Talk:Salut d'Amour

Revision

I took the time to heavily revise the article. Nearly all the YouTube links were dead, so I had to remove those. Much of the article contained superfluous information. Did we really need an infobox with all the different arrangements of Salut d'amour? After all, this is a work that has spawned and will continue to spawn so many arrangements that it would be futile and cumbersome to try to list all of them here. I also had to remove the image that purported to be a scan of the original's title page. It wasn't. Rather it was a modern reproduction of the original by Schott, with the modern Schott logo clearly visible in the lower lefthand corner. Finally, there was a fair amount of PR for Sarah Chang in this article that had absolutely nothing to do with the piece, the composer, or really anything but the violinist herself. So that's gone too! CurryTime7-24 (talk) 01:41, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

 Comment: Your actions came to my attention through anti-vandal filters. You'll note that I did not revert your reversion, but I do not think that a full reversion was appropriate. P0mbal is also a somewhat seasoned editor, and he/she made it a point to clean up the article a bit after reverting your edits. I strongly advise working together to clean up this article, and thank you both for your hard work. Please don't let this become an edit war; just discuss changes until you reach consensus! Please let me know if I can be of assistance in any way! --Jackson Peebles (talk) 23:52, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

 Comment:No worries, I definitely am not trying to instigate anything. My concern was just that a lot of the article was simply not encyclopedic; read more like a list of trivia. There is also a question of copyright. Can we link to performances that are very likely not in the public domain? Can we display images that most definitely are not in the public domain? Is it reasonable to list out all the various arrangements of a very famous piece that has been arranged and rearranged for countless instrumental combinations? What are the criteria for inclusion in the notable recordings list? A lot of the choices there seem arbitrary. Then there's the senseless Sarah Chang PR. What do I care what Menuhin thought of her playing? More importantly, what does it have to do with Salut d'Amour? These are my concerns here. I'm sure we can come to an agreement on how to improve this article. Thanks for the feedback! CurryTime7-24 (talk) 00:10, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks CurryTime7-24 for your thorough work on this, and I think therw is need for discussion here. Is there a misunderstanding - the list or arrangements is historical. It is, as written before the list: "as early as 1901", and there to show Salut's immediate popularity, and not to list all arrangements. I agree any attempt to list all arrangements would be ridiculous and deviating, and there is a metaphorical cutoff line under the list. The list needs a reference from its source, which is the back cover of one of the arrangments, and I can look it up. In my recent edits I checked through for dead links, and if I did not delete the Sarah Chang and maybe Nigel Kennedy links, agreed they should go; and any other dead and trivial links and should go, and there are too many videos - it is continually changing and people can look those up for themselves. P0mbal (talk) 08:37, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Yhe image of the Bunten arrangement of it as "Woo thou sweet music " is I think of great interest and should be kept P0mbal (talk) 08:37, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Hi, P0mbal. I agree with you completely. There should be a listing of notable arrangements. Bunten's would definitely qualify as would its corresponding title page (now in the public domain). Thanks for your help!CurryTime7-24 (talk) 22:32, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

I think that list of arrangements should go back - because "as early as 1901, the list is substantial" and a valuable demonstration of the point. Agree we should not include later arrangements, there are the good the bad the terrible. My feeling is that many good things have been removed with the bad in this edit. The bad links and self-publicising links have rightly been removed. But the list of early recordings has gone. The videos, which showed a range of performances of the instrumental combinations, have all have gone. I don't want to start an edit war by restoring the list right away, but feel uncomfortable that the article has lost value by being pruned down too much. What do others think? P0mbal (talk) 23:24, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

I rather incline to P0mbal's view. May I suggest that he restores the lines he would prefer to be kept and then invite comments from the WP classical music Usual Suspects? Tim riley (talk) 09:51, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Title page of the "first edition"

The image that had been hitherto provided as the title page of the work's first edition is, in fact, a modern facsimile. The current logo for Schott is clearly visible in the lower left-hand corner. Since this is a reproduction of their reproduction, it is under copyright and, therefore, not usable for Wikipedia. If any editors can provide a scan of the actual original title page and not the contemporary reproduction, please do so. CurryTime7-24 (talk) 22:21, 4 June 2013 (UTC) Yes, tagnks, right to remove that modern cover - a good attempt at the oroginal style and not even a facsimile. And the Schott logo. It always worried me that the image was there. P0mbal (talk) 08:16, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Original key

You comment towards the end of the article that a version in E is used in a game, but it's a bit ambiguous whether this is the original key or not. I ask because I got an old ABRSM copy from a charity shop in D and decided to order a new copy, which turned out to be in E, and sometimes it's not obvious if an edition is transposed or not. Perhaps all Wiki articles on pieces of music should begin with technical data about original date, key and instrumental arrangement? I think the Schott in E IS original, but even Itzhak Perlman plays it in D!Fuficius Fango (talk) 17:13, 15 March 2021 (UTC)