Talk:Minute Waltz

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Classical music, which aims to improve, expand, copy edit, and maintain all articles related to classical music, that are not covered by other classical music related projects. Please read the guidelines for writing and maintaining articles. To participate, you can edit this article or visit the project page for more details.Classical musicWikipedia:WikiProject Classical musicTemplate:WikiProject Classical musicClassical music articles

Dynamite performance

I recall someone - pretty sure it was Victor Borge, but could've been somebody else - who had a regular bit where he'd perform the piece while purportedly sitting on a barrel of explosives with a lit one-minute fuse. This, coupled with a with a nervous wiping of the forehead with the free hand during the middle section where the opening is repeated, and a quick stomp out of the fuse at the end, made for a nice bit of comedy. (The fuse I'm sure was actually longer than one minute - I've heard this piece sped up to play in one minute, and not only do I doubt that there's any human performer who could pull it off, but it sounds terrible at that speed.) Lurlock (talk) 16:45, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Victor Borge did claim that when he makes breakfast, he goes to the piano and plays the minute waltz three times, and then he knows his eggs are ready. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.122.209.2 (talk) 20:44, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Little Dog Waltz

isn't this song also called "the Little Dog Waltz"Theundesided (talk) 12:44, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and there's a mention of this title in the article. Mike Christie (talk) 12:46, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just one thing, the article says "The Waltz in D flat major, Op. 64, No. 1, popularly known as the Minute Waltz and also Valse de l'adieu" in the first line. Isn't it called "Valse du petit chien", the nickname given by the composer/publisher. I don't know what "Valse de l'adieu" means. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.91.218.207 (talk) 03:44, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Literally, "Waltz of the Farewell". -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 03:59, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Minute vs minute

Don't we rather downplay the lack of connection between the two words: (a) the French word "minute", meaning small, minute (i.e. my-newt), tiny, and (b) the English word "minute" (min-ət), meaning 1/60th of an hour. They have nothing to do with each other. Saying that Chopin did not intend for this waltz to be played in one minute is like saying Gershwin did not intend for the Second Rhapsody to be played in one second. It creates the perception of a connection that is not there. That some pianists have totally misconstrued what "minute" means in this context and have tried to play the work in 60 seconds, just shows how ill-educated they really are. Their "efforts" are not really worth encyclopedia space, imo. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 11:45, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The quick tempo waltz is a short piece, and whoever at Breitkopf & Härtel came up with "Minutenwalzer" was not suggesting Chopin wanted it to be played in one minute, but was comparing the waltz to a "miniature". That's the way I understand it. Musically speaking, trying to play it in one minute, i.e. at almost 420 quarter notes per minute, is totally pomylony !

--Frania W. (talk) 15:11, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. Jack of Oz, I like your Gershwin's Second Rhapsody analogy - and, of course, both works could be played by the "Split Second Piano Ensemble", which would make for a quick concert. --Frania W. (talk) 16:18, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So we agree. The title has nothing to do with the period of time equal to 60 seconds, and never did. The faulty interpretation ought to be mentioned only in the same way that we mention Columbus thought he'd reached China when he hadn't. That is, far from prominently. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 20:23, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I never had any doubt that we agreed. So, what are you & I arguing about, if anything??? :)

Jack, Columbus thought he had reached India, not China, that's why Native Americans are called "Indians", otherwise, they be "Chinians".

--Frania W. (talk) 21:00, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You must be aware, Frania, that furious agreements can be much more bloodthirsty than violent disagreements. :) -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 21:03, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

... while violent disagreements are simply more... bloody.

Anyway, are you going to volunteer to fix the "minute" or are you depending on my French, which you will rush to "tweak"? à vous l'honneur, since this is en:wiki.

--Frania W. (talk) 03:38, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Anyway, you should get a German in to advise - the original is Minuten, which is a "female" gendered noun and so "Minuten" is definitively in the plural ("Minutes"). Additionally, it does NOT mean "very small" - someone has interpolated something without evidence. The available evidence shows that Chopin's publisher, and possibly Chopin himself, used it as a nickname, in German, so a fair translation means "Minutes Waltz". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.250.132.218 (talk) 08:28, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I'm being fussy about grammar.

"a typical performance of the work will last between one and a half to two and a half minutes"

This is ungrammatical (correct would be between ... and or from ... to) but it is the exact wording of the reference cited. How does Wikipedia handle such cases? 2.25.135.101 (talk) 23:15, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We simply fix the grammar. Sources give us content, but we're not supposed to quote them holus-bolus; rather, we use the information they contain to write the article in our own words, but with no loss of meaning. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 12:44, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Poor soundtrack

The recording of the Minute Waltz (Muriel Nguyen Xuan) isn't exactly ideal; the performer kept messing up, and hit a completely wrong key at the climax of the performance. I think we need a better recording. Light Peak (talk) 22:55, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

pronunciation: UK /maɪˈnjuːt/, US /məˈnjuːt/

The "UK" pronunciation may also be heard in the US (from Americans). In fact, I've never heard the "US" pronunciation. (I don't doubt that it exists and I'm not knocking anyone who uses it.) Kostaki mou (talk) 23:59, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This rehashes the larger section above "Minute vs minute" and might be incorporated in it, if an editor claiming ownership of the site sees fit, or deleted entirely, as it's rather irrelevant, as the author of this entry admits he's never heard of the thesis he proposes, which therefore breaches NPOV, he's acting entirely constructively. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.250.132.218 (talk) 08:34, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

which "minute"?

@JackofOz, Frania Wisniewska, and Kostaki mou: I have never heard the name of this quite popular piece pronounced as if it meant "tiny", but always (that's over sixty years) as the much more common sense of a unit of time: /ˈmɪnɪt/. I am a linguist (language scientist) and notice these things. That's how it's "popularly known", as the article puts it; whether it was originally popularly called that in French is a separate question and belongs in History, not in the lede.

The pronunciations and explanation were unsourced. I have replaced them with the common "time" pronunciation and will seek refs for it in a few hours, when I have time. --Thnidu (talk) 19:31, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've never heard the name of this piece pronounced that way either. I meant the pronunciation of the word "minute" meaning "tiny." Kostaki mou (talk) 19:21, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Again, this reopens the Minute vs minute section and belongs there, if it belongs anywhere.