This is an archive of past discussions about Ludwig van Beethoven. 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.

→

Start through approx. June 2006

Pronunciation

Do you really have to point out how Beethoven's name is pronounced?

Who is this Wiki for anyway?

Can we not FOR ONCE get out from under this AWFUL POMPOUS influence?

i think the name is important...how would you like that yours will be mispronounced?

It's always useful to know how a name is pronounced correctly. Unfortunately in this case the information given is simply incorrect. As a native German speaker I can tell you that the "h" is anything but silent but is in fact enunciated quite distinctly, the sound being produced near the opening of the mouth/lips as in "hot", not further back as in "how", in any case being far removed from the suppression of the "h"-sound often (not)heard in renditions of the popular song "Roll over Beethoven" by English and American singers.

This is the English-language Wikipedia, and so we give the pronunciation that is accepted by native speakers of English. In this case, if an English speaker were to say it in the German fashion, the ignorant would think they were simply incorrect, and the knowledgable would think they were being affected. Either way, it wouldn't be very good. Mak (talk) 00:24, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

If the given pronunciation would ,as you state, be generally "accepted" (whatever that means), why would it then have to be given in parentheses (in a form only "understood" by the "knowledgable") ? And isn't an encyclopedic project like "Wikipedia" expressly devoted to making people more "knowledgable" ? Even if you would have to hide your "knowledgeability" to avoid unwelcome suspicions of "poshness".

My point is really that the pronunciation given does what it is supposed to do-- namely, it gives the standard English-language pronunciation of Beethoven's name. Mak (talk) 01:37, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

So that the "correct" pronunciation given in the french version of "Wikipedia" would have to be something like "Bettovén". It's what the French always instinctively knew to be true. Gerald; Vienna; 10-09-06

Actually, yes, if that's how French speakers pronounce it. Mak (talk) 23:41, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Beethoven's hearing

I have presented a summary of research on Beethoven's hearing ability at Talk:Life_and_work_of_Ludwig_van_Beethoven. It should clear up misconceptions about the state of his hearing. - Gyan 18:25, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Immortal Beloved

Perhaps more relating to the excellent movie with Gary Oldman and especially the theories expounded therein. It is taken for granted Ludde had syphilis but little real estate is devoted to where he got it - and why he would have been so furious at the adoption proceedings. The theory of this movie is an interesting and perhaps valid (and true) one and should be discussed, the pros and cons weighed.

Facts

Ludwig Van Beethoven

He wrote 138 opus numbers consisting of nine symphonies, sixteen string quartets, nine piano trios, thirty two piano sonatas, ten sonatas for violin and piano, five fo cello and piano, five piano concertos, a violin concerto, and nine concert overtures. (Borroff 488) Ludwig Van Beethoven was born in Bonn, German in 1770. His dad pushed him so hard to be the next Mozart that he hit his fingers with sticks until he played it right. When he started to play the piano he was only four, he was so tiny that he was to stand on the piano bench.

When Beethoven turned twelve he started to work with a tutor to help him learn how to play the piano, by the age of fifteen he was already writing some of his first pieces. Beethoven’s first public performance was in 1795, when he was twenty five. While Beethoven was in his mid twenties he started to go tone deaf. It made it hard to write music and then perform in front of the public, so he resorted to private parties.(Bouchier)

Beethoven’s most famous piece was Fidelio. At its big public debut it was played very poorly by Beethoven so nobody really liked it. During this time he wrote some of his most powerful pieces such as Symphony no.7, Pastoral Symphony, Symphony no.8, Piano concertos nos.4 and 5, and Violin Concerto. During his late period he played Hammer Klavier, op.106 and op.110, and Choral Symphony no.9 in d minor.

Copyright issue

The article about Beethoven's Ninth Symphony is very interesting and enjoyable, but:

are we sure it is copright-free? it is "signed" and has a structure of a piece of criticism which could have appeared in a book or journal (nothing of the above means that it was not written for the Wikipedia, or is free from copyright, of course, but one wonders).
it expresses in some places very personal opinions and commentaries, some of which not universally shared. So, if we agree that it does not violate anything, one could work a bit about it. But, then again, perhaps it is by a great critic, so his opinion may well be interesting (and worthy an encyclopedia article) by themselves.

Should anybody change or delete or whatever that article, please do not delete the initial part (the one with the description of the symphony's movements), which was written by myself, obtaining it by the score of the symphony. --Goochelaar

I would venture to say that it's written by an aficionado; if he's also a critic, he's a critic for a journal that doesn't bother archiving things online: [1]. Those three pages yield the year-old email mestrin1 at earthlink.net. Anyone care to ask him? --Koyaanis Qatsi

Beethoven and his predecessors

Some statements in the article concerning Beethoven's work in relation to Haydn's and Mozart's are inaccurate.

First, the claim that his developments last 10 minutes. No, they are at most about 5 minutes. His longest movements are 15 to 20 minutes long (depending on repeats) with the development taking up about a third. In many of Haydn's works the development is equally extensive compared to the scale of the movement.

Second, the claim that the Eroica first movement is as long as a Mozart-era symphony. Mozart's symphonies with 4 movements take about 25 minutes to perform whereas the first movement of the Eroica is about 15 minutes. Possibly if one were to perform the Eroica very slowly with repeats and the Mozart very fast without repeats the times could be equal, but this is not a fair comparison.

