Talk:Sinfonia da Requiem/Archive 1
 | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 1 |
Does this ring a bell ...
Thought I heard an item on the radio, about the original version of the finale (?) having been kept by the Japanese, and Britten having had to write a new one. Can't seem to find this anywhere just right now, but I may not be looking in the right places. Also, the Britten (ed. etc) Letters uses "ostensibly" before rejected-on-grounds-of-religious etc.; some sources there would be good. (Kansas City Concert Program Notes mention Britten's grief over recent family death - his father - as another source behind the piece, besides the commission, but this I would like better sourced than that, just personally) Schissel | Sound the Note! 16:48, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
Why a requiem?
Asked for a work to help celebrate the 2600th anniversary of the founding of an empire, Britten writes a requiem? Why a requiem, rather than a more upbeat festive work for such an occasion? It's like holding a birthday party at an open grave. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 20:09, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
Non-sequitur
The last paragraph of Sinfonia da Requiem#Anti-war tone reads:
Britten's politically themed works before 1939 had not proved popular. While his publisher, Boosey & Hawkes, had supported him in his composition, it had also tried to encourage him to write more conventional pieces, suggesting, for example, a piano concerto for the BBC and a ballet for Sadler's Wells. The war changed all this. Before the Sinfonia, the Ballad of Heroes and Advance Democracy did well because of their political themes.[15]
The last two sentences fail to support the first. "Conventional" implies musically conventional -- was the intention "politically neutral"? The last sentence doesn't bear out the first; if anything, it tends to contradict it. --Stfg (talk) 10:13, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
Recordings?
I removed the reference to the Oregon Symphony's recording of the piece. Why it needed special mention in this article, especially given the dozens of far superior recordings available, not least of which is the composer's own, is beyond me. CurryTime7-24 (talk) 03:18, 30 April 2013 (UTC)