. I also feel that this wiki article is very messy, confusing and unhelpful - it does no justice to the symphony. The attempt to dissect the piece bar by bar would make Sibelius turn in his grave. I would love to clean this up some day, but at the moment I really don't know where to start. --Dustofhue (talk) 14:26, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sheet music[edit]

Should we delete the sheet music files and replace them with LilyPond notation? –– ♫ Mara ♫ 07:19, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]