However, it is indisputable that Beethoven's codas (closing sections) were on average much longer than Mozart's (no codas or very short ones) or Haydn's occasionally more extensive codas; and that Beethoven's movements were on average longer than Mozart's and Haydn's - say half as long again. There are very notable exceptions, like the short first movement of the Fifth Symphony and the String Quartet no.11 which is shorter than most of Haydn's mature works.

It's not true to say that Beethoven's use of rhythmic motifs contrasts strongly with Haydn's. On the contrary, Haydn pioneered the technique of breaking up musical thought into short, flexible rhythmic motifs, which Beethoven undoubtedly drew from. (See Haydn string quartet op.50 no.4 (first movement), the finale of the piano sonata no.52, the first movement of the sonata no.49, etc.etc.) However, Beethoven achieved unprecedented rhythmic drive and emotional and dramatic range with the technique, which probably leads many people to neglect Haydn's contribution.

While it's correct to say that the first-movement themes of the Fifth and Ninth symphonies are more rhythmic than melodic in character, it's difficult to see how the broad cello theme of the Eroica first movement can be called unmelodic. In fact, Mozart used the exact same melody decades earlier in one of his early minuets (though with a rather different overall effect). One of the distinguishing features of the 3rd. is the strong contrast between broad, simple melodies and energetic rhythmic passages. (Compare the quartet Op.59 no.1 first movement.)

Concerning the finale of the 3rd., it's more complex than just the initial (not very melodic) "theme" consisting of isolated notes. This turns out to be the bass-line of the theme revealed later, which is a broadly lyrical melody. In fact the bass-line is used as a *harmonic* theme, rather than a rhythmic one: Beethoven immediately changes the rhythm of the notes, but keeps the same harmony throughout the variations. This is similar to Baroque ground bass movements which present varying melodies and rhythms over the same harmony. Beethoven's innovation is in "fooling" us (at least the writer of the article) into thinking that the bass line is the melody. ***** tdent@auth.gr

Yes, the article needs quite a bit of work. I don't agree with absolutely everything you say, but I'm with you on most of it, and I'm sure you could much improve the article. Do feel free to do so: be bold in updating pages and all that. --Camembert

Arrival of Stirling Newberry

Thanks for revising the Beethoven article, Stirling. I've edited slightly and added a bit more on the "crisis period."

I hope you will endorse (or at least put up with) my trimback of the discussion of the Ninth Symphony--the bits about the Choral Fantasy predecessor and the Berlin Wall were already there in the Ninth Symphony article, and I feel they fit there better than in the Beethoven article as such.

Have you thought of taking on Mozart or Schubert? Both need tender loving care right now.

Opus33 04:45, 9 Jan 2004 (UTC)

I had not seen the Ninth Symphony Article when I posted my additions, and I agree that moving more writing there is better, it is an extensive article. The Beethoven needs revising, in that the section on his music proper needs to have a bit more on what an encyclopedia reader would need. What is there is technically good, and worthy to keep, but needs to be balanced with the emotional and literary work.

Schubert isn't really my strong point, I will probably stop by Haydn, and would like to continue to refine some of the individual articles on Beethoven's music, particularly his string quartets and piano trios.

Stirling

We don't know when Beethoven was born

A little while ago, somebody changed "baptized December 17" in the opening sentence to "born December 16". Is this definitely correct? I thought that we knew for sure when Beethoven was baptized, but couldn't say for sure what day he was born on. --Camembert

You're right, and I'm about to change it back. (It's really not at all unusual not to know a birth date but to know a baptismal date, but people keep trying to squeeze facts into a template, even if it means doing violence to the facts) Here's an online ref. -- Outerlimits 01:53, 14 May 2004 (UTC)

Shorten Symphony Section

We've now got individual articles on all nine symphonies, which I think renders the discussion of individual symphonies on this page redundant. I've put in cross-references.

In case anyone wants to restore old material, or transfer it to the individual symphony articles, below I've appended what I cut.

I hope this is ok. Opus33 20:44, 14 May 2004 (UTC)

Beethoven completed nine numbered symphonies. His first symphony, in C, is reliant upon Haydn models. His Symphony No. 2 in D extends Beethoven's understanding of the symphony. His first famous symphony was No. 3 in E-flat, better known as the Eroica. As mentioned, although this was originally dedicated to the French First Consul, Napoleon, Beethoven angrily ripped off the dedication after the Frenchman declared himself emperor.

The Symphony No. 4 in B-flat is a remarkable example of good humor. Even more famous is Symphony No. 5 in C minor, which starts with a well-known theme which people say sounds like fate knocking at the door. The Sixth Symphony, in F, is better known as the Pastoral. It is based on country life, and made up of five movements, of which the most famous are the second movement, Scene by the Brook, and the third, Merry Gathering of Country Folk.

The Seventh and Eighth symphonies are more rhythmic, the second movement of the eighth being based on the metronome, an invention by Beethoven's friend Johann Maelzel. The final complete symphony is Symphony No. 9 in D minor, composed in 1823 (and occasionally referred to as Choral), whose last movement, as mentioned, was a setting of Schiller's poem celebrating joy. A choir and four vocal soloists appear in this movement. (The chorus has been adopted as the official anthem of the European Union.)

