Talk:Symphony No. 6 (Vaughan Williams)
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
I'm afraid I disagree with a fair amount of this discussion. For example, "syncopation" is not the right word to describe the rhythmic style in the first movement, and the last movement, far from being boring, is extraordinarily intense in expression, but simply in a highly compressed, even "strangled" vein. Vaughan Williams is often described as being a "visionary" composer, and that defintely holds true in this symphony and particularly in the last movement...it's just that the vision being presented here is negative to the point of nihilism. This is also RVW's most Holst-influenced symphony, I think, and not just because it ends quietly like the Planets does. Wspencer11
- You are not on your own in your disagreement with the article's content. I have plans to delete much of the inaccurate personal essay making up this article; if you get to it before me then more power to your elbow! --RobertG ♬ talk 09:35, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
-
- There, I did it, for what it's worth. I have tried to keep the POV out but others will know better than I how successful I was in that. Wspencer11 20:48, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
-
-
- Fine job! That's much better. --RobertG ♬ talk 08:23, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
-
[edit] Latest edit
I have moved part of this phrase: "The symphony continues to provoke much speculation about its “meaning,” which is understandable, due to it's very unique nature." from the end of the article back here for some discussion, since this remark strikes me as being essentially meaningless. The symphony undoubtedly has an extraordinarily distinctive, maybe even unique, character, but to say so in this manner (and I'm not even considering the grammatical issues present) doesn't say anything at all about what that nature is, it seems to me. Let's see if we can explain that nature in a way that clarifies the need to speculate about its meaning. And "meaning" is going to be awfully hard to pin down, so we may well fail here. Remember that somebody wrote a letter to Sibelius in the 1930s, saying he had just purchased and listened to a recording of his Fourth Symphony (another work fraught with "meaning"), and could Sibelius please explain what it meant? Sibelius responded by saying, "Listen to it again." --Wspencer11 (talk to me...) 21:40, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
