Talk:La campanella

Comments

Copied from Andrei Gavrilov, should include in the article somehow:

Here Liszt brilliantly recreates Paganini's violinistic acrobatics. His trills create bell-like sounds. It is a very difficult piece, one that requires the rapid playing of awkwardly placed chords while also making considerable use of repeated notes.

--Missmarple 16:04, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

This piece is truly great. The Technical difficulties are overcome by the sheer enjoyment of the piece

Lead vs Article dichotomy

There is a real contradiction between the lead, which clearly states that this is "the final movement of Paganini's Violin Concerto No. 2 in B minor", and the entire rest of the article which refers exclusively to Liszt's piano etude on paganini. I'm not enough of a musicologist to rewrite it myself, but i do think it needs some work. Any suggestions? Cheers, Storkk (talk) 00:14, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: No move. Cúchullain ^t/c 03:48, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

---

---

La campanella → La Campanella – Here, campanella is part of the title, the entire title should be capitalized even though campanella would not ordinarily be a proper noun. Having seen a score of the music while attempting to play it, the current capitalization is erroneous.--Jasper Deng (talk) 02:46, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

• Sorry, but oppose - Sheet music publishers capitalize titles left right and centre, but in the in-sentence-text of Arnold, Walker and Taruskin (I just added these 3 sources to article) this appears with straightforward Italian capitalization. "La Campanella" capitalized in Italian would mean it was referring to a girl nicknamed "Little Bell", this isn't, it's simply one of Liszt's sound effects. In ictu oculi (talk) 00:45, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
  • That is irrelevant. Titles should be completely capitalized, as far as I know.--Jasper Deng (talk) 00:51, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Actually not, MOS:MUSIC specifically only covers "English language" works/songs. European and classical are covered by different practices. See archives of WPTalk Classical Music for instance. In ictu oculi (talk) 01:57, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

• • • La traviata, La bohème, La forza del destino .... -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 01:31, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose per Wikipedia:WikiProject Classical music/Guidelines#Capitalization: original language titles. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 14:15, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Remove recording?

The recording in this article is rather poor-quality and unrepresentative of this piece's true character, in my opinion. First of all, it's transposed down a half-step to G minor. Secondly, the pianist uses way too much rubato for a piece characterized by constant motion - the phrasing is completely broken.

If a better recording can be found, it should of course be used, but if not, I think removing it would be best.--Jasper Deng (talk) 07:16, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

I agree that this is in the main a rather contemplative performance (6:12) , but I hesitate to vote for its removal – at least not until a replacement can be found. As for the transposing: I find it hard to believe that anybody would do that; I'd rather think it's due the the tuning of the 1850 piano. For a much livelier performance (4:14), see this one on YouTube by Valentina Lisitsa. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 10:35, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Valentina Lisitsa is infinitely worse, considering that, regardless of the technical finesse exhibited, she plays Vivacissimo a piece which is marked Allegretto.--66.229.62.154 (talk) 11:13, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

I only called it "livelier". So do you think the performance currently in this article should be removed?

BTW, thank you for your insistence on "Menuetto" for the 3rd movement of Symphony No. 4 (Beethoven); my score doesn't show that, nor do the 3rd movement scores at IMSLP or indeed the Breitkopf & Härtel score there; only Simrock does. Maybe that's worth a footnote at LvB's Op. 60. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 11:38, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

We should keep the recording: One is better than none, especially one that's in the public domain and approaches a proper performance. As to Beethoven's misnomer for his fourth symphony's third movement, he did the same thing in his first symphony, (as recognized by Liszt in his transcriptions of the moments), (see here, page 35). Leslie Howard's explanation in that case: "Beethoven’s description of it as a minuet is surely a joke"--66.229.62.154 (talk) 14:52, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

I have to agree that the performance by Lisitsa is still unrepresentative of the piece, especially given her execution of the coda. I tend to play the piece at 3/4 her tempo and I think that's about right. The problem with all of these, though, is that they aren't free. If I were proficient enough with this piece I would make the recording myself, but I still need to work on the left hand octaves in the coda.--Jasper Deng (talk) 08:21, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

It is a horrible recording. I think it needs to be changed. I might try getting another one in the near future to replace this one.NikolaiHo 18:18, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Recording

I feel as though there should be a violin recording as well seeing as Paganini (the original composer) was a violin virtuoso. Moo4042 (talk) 17:16, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

@Moo4042: This article is mainly about Liszt piano transcription, so it's more fitting to have the piano version. Coulomb1 (talk) 04:14, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

Opinion is subjective

". . . widely considered one of the most technically challenging piano pieces ever written."

Should someone remove it?

By no means I'm trying to compare it to something else, but should this sort of subjectivity stays out of an encyclopedic article? It's not relevant and one shouldn't judge a piece of music by difficulty. 14.191.103.125 (talk) 06:50, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

I think it's relevant information if it can be sourced. The way I read it it's not making a value judgement regarding the piece's difficulty, just presenting the information.

However, the assertion doesn't seem to be supported by the sources, at least judging by the quotations provided. Ligaturama (talk) 08:52, 24 August 2024 (UTC)