Deleted material

Here's the stuff I just removed from the top of the article, in case anyone want to put it back:

His most famous works include his Fifth Symphony, Ninth Symphony, the piano piece "Für Elise", the "Pathétique" Sonata and the "Moonlight" Sonata.

Perhaps we should at least make a mention of it. Not all people visiting this site will know that Beethoven was the composer of these pieces. Let's make that connection for the layman reader. Taco325i 13:55 9 Aug 2005.

Query for other classical music editors

I'm posting this under Beethoven, since I think most classical music editors have this page on their watchlist, but the issue comes up for all composers.

We've now got a fair number of articles about individual compositions by Beethoven. What would be the best way to give the reader easy access to all of these articles? Asking the reader to go to "What links here" seems inadequate, since for someone like Beethoven the compositions are buried in a whole raft of other random cultural connections. Should there be a list, like ===Articles on compositions by Beethoven=== as part of the ==See also== section?

Whatever we do, if anything, probably should be done uniformly for all composers.

Thanks in advance for your opinion, yours very truly, Opus33 18:40, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)

What about List of works by Beethoven? Hyacinth 21:03, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Thanks, Hyacinth, I think this is a plausible approach, at least for Beethoven, where we have already produced articles for a fair number of the works. But for prolific but less well-covered composers (how many of Scarlatti's sonatas or Schubert's songs have Wikipedia entries?), the reader seeing the list will find mostly a desert of empty links, no?

If the "List of Works by X" approach is the right way to go, it might be good to amplify these lists so that they give their content in more than one way--e.g. both by opus number and by genre. I do use the List of works by Beethoven myself to look up articles and sometimes find the listing by just opus number to be a bit inconvenient. A genre list could perhaps be more selective and be of more help to the reader in finding articles. Opus33 22:53, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)

We might not need to do it the same way for every composer. Some might benefit just by having a linked works list at the end of the article--consider composers with relatively few, but large works (Wagner, Mahler, ...) which could have a ===Works=== section at the end of the article (I have started doing this on some of the Renaissance/Medieval/Baroque folks whose bios I have been writing recently). With composers with a HUGE number of works, I like the idea of a separate works list article as Hyacinth suggests. But then I've never been a great fan of consistency for its own sake--I think Aristotle already occupies too much of our brains. :-) But at any rate I really want to see lists of composers works and an increasing amount of articles on individual pieces. Cheers, Antandrus 15:32, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Whatever people decide I'm fine with, perhaps we could add a bit to a meta wiki page on music editing, there seems to be a growing community here. Stirling Newberry 19:29, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Music. Hyacinth 02:19, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Needs more that is applicable to history of classical music and classical music. Stirling Newberry 04:37, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I'd like a place where we could talk about all classical-music-related stuff, sort of a village pump for the community of editors here. I'm not sure the project meta page is the right spot for it. Ideas? I suppose I could make a sub-page under my user page but I think a more "public" spot would be better. Antandrus 04:51, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for all your replies. I've tried to take them into account in revising List of works by Beethoven, adding links to every work that already has a Wikipedia article. As far as ordering the genres, I tried to follow what's in the Penguin Guide to CDs, which is probably already familiar to many people.

For other composers, e.g. Haydn, I think I will take Antandrus's advice and not duplicate the Beethoven scheme, but simply add to the ==See also== section. This seems the simplest way to guide the reader to articles on individual works so long as there isn't a great number of them. Opus33 19:52, 10 Jul 2004 (UTC)

The ad for Wikiquote

Hi- We already had a link to the Wikiquote entry for Beethoven, and there's also already a ban on banner ads in the Wikipedia, so I took out the ad. I think the article will be just as useful and also look much nicer if we leave these ads out. I hope that's ok. Cheers, Opus33 00:36, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Reformat as main article, satellite articles?

Hi all-- This article has a rather long and rambling feel to it, and I'm only adding to the effect right now by putting in more details of Beethoven's biography. Usually when a Wikipedia article gets long, it is redeployed as a main article plus various satellite articles, with the main article including brief summaries of the satellite articles. For an example, see (among many others) United Kingdom.

For the Beethoven article, the satellites would plausibly be a detailed biography, a detailed discussion of musical style and innovations, a list of works (already a satellite), and perhaps something on symphonies.

Please reply if you think this is not the right way to go; otherwise I will try to implement it soon. Opus33 15:17, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)

[P.S. thanks to Antandrus for preliminary discussion of this idea.]

Was Beethoven of partly African ancestry?

See the article below in the "Beethoven Was Black" section for references/proof concerning Beethoven's lineage.

The article should mention the controversy (Edward G. Nilges 11-19-2004210.21.221.184 02:26, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)) and I have added a paragraph.

I've moved the addition here

Some scholars (by no means all) have raised the possibility that Beethoven was of at least partial African ancestry, and this may explain some of the rythmic and tonal explorations in his late works, where (for example) jazzlike syncopations appear in his Hammerklavier sonata. An explanation of this possibility would be the Turkish invasion of south-eastern Europe; the Turkish forces used Ethiopian and other African troops as musicians, and were stopped near Vienna in the 17th century. Other scholars reject this possibility.

It's a silly theory (that tacitly supposes his later (but not earlier) music's content is genetically determined), and that nothing says "jungle rhythm" like "late Beethoven". Worse, it's an unattributed silly theory. If the "some scholars" who have addressed it, it might be added back and attributed to them, but certainly not in such a prominent place as it was the first time...it's simply not that important a ~~wild-ass guess~~ theory. - Nunh-huh 02:49, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Thanks, Nunh-huh.

