Talk:Ludwig van Beethoven

Trouble finding reliable sources

I'm trying to add information to Beethoven's legacy section, however I'm having trouble finding reliable sources which give good information. When I use google I run into articles which aren't reliable and when I use google scholar all of the sources are locked behind a paywall. And, yes, I tried looking into the sources section of the wikipedia guides. What can I do? Wikieditor662 (talk) 09:15, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

Perhaps if you explain specifically what are you seeking to source, other editors will offer suggestions. - kosboot (talk) 10:39, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

Well, I would like to have his legacy section be of similar quality to that of Josquin. I would probably need information on how he influenced the romantic era (and how significant he was to it), how he inspired other composers, and how influential he is today. Wikieditor662 (talk) 11:46, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

JSTOR will let you access some things for free. Older surveys than Taruskin's are often of good quality and won't be terribly dated if they were written in the 1980s. And on a figure as continuously and widely celebrated as Beethoven, even older material has likely aged well. Some would be available on the Internet Archive. Libraries are great, especially if you can use them electronically.

I would probably look at the top of what turned up in this search, especially the Cambridge Companion articles and what they cite: https://archive.org/search?query=Beethoven+reception

This article may be helpful: https://www.ocf.berkeley.edu/~repercus/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/repercussions-Vol.-2-No.-2-Pederson-Sanna-On-the-Task-of-the-Music-Historian.pdf

Most of what Pederson cited is probably available on internetarchive.org if you wanted to dig deeper. It might be challenging to be navigate and describe the changing historiographical perspectives. MONTENSEM (talk) 22:54, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

For this sort of thing books are probably better than articles. I'd suggest seeing what you can access from those in the Further reading or References at Romantic music, or here. Johnbod (talk) 17:54, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

Definitely books. The thing is, in a sense, Beethoven influenced all of music after him, so it's going to be a bit of work to find "the most reliable" sources. I would start with Grove, and then branch out to the most well-known books of music history (e.g. Taruskin). Once you start such a section, lots of editors will probably love to add lots of trivia ("the first 4 notes of symphony no. 5 appear in ....") so I would try to place limits on a legacy section to the most reliable sources (e.g. no articles, blog posts or other ephemera) and perhaps only books from recognized scholars. - kosboot (talk) 20:02, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

"In a sense, Beethoven influenced all of music after him"

The problem is that single statements like this are sometimes difficult to find in a book, as there is so much material covered. Wikieditor662 (talk) 16:53, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

There's some Wikipedia policy or guidance about not having to cite a source for the sky being blue (not sure where to find it, but I've come across it). Rarely will anyone publish things as boring or in as flat a way as "the sky is blue", because what does it really tell you ...

These kinds of statements are both strong (general) and weak (vague). The task then is to specify or to get particular about what they are summarizing. That usually means balancing multiple perspectives and finding whatever underlying or shared consensus there is ... MONTENSEM (talk) 23:04, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

WP:SKYISBLUE - just an essay I think, & not really relevant here. Johnbod (talk) 22:31, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

Yes, thanks! That and the opposing essay (Wikipedia:You do need to cite that the sky is blue) can be helpful in prioritizing work and in considering things like this. MONTENSEM (talk) 22:47, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

I agree with this. Unless it's quite specific, any such statement is likely the kind of program-note babble that's true of dozens of other composers. SPECIFICO talk 21:48, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

Try Oxford Bibliographies via the WP:TWL Aza24 (talk) 20:16, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

• The thing is, there is no major composer after Beethoven (or even during his lifetime) who was NOT directly or indirectly influenced by him, so there is probably little point in trying to reference individual composers. He did not undergo a period of obscurity and then reconsideration like Josquin; Beethoven lived at a time when music was easily and prolifically published, disseminated, and performed nationally and internationally, and he was a noted soloist performer as well (generally of his own works). What is more important, and easier to cite, is that Beethoven was (is nearly universally considered) the beginning of the Romantic era in music, in fact, he is seen to have virtually invented it and to bridge the Classical and Romantic eras. That is much easier to cite. Softlavender (talk) 00:02, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

  Referencing individual composers is still valuable; the connection Brahms or Mahler felt to Beethoven is a crucial theme in music historiography, much more so than say Beethoven's influence on Grieg or Tchaikovsky. Aza24 (talk) 01:45, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

  Mentioning two major composers out of hundreds implies that those other hundreds were not influenced by Beethoven, which would be entirely false. Those (carefully and authoritatively cited) mentions belong in the wiki articles on Brahms or Mahler, not as trivia in the article on the arguably most influential composer of all time. Softlavender (talk) 02:10, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

  Trivia, really? Rather dismissive for no particular reason.

