Talk:Symphony No. 8 (Sibelius)

Lead

Have to say I liked the old opening paragraph ('one of the great mysteries', very arresting). Is it inaccurate? Rothorpe (talk) 00:10, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Not inaccurate, but the wording is maybe a little too subjective for the opening of a neutral encyclopedia article. I have opened a peer review (see link, above), and any general comments you care to make on the artile can be raised there. Brianboulton (talk) 18:53, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

The bound copy

I am fascinated by the bound copy of an unnumbered symphony, which seems to me to be the crux of the story. It's not clear from the article whether the other bound symphonies were Sibelius's ms. or the copyist's. Also it's not clear whether Sibelius had other things bound by this company or only his own symphonies (or own compositions). If the binding company only did his own works, and the bindings were the copyist's versions, then it is highly likely I think that the the bound copy was a complete eighth symphony; one does not send such things to the binders until one is, at least temporarily, satisified. But clearly it wasn't, on Sibelius's further consideration, the Eighth Symphnoy of his heart's desire. There are two incompatible stories running in parallel in the article - the story of the symphony which was never written, but which Sibelius pretended was in progress; and the far more tragic story of the symphony which was written, but just failed to live up to what S. wanted it to be. The bound copy could point to the second storyline. Glad I've got that out of my system, apologies for spamming the page.--Smerus (talk) 19:23, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

This thoughtful conjecture would make an excellent conclusion to a magazine article on the Eighth, but until such an article is published and I can cite it, I can't incorporate it here. Everything about the nature of what was bound in 1938 is circumstantial; we only have the bill which refers to the binding of a "Symphonie". It may have been the Eighth. I don't there is much more that can be said with any certainty. Brianboulton (talk) 21:52, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

 Great!

Very enjoyable article, kudos to all involved!-- Elmidae 07:50, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Symphony No. 8 (Sibelius). 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140122151341/http://www.hs.fi/english/article/Is+this+the+sound+of+Sibeliuss+lost+Eighth+Symphony/1135269867060 to http://www.hs.fi/english/article/Is+this+the+sound+of+Sibeliuss+lost+Eighth+Symphony/1135269867060

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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) 17:52, 24 September 2017 (UTC)