For the origin of the "Beethoven was black" claim, I found this a vaguely useful link:

http://www.africawithin.com/bios/joel_rogers.htm

Joel Rogers was a self-trained historian who in 1966 published a book that made this claim. He seems to have been a brave and enterprising man who had an interesting career. But it also seems that the "Beethoven was black" hypothesis has not attracted much scholarly support.

If we're to mention it (and I'm not sure we should), I think it should involve reading and quoting Rogers, pointing out that Rogers's theory hasn't convinced the musicologists.

I agree with Nunh-huh that this material doesn't belong in such a prominent position; at best it should be in the detail satellite biography. And obviously, it should leave out the unsupported and inflammatory assertion about syncopation being genetic.

Cheers, Opus33 04:38, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Edward Nilges: I'll consider rewriting it with sources when I have time. The issue was, I think now, more appropriate to raise first in discussion but I was also pressed for time when I modified the article.

There was no assertion about syncopation, being genetic. There are indeed irresponsible assertions made about genetics, but the rule here is that any POSITIVE assertion about African genes is "irresponsible and inflammatory".

I didn't mention genes. Instead, there was an entire hidden Turkish tradition in south-eastern European classical music which emerges in the "Turkish" march but which is in denial about "miscegenation".

Rather than thinking Beethoven unique, the mathematics of human reproduction show race mixture to be the (denied) norm and not exceptional. If one traces only the patrilineal line, one ignores contributions which are by default multiracial.

The theory that Beethoven was of african or asian ancestry has as much scholary support as the theory that the pyramids were built by aliens. It's pseudo-science. The different musical traditions Beethoven was influenced by are a different issue. 80.140.215.2 12:30, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

I had alwayd understood it was Schubert who had a touch of black blood. Sounds like a fashionable theory of the day to explain musical talent, SqueakBox 15:01, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

"Rather than thinking Beethoven unique, the mathematics of human reproduction show race mixture to be the (denied) norm and not exceptional. If one traces only the patrilineal line, one ignores contributions which are by default multiracial."

The mathematics of human reproductuon show that Beethoven could also be Swiss. We know that some of his ancestors were Flemish, and we also know that during the 80 years war many Swiss mercenaries fought in Flandres, and probably got on with the local women a bit. From this we can conclude that there is a possibilty of Swiss ancestry in Beethoven's linage. I think this hypotheticly possible Swissness should be mentioned in the article.

I don't think that anything hypothetical involving controversy about abstruse points should be in an encyclopedia article, that's why Wikipedia has a policy against original research. This is not the "Journal of Beethoven Studies", it's an encyclopedia article, and people consult encyclopedias to find the main lines of consensus information about basic things. Things that are possible, speculative, highly controversial, and not essential to understanding the main things about Beethoven should not be in the Wikipedia Beethoven article, whether it's his genealogy or whether it's compositions he conceived of but never composed. These more abstruse things should be articles submitted to specialized scholarly journals. Jeremy J. Shapiro 06:42, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

The chances of Beethoven being black are about the same as the chances of Gustavus Adolphus being Vietnamese. Obviously the 19th century works claiming that he was black were ment to be defamatory, it's only in modern times that some Afrocentrics have accepted this as fact.

Actually at the time the idea that africans were musical and rhythmic was part of the racial thinking of the time. Wagner thought Beethoven might have african ancestory, and speculated that he should as well. It's part and parcel of that age, and it certainly hasn't gotten any better documented over time. If someone were to do a DNA test on his hair and find other ancestory, that would be notable. Until then... Stirling Newberry 17:59, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

This seems to be so incredibly absurd; it is certainly not worth mentioning in the main article and I will most strenuously oppose anything of the kind.

The current edition of the section on Beethoven's race is an absolute disgrace. It's referential basis - a German race study from 1914 - is itself laughable. But even putting aside its blatantly rascist (and sexist - that one slips in too) agenda, the actual argument leaves something to be desired. It starts from the premiss that Beethoven was an “Alpinid”, which we are told means Celtic. We are then given a second premiss - namely that Alpinids are not “Negrids”. Ergo, syllogistic form leads us to the conclusion that Beethoven was not a “Negrid”. That is the central argument, although our good annalist goes so far as to adorn it with an analysis of the racial constitution of "the Moors" (does the adjective "Moorish" actually occur here?). Firstly now, (let's get this set out nice and clear so that we can all follow it) the initial premiss simply asserts what is at issue. Secondly the racial divisions, of which Negrid and Armenid are two, are too copious (I forget exactly how many) to allow for any strict boundary between seperate "races". That is, the "if Armenid then not Negrid" premiss just might not be as watertight as it intially appeared to be. Indeed, I would venture to suggest that these classifications from the (otherwise, I am sure, seminal) 1914 study are in fact arbitrary, informed by prejudice, and utterly without merit. Our esteemed chronicler's assurance that this literature has gained some favourable reception in the United States deos more harm to the reputation of that country than it adds to the reputation of the study. Finally, one might indeed enquire “what on earth is a Negrid?! An Alpinid?! Mediterannid-Aethiopid-Armenid???!!!” This article should be closed from gereral editing if this kind of trite, idiotic bigoted drivel continues to appear. —This unsigned comment was added by 86.128.119.22 (talk • contribs) .