  A quick read through Beethoven's legacy section in Grove mentions numerous individuals. Direct influence ≠ indirect influence. Yes, he indirectly influenced everyone, as you say. Beethoven's direct influence on Brahms, Schumann, Wagner etc. is infinitely more important than his direct influence on Chopin, Tchaikovsky etc. These last two had vastly more influence from other composers (e.g. Mozart, Schumann), which is not comparable to the central place Beethoven placed in the works of Brahms/Schumann/Bruckner etc. Aza24 (talk) 03:42, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

  Unless we are quoting tertiary sources, this quickly devolves into WP:CHERRYPICKING and WP:COATRACK. When someone is the most major paradigm shifter in their field, there is no one that follows that is not affected by them. It's like trying to identify which scientists were influenced by Darwin, Newton, or Einstein. What is more important is WHAT changed, not WHOM it changed. Softlavender (talk) 23:15, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

  At this point, I feel that we are reading past each other's comments and I doubt this particular topic can remain productive :) Aza24 (talk) 23:25, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

  I have no idea what you mean by "reading past each other's comments". I am reading and responding to your replies to me as they occur. Softlavender (talk) 23:54, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

  It sounds like you both agree, at least, that is probably better to be pluralistic and to do both what and whom (or, I would say, to be both general and specific), not either/or, and that you both further recommend using tertiary sources to help balance the two (Aza24 referred to Grove). This is a very old historiographical problem (and reception history is even more complex and recursive). Even tertiary sources contend with it, and it is continued debated in the literature about music history surveys. For what it's worth, I think it's probably best not to be too doctrinaire about it. MONTENSEM (talk) 00:36, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

  No, read my posts again. I do not agree to listing any specific composers, which in my view would of necessity be cherrypicked and would eventually grow into a random coatrack of trivia that any passing inexperienced editor would add to. What Beethoven changed is far more important than the trivial/immediate effects that can be specifically noted about specific composers. (The sole exception to my statement is if the community insists on it and we limit mention of composers to only what is mentioned in the Grove entry on Beethoven or any other authoritative tertiary source. But even if we currently limit the mentions to Grove [e.g.], there would always be a temptation for various other editors in the future to look at it as a coatrack and add their own preferred bit of [cited somewhere] random trivia. Which is why I am against mentioning composers on principle.) Softlavender (talk) 01:45, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

  Well, for the record, I tend to disagree with this type of (maybe overly principled or dogmatic) thinking, chiefly because I think it is less helpful to the reader for the article to try to abstractly, generally define what Beethoven may be said to represent or to have changed (e.g., cultural and often national or even universal icon; the Romantic ideal of the artist as genius with emotional and often intellectual depth; his music's formal expansion, structural coherence, emotional range, innovative harmonic practices, narrative elements; topics of freedom, heroism, and nature related to broader cultural currents) without reference to concrete and specific musical trends and cases around which much literature has risen.

  Beyond the streams Aza24 mentioned, the problem with excluding influence on later composers as "trivia", especially in art or culture, is that what is trivial becomes difficult to define as here. Which does not merit a blanket or strict exclusion, in my view. Often the matter can be treated in a concise, encyclopedic manner simply by generalizing under a limiting rubric or frame and giving specific examples. For example, under the frame or rubric of the first general sentence: "Beethoven was highly regarded by subsequent Romantic composers for whom his music was a point of departure. Schumann's music often featured sustained or cyclic thematic or motivic development as an integrating force, especially his First Symphony and even in his song cycles. Brahms continued and further developed this, and his music has been compared Beethoven's in its rhythmic character, assertive themes, and motivic development, as in the comparison between Brahms's First and Beethoven's symphonies. Wagner's enharmonic modulations owed much to what Cherubini described as the "brusque" modulations of Beethoven's late music (in addition to Liszt's, Berlioz's, and Schubert's), which contributed to their music's emotional intensity. Their music shared in a dramatic use of musical narrative, with the use of motives or themes as structurally unifying elements (as in the Wagnerian Leitmotiv).

