Talk:Nikolai Myaskovsky
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This article is not written in the style of an ecyclopedia article. I would recommend that there be a revision to edit out some of the more opinonated points.
- I submitted some of the first edits, many of which remain, but agree, with the help of distance. Perfectly willing, within the limits of my own difficulties editing my own work (which are difficulties and not insuperable), to help in efforts to bring the article within WP:NPOV (but not, of course, to the other side of it, as has happened in some cases I do know of). Schissel | Sound the Note! 21:19, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
Looks fine to me. I just made a minor edit: "These works — No. 3 in D minor, and No. 4 in F minor — are mid-1930s revisions of works written in the last years of the 1800s, not new works as are the other two; so their style is quite different."
It had previously said "1900s". I had a little trouble imagining a composer revising some work that he did well after he died.
Steve Lowther 17:42, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
Has it been mentioned that Myaskovsky and Prokofiev were supposedly very good friends despite the fact that their music was so different? Also no mention is made of his 27th symphony -- his last & undoubtably best symphony. I'm glad his biography is here, he souldn't be forgotten after all these years.
[edit] 'From Old Notebooks'
I've deleted the statement that Prokofiev and Miaskovsky both wrote works with this subtitle. Prokofiev's Fourth Piano Sonata is so sub-titled, but no work of Miaskovsky to my knowledge: he certainly used material from old notebooks, but the passage establishes that anyway. There still seems to be a lot needing doing to this article to bring it up to scratch. Cenedi 21:44, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
[edit] "e.g. in the Shostakovich/Volkov Testimony"
... what an interesting way to refer to Testimony (though since there are some bits of genuine Shostakovich in it, I suppose it'll do in a pinch.) Is there indeed an alternative - and truly independent, not relying ultimately on Testimony - source - for the claim that the correspondence was heavily mangled? Schissel | Sound the Note! 00:25, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