This paragraph has been removed from the article (sometime today evidently). I agree it does not belong. Antandrus (talk) 04:48, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Beethoven was Black

While there is no evidence for it, it should be documented as a speculation which goes back to the 19th century. Perhaps in the life and work section?

Stirling Newberry 01:42, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)

"EVIDENCE"

Fredrick Hertz, German anthropologist, in "Race and Civilation" refers twice to Beethoven's "Negroid traits" and his "dark" skin, and "flat, thick nose." (pp. 123 and 178.)

Frau Fischer, an intimate acquaintance of Beethoven, describes him thus, "Short, stocky, broad shoulders, short neck, round nose, blackish- brown complexion." (From R. H. Schauffler, The Man Who Freed Music, Vol. I p. 18, 1929)

Alexander W. Thayer perhaps the foremost authority on Beethoven, says, "Beethoven had even more of the Moor in his features than his master, 'Haydn'." (Beethoven, Vol. I p. 146) By "Moor" was meant "Negro" Until recent times the German for "Negro" was "Mohr"

Paul Bekker, another very noted authority on Beethoven, says that "the most faithful picture of Beethoven's head" shows him with "wide thicklipped mouth, short thick nose and proudly arched forehead" (Beethoven, p. 41 1925. trans. Bozman).

For more extended proof as well as a picture of Beethoven's life- mask see ("Sex and Race", Vol. 3 pp. 306-309)

Hopefully this will clear up the controversy about proof of Beethoven's race. These claims of Beethoven's African lineage were not originally made by black people, but by white Europeans. They were not made to diminish him in creativity or stature. They were simply a description of him. These same Europeans had no knowledge of the uproar that this would cause amongst their American offspring.

Tom 11/09/2005

This is not "proof" of anything. If Beethoven had swarthy skin, full lips, and a broad, flat nose, then fine; but this isn't extraordinary. Babe Ruth also had a nose that could be described as negroid [2], as did Socrates [3], as well as quite a few other white people, and full lips aren't exclusive to black Africans, either. Beethoven was supposed to have been a walker and to have spent a lot of time outside, which would account for a tanned appearance that would have stood out; but the round nose and full lips don't suggest that he was anything other than Germanic. If Beethoven actually did have negroid ancestry, then wouldn't Thayer have explicitly stated this, rather than just using "moor" to describe his features, as some white people's features could be described as "negroid"? If so, then quote it, and also explain who in his family was black, because of his known ancestors, none were [4]. Neither of his parents nor his brother look black, either [5] . The first explicit allegation that Beethoven had black ancestry came from J.A. Rogers, an overly race-conscious, autodidact mulatto who tried to make the world look like it was a black/white mix like him (he seems to have suffered an identity crisis), and was not preceded by "claims of Beethoven's African lineage" by white Europeans, as this person above has claimed and also has shown to be false with their quotes. This whole subject is speculative and dubious, and is false until proven, and is not worth mentioning in the article because it is of no consequence to Beethoven's identity. If Beethoven had been black, then it would be known, as in the case of Alexander Pushkin or G.P. Bridgetower, who was a close acquaintance of Beethoven's and to whose mulatto-ness attention was frequently drawn, as in Beethoven's dedicating his violin sonata no. 9 to him as "sonata per uno mulaticco lunaticco" [6], and in public papers and announcements that referred to him as "colored" (Europe was apparently color conscious at this time, so a black Beethoven wouldn't have been a secret). The claim that Beethoven was black seems to be made on racist premises like alleging that white people have "hidden" these "facts", and supported by distorted (shrunken) images, as exemplified on this page [7], revealing Beethoven's "true identity", as if this would change who he was! Produce an convincing image of a black Beethoven (even this wouldn't prove anything). Hair analysis would reveal negroid ancestry, and this would be the only way to prove or disprove it. --Jugbo

To users 4.155.129.224 and 4.239.255.133, don't delete my comments. This is the discussion page where users express their opinions. If you have a problem with it, come see me. --Jugbo 03:14, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Whlie POV statements can be deleted in articles - In the talk section we don't delete others arguments - everyone is allowed to have their own opinion.--God of War 04:23, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Thank you, God of War. I can't imagine what people are thinking when they do that! --Jugbo 05:15, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

From Cecil Adams of the Straight Dope:

http://www.straightdope.com/columns/050527.html

No, Beethoven was not Black nor was he African. Spurious conjecture does not belong on this page.

[[Lochdale|Lochdale]

Jugbo and others obviously don't believe Hertz, Fischer, Thayer or Bekker. I would welcome the writings of other Beethoven contemporaries discribing his appearrance. Of course he/she might have to go some to find someone closer to Beethoven than Fischer. He/she assumes that being tanned is on parallel with a "blackish brown complexion" as written by Fischer. You have Caucasion people around the world that spend enormous amounts of time in the summer sun (Naked) as well as in tanning booths who do not develope blackish brown complexions. Not to mention the caucasion people who live in Africa who still look like tanned caucasions after living and walking in more sun than Germans ever see in their lifetime. I guess that we are to suppose that Fischer's comments were not made in the winter? If my comments are to be speculative and dubious based on the writings of Beethovens friend, then Jugbos comments deserve the same discredit for his lack of intimate associate written references. Everyone reading this article knows several people of German decent. I dare say that none of them have a blackish brown complexion unless they have someone in their lineage with a blackish brown complexion. (Mendel's Law). At best, if he/she considers the references that I used as none proof, then I would think that his/her position would be neutral since he/she also offers no opposing proof. Saying that he walked in the sun often as a justification of his blackish brown complexion (thinking that the rest of the world doesn't know the difference) is intellectually offensive. To say that my comments are racist when (with the exeception of J.A. Rogers' research) they are based solely on the writings of Beethovens friends and noted authorities (none of whom are black) is unfair. Jugbo you should think deeply about where the racism may truly be. Is it true that I am trying to make Beethoven black, or is it more true that Jugbo and others can't bear the thought that he might not have been causcasion? Tom 01/06/06