  Even the "immediate" details are important, connecting historical ones, as in the parenthetical elements in the case of the Wagner example. And it's true that this might be expanded almost endlessly in Beethoven's case with either those immediate connecting details or later iterations of the same (as in later composers' reception of Beethoven). One could show that even Chopin was influenced, to your point about "who wasn't". I don't think the article would be the worse for that necessarily but rather will always be worse for the lack of it, suffering from too little cultural and historical context. Influence, both received and exerted, is an integral and expected part of almost any musician's reception and legacy. (Ideally, it should be well organized and concise, but that should not be an absolute barrier to content that can then be adapted and improved.) MONTENSEM (talk) 19:31, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

• For a source for a summary statement, a sweeping overview, I'd suggest using the New Grove, because that's what it does. See for example Scott G. Burnham's summary in section 19 of the Beethoven article in the 2001 NG, from which this is a small extract: "The Beethoven we know today cannot be separated from the history of his critical and popular reception. No other Western composer has been amplified to the same degree by posterity; and none has come to embody musical art the way Beethoven has. More than a composer, he remains one of the pre-eminent cultural heroes of the modern West." And so forth. There's lots there. And then go to the major books about him. Antandrus (talk) 00:44, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

  Thanks, I'll make a sandbox and add this there Wikieditor662 (talk) 17:12, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

Change in infobox

Birth place: Bonn
Change: Bonn, Electorate of Cologne

Death place: Vienna
Change: Vienna, Austrian Empire. FCBWanderer (talk) 11:47, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

Requested move 26 November 2024

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Not moved per WP:SNOW. Ngrams cannot be used when one candidate is a substring of the other. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 17:44, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

---

Ludwig van Beethoven → Beethoven – Ngrams show a preference for the mononym. Theparties (talk) 08:34, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose per WP:NCP and main pages about this subject in other organs, e.g. The Guardian and Britannica. We title biographies as <First name> <Last name> unless they're almost exclusively known by a mononym. Many individuals show greater results for their surname than their whole name, e.g. Obama, but to start using only surnames in such circumstances would require a sitewide decision, and is highly unlikely to gain consensus.  — Amakuru (talk) 10:53, 26 November 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose. Searching for one word will always yield a greater number of results than searching for multiple words, no matter the context. This neither indicates that "Beethoven" should be considered a mononym, nor in a more general sense does it indicate that the results are all for the topic you are trying to find (cf. this Ngram for Mercury and Freddie Mercury or this one for Elon and Elon Musk). Dekimasuよ! 10:59, 26 November 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose, WP:MONONYM benchmark. Hyphenation Expert (talk) 11:16, 26 November 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose. WP:MONONYM literally gives Ludwig van Beethoven as an example of when we should not use the last name as the page title. ╠╣uw [talk] 14:52, 26 November 2024 (UTC)
• Strong Oppose. This shows a misuse of Ngrams which is not at all a scholarly or scientific source. - kosboot (talk) 16:27, 26 November 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose this is silly --Jtle515 (talk) 17:03, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Proposed Alternate Subtitle: Legacy#Space (change "Space" to something else)

Hello, I'd like to discuss a) the removal of subtitles within the Legacy section; or, b) a possible alternate subtitle for the Legacy#Space section.

wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Ludwig_van_Beethoven#Legacy

a) I suggest removal of all four subtitles in the Legacy section. As each line represents something or somewhere named in memory of Beethoven, a distinction using subtitles (Museums-2, Sculptures-1+link, Space-2, Education-1) with such a short list is redundant. Instead, just list the six examples under the "Legacy", including Main Article links to "in Film" and "Sculptures" wiki pages.

b) Should you/we decide to keep subtitles, I propose an alternate subtitle for #Space.

Discussion against the word "Space" to describe "Astronomical Objects".

-- As the word "space" broadly covers a variety of generic concepts, both as a noun and a verb(1) including but not limited to: space as in while such as a period/duration of time; distance; area; volume; space as in room; space as in gap; space as in slack; space as in a sentence or musical notation; and, space as in Astronomy, the Cosmos or the Universe, i.e., the region beyond the earth's atmosphere or beyond the solar system.

-- and As this section solely honors the Legacy of Beethoven by names of "Astronomical Objects"

Proposed Alternate Subtitles: "In Astronomy" OR "In the Cosmos" OR "Nomenclature in Astronomy" OR "Legacy In Astronomy" OR "Astronomy" OR "Cosmos"

MY PREFERENCE: is to remove all subtitles, and list all items under "Legacy"

Thanks, and I'm looking forward to your thoughts and comments. Further, if changes are agreed, would one of you with more experience as editors make the change please? I'm very much a beginner, and am still learning the process.

Annette Carlson (user: amcarlson4)

(1) https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/space Amcarlson4 (talk) 15:34, 17 December 2024 (UTC)