Talk:Symphony/Catalogs/Symphonies

I don't think the number of the symphony is a good way to list them. I suggest alphabetically by the nicknames, which are quite famous usually. --Martin Baldwin-Edwards 02:12, 21 October 2007 (CDT)

Won't bother me. I tend to remember more numbers than names, I think, except for the really really famous names. The only think I can think wrong with your idea is that some don't have names. Some sites give more than one list, by composer, by number, by name--honestly I don't mind; whatever people think is best. Aleta Curry 02:20, 21 October 2007 (CDT)

Yes, the few without names will need numbers, but we could list them at the end. Alternatively, I suppose we could order them by composer, but I think it is more useful by nickname. Let's wait for someone else to comment, before doing anything :-) --Martin Baldwin-Edwards 02:24, 21 October 2007 (CDT)

I would think that historical order, grouped by composer, would be the most sensible.  :-) My unofficial $0.02. --Larry Sanger 08:33, 21 October 2007 (CDT)

I agree. Most symphonies don't have names, a tradition that continues with Schnittke, who died in 1998: one name in nine. The most famous symphony is probably Beethoven's Fifth (sic). So, composer, number, name if any. Since no-one has touched it lately, I am going to be bold... Ro Thorpe 17:07, 2 November 2007 (CDT)

WP gives a good idea of the problematic numbering of Schubert's last two. Recently there was a tendency to call the Unfinished the 7th instead of the 8th, which seemed to be a good idea, as there doesn't seem to be a real 7th...If there really isn't a 7th, I think we should encourage this renumbering. After all, it was successfully done with Dvorak (nº9 was once nº5). Ro Thorpe 17:41, 2 November 2007 (CDT)