I do believe Hertz, Fischer, Thayer and Bekker; but I believe that the overly race-conscoius and ethnocentric tendencies of some lead them to misinterpret these testimonies. For a history of the usage of color terms, see this page [8]. The way we use the term "black" is not the same way Europeans of Beethoven's time used it. Beethoven was often called "the black Spaniard" because he apparently was at the darker end of the European skin shade spectrum [9] ("the composer's swarthy complexion in his youth prompted some to call him "The Black Spaniard" - which in turn might have been what induced a few revisionist claims in our day that the composer was African"), [10] ("Beethoven himself had been nicknamed the Black Spaniard in his youth, because of his swarthy complection"). This "Spanish" coloration among Germans apparently isn't unusual, as the white people article explains (and I can attest by virtue of my very Mediterranean-looking German grandfather): "In the mid-18th-century, some Americans saw Germans as being physically too swarthy of complexion to ever pass for White. Others accepted Germans as White without problems." We know the Spanish aren't "black" in the sense that we use the term today (i.e. refering to individuals of sub-Saharan extraction); but to Europeans of Beethoven's time, the Spanish were "black", simply because they were (and are) some of the darkest people in Europe. There is a history of this usage of color terms around the world, as the first link I've provided explains:

"Among the pre-Islamic Arabs, Lewis (1970:7-8) notes a more relativistic color terminology, centered more on the individual than on the group:

'These terms are usually used in a personal rather than ethnic sense, and would correspond to such words as swarthy, sallow, blonde or ruddy in our own modern usage more than to words like black and white. Sometimes they are used ethnically, but even then in a relative rather than absolute sense. The Arabs, for example, sometimes describe themselves as black in contrast to the Persians who are red, but at other times as red (or even white) in contrast to the Africans who are black.'

"This older, more relative sense has been noted in other culture areas. The Japanese once used the terms shiroi (white) and kuroi (black) to describe their skin and its gradations of color (Wagatsuma 1967). The Ibos of Nigeria employed ocha (white) and ojii (black) in the same way, so that nwoko ocha (white man) simply meant an Ibo with a yellowish or reddish complexion (Ardener 1954). In French Canada, the older generation still refers to a swarthy Canadien as noir.

"Vestiges of this older usage persist in family names. Mr. White, Mr. Brown, and Mr. Black were individuals within the normal color spectrum of English people. Ditto for Leblanc, Lebrun, and Lenoir among the French or Weiss, Braün, and Schwartz among the Germans."

Those who insist that Beethoven was "black" in the modern sense of the word consistently make this mistake (as well as such pitiful claims as that "there is no evidence that [Beethoven] was white," and that the assertion that he was "black" doesn't need to be proven because it should instead be proven that he was white): [11] [12] [13]. I have no problem with a "black" Beethoven, but I do have a problem with annoying, ethnically offensive revisionist history that claims things that simply aren't true. I believe that it is foolish to be resentful of history, because there's nothing to be done about anything that one may not favor. Pushkin and Dumas were part black, and I have no problem with that or the black ancestry of any other European notable in history. The black ancestry of these individuals (including Beethoven, if he had actually had any) would mean little more than exactly that - that they had black ancestry. These people were the products of Europe (not Africa), and their contributions were to Europe (not Africa). These people belong to Europe and its culture and heritage. If the fact that any historically prominent Europeans were partially black makes you stand up taller, then go ahead and be proud of them like everyone else is; but don't tell history like it wasn't. That's the real problem I have with this mess. I don't need to "think deeply" about where the racism may truly be, because I see where it is, and it's with those who deal with the aspects of the present and the past that they don't find most convenient for their agendas by accusing another group of racial conspiracy: [14]. Racism isn't my problem. --Jugbo 21:21, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Jugbo I agree with you on the symbolic references of skin color amongst people of European decent. I've even known Black Irish people with an olive complexion who did not look black at all in the modern sense. So I accept your comments on the symbolic meanings of these coloristic comments in many cases. I also agree with you that Beethoven's contributions belong to Europe as ours surely belong to America. I don't think that thats what we're dealing with here. What you fail to address is Thayer's comment. You said earlier that you believed Thayer, so let's examine his comment. Thayer said that "Beethoven had even more of the Moor in his features than his master Haydn" (Bethoven Vol. 1. p 146). Here Thayer describes not just a skin color, but a race of people. The Moors. Beethoven was rightfully described as a black Spaniard given the ethnic mixing between Moors and Spaniards dating as far back as the 8th century. I agree with your statement that Spaniards are the darkess Europeans. They are the darkess Europeans because of their mixing with the Moors. Was your Mediterranean-looking Grandfather ever mistaken for someone of Morrish decent? Thayer's comment removes Beethoven's appearance from both the conceptual and social coloristic nicknames of the period. Let's condense the comments of Bekker, Fischer, Thayer and Hertz, and put them all together. Blackish brown complexion, Wide thick lipped mouth, Short thick nose and Moorish appearance. I believe that these descriptions go beyond the socially conceptual and lend more to the actual description of the man. I prefer not to lend social slant to these descriptions of Beethoven, but to take these comments at face value. Had you considered that there were actually people living in Europe (then and now) that these comments of color would actually apply to accurately? Had you considered that any of them would be musically gifted? There are some people who are called black who actually are black and/or mixed with it. I don't believe that Beethoven was a pure blood African, but he had at least as much African in him as Halle Berry. Tom 01/14/06

I don't see why you think that Thayer's comments are an exception to the common word usage of his day. You emphasized skin color, so I responded to that, and then you make a circle by going back and mentioning his alleged "black" features, which I have also already addressed. I'll assume you believe that the Moors were negroid, so I'll respond with that in mind. The Spanish are among the darkest Europeans not because of their mixing with the Moors (whom you obviously believe were negroid), but because they are among the most southerly people in Europe, like the Portuguese, Italians and Greeks. According to this study [15]:

"Haplogroup frequencies estimated as described above are listed in Table 2. The phylogeographic structure of mtDNA in the Western Mediterranean can be summarised as five sets of haplogroups: 1) sub-Saharan haplogroup L (including L1, L2, L3); 2) haplogroups J, T, J/T; 3) haplogroups H, V, HV; 4) haplogroup U (including K); and 5) haplogroups W, I, X, and M.

"L haplogroups are relatively infrequent in Italians (with a maximum of 8.1% in South Italians) and Iberians (with a maximum of 6.1% in Central Portuguese). On the contrary, L haplogroups are distributed in all North African populations at high frequencies (from 26% in South Berbers to 43.5% in Mauritanians) with the exception of Mozabites (12.9%) and Moroccan Berbers (3.2%). In fact, the frequency of the L haplogroups in Moroccan Berbers is similar to that found in Iberians and Italians. The frequency of the L haplogroups might represent the sub-Saharan genetic flow into the populations analysed, which has shown to be substantial in NW Africa but very limited in European populations."

According to the mentioned "Table 2", the occurence of sub-Saharan haplogroups (L1, L2, L3) in Iberia are, respectively: Andalusians (0%, 0.6%, 1.3%), Basques (0%, 0%, 0%), Catalans (0%, 0%, 1.3%), Central Spaniards (2%, 2%, 0%), Galicians (0%, 1%, 1%), Valencians (0%, 3.4%, 0%), Portuguese (0%, 1.8%, 1.8%), Northern Portuguese (1%, 3%, 1%), Central Portuguese (1.3%, 2.4%, 2.4%), Southern Portuguese (1.7%, 1.7%, 1.7%), and the "unweighted average frequency in Iberians" (0.6%, 1.6%, 1%). The genetic sub-Saharan contribution to Iberia is quite small, yet you insist that it accounts for the relatively dark skin found throughout the region in the average Spaniard. The Spanish are relatively dark-skinned "caucasians" who could not accurately be called a negroid-caucasoid mix. The frequent occurence of olive skin in the Spanish population is not indicative of negroid admixture. As I said in my previous post, the Spanish are not "black". The actual ethnic Moors also are not (and were not) "black", either. See my comments here [16], also here [17].

"Had you considered that there were actually people living in Europe (then and now) that these comments of color would actually apply to accurately? Had you considered that any of them would be musically gifted?"

I don't know what you're talking about here, and I don't think I want to know, so I'll just ignore it, because it sounds racist. Don't bother explaining it. As for Beethoven having "at least as much African in him as Halle Berry," (in other words, you think he was half black) he didn't, because his ancestors are known [18], and none of them were Moorish. Don't you think that his half-black ancestry would show up in artistic depictions of him? [19] Some claim that you can't tell a person's race/ethnicity by looking at a painting/engraving/etc.; but you certainly can (although you may not be able to determine everything in their lineage by these means). However, if Beethoven had been half-black, then he wouldn't look as white as he does in all of his portrayals. Also, his hair wouldn't be straight, shiny and light brown [20] [21] Your quotes simply aren't proof of your point. --Jugbo 07:13, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Jugbo you are a studied person and discount that the Moors were black. Not fair. To say that they were not black is a most recent practice. Their make up seems to have been Black Arab, Berber and West African. Go to http://herso.freeservers.com/moors.html and scroll down three images to the picture of the moorish chief Eduard Charlemont and tell me what you think he is. His picture also hangs in the Philadelphia Museum of Art. Of course you may consider this picture as fabricated as I think the images of Beethoven. Also for africans in early Europe, (and this is case sensitive)go to http//www.geocities.com/CollegePark/Classroom/9912/africanseurope.html Pushkin, whom you are familiar with is at the end of this article, but there's much that takes place before that. Tom 01/15/06

Quit whining that I'm being "not fair", Tom. I made arguments and supported my assertions. That's fair. You claim that the Moors' makeup "seems to have been Black Arab, Berber and West African", and to support this point and the one that the non-black Moor image is recent you tell me to look at a 19th century painting by Austrian painter Eduard Charlemont? What do you argue that this proves? What is the "most recent practice", again? I don't think this painting is fabricated. Do you think I would have to believe that in order to believe that the Moors weren't black? Is this 19th century painting by an Austrian artist proof of the racial identity of the Moors, especially in the 8th-15th centuries? That this means that comparing Beethoven's features to that of a "Moor" means that his contemporaries believed he was negroid? You make too many asumptions, Tom. It's a comparison, and just because some people made it doesn't mean it has literal validity. Socrates has also been alleged by revisionist historians to have been negroid (partly because he was compared in appearance to a silenus [22]), but as Lefkowitz shows [23], he wasn't "African". Calling a black African a Moor is like calling a black citizen of Britain "British". The designation doesn't mean that they're of the indigines or originators of the culture or society, but that they have integrated into the population of foreigners to which they are unrelated. Also claiming that black Africans were the bearers of Moorish culture would be like claiming that black American slaves founded the U.S. government and wrote its constitution. See my argument here [24], again, as well as these studies (and respective excerpts) [25] [26] [27]:

"So far, our analyses have allowed a clear dissection of almost all NW African and Iberian paternal lineages into several components with distinct historical origins. In this way, the historical origins of the NW African Y-chromosome pool may be summarized as follows: 75% NW African Upper Paleolithic (H35, H36, and H38), 13% Neolithic (H58 and H71), 4% historic European gene flow (group IX, H50, H52), and 8% recent sub-Saharan African (H22 and H28).

"The majority of the maternal ancestors of the Berbers must have come from Europe and the Near East since the Neolithic. The Mauritanians and West-Saharans, in contrast, bear substantial though not dominant mtDNA affinity with sub-Saharans."

"The genetic contribution of sub-Saharan Africa [to North African populations] appears to be small."

Why do you think that the images we have of Beethoven are fabricated? Because they don't depict a black man? I suppose you prefer to assume that the artwork of the Moors depicting themselves is fabricated as well. Take a look at these contemporary portraits [28], drawings and engravings [29] of Beethoven (he died in 1827). There is no reason to believe that they are "fabricated". As I've explained to you, there's also no sound and intelligent reason to believe that Beethoven was anything other than Northern European (and no, those people don't have heavy negroid admixture from some hidden chapter of European history, as that would show up in their DNA, and there's no indication of this). You base your arguments on the premise that there's a chance that some of his ancestors had Spanish ancestry, that there's a chance that some these Spanish ancestors had Moorish ancestry, that there's a chance that some of these Moorish ancestors had sub-Saharan ancestry, and that all this means that Beethoven was half-black. Please, Tom. You also point to the arguments of Afrocentric pseudo-historians (without even making your own point, but instead relying on your links to make your arguments for you) who equate "African" with "negroid", and simply assert things without supporting them. No wonder you think Beethoven was black. I'm not going to argue with you anymore if you claim that simply because these people have asserted these things that they must be true, because that shows you to be a stubborn pseudo-scholar as well. Anyone can put anything on the Internet, that's why it's the responsibility of the Internet user to be soundly educated to descriminate between fact and fiction. My arguments are in accordance with orthodox scholarship and methodology. Yours aren't. You honestly give credence to this nonsense? There's a reason these revisionist historians and ethnocentrists aren't taken seriously, Tom; and you've adequately demontrated that you aren't trustworthy, either. If you must argue that Beethoven was negroid, then go lurk in a darker corner of the Web and promote it, like these other people do their beliefs, because your argument isn't enriching Wikipedia, which educates the public on fact. --Jugbo 21:19, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

The question can easily be resolved by looking at physical evidence. Beethoven's hair - which has been preserved - is obviously that of a white person.

Here the final evaluation from an expert on the matter: Beethoven was an Alpinid (mean IQ ~97,occurance from France to Siberian Russia, cyclothymous Celtic race, significantly more feminine than the leptomorphic Nordid race ) with some Negriform features as a flat, round nose not connected to the Negrids genetically. As the Moors were no Negrids,too , but Aethiopid Europids (just as the Pharaohs), some of their genes would not have changed Beethoven's belonging to the Alpinid race. As the Alpinid race is one of the most intelligent races of all 37 races and additionally is quite numerous in contrast to the endangered Nordid race, a Beethoven was most likley to occur in the Alpinid subrace having access to the central European culture facilities (Vienna).Envious negros (see John Randal Baker, Race ,1974, Oxford University Press, for the correct use of the term Negro as a non-offensive ethnic term) created the "Negro Beethoven "campaign. 80.138.193.152 02:55, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

A few other points:

- The moors weren't black.

- A quote from a writer isn't scientific evidence in support of anything ( especially one who never even saw Beethoven). Hearsay is the least impressive evidence in support of anything.

- There is no legitimate historical interest in this discussion: the people promoting the viewpoint that Beethoven was black are neither historians nor scientists, but are members of a political movement known as "Afro-centrism" (which claims that all of recorded history involves a conspiracy of silence against black people's achievments).--Johan77

- - While I suppose one cannot say beyond a shadow of a doubt that he was black, by the same token, one cannot say beyond a shadow of a doubt that he was white either. Proof of dark skin, "kinky" hair, "negroid" nose, and full lips may not prove he was black, but it certainly does not prove he was white, either. The burden of proof works both ways. While we cannot prove he was black (none of us knew him or saw him), we also cannot prove he was white. No, not even by history, as he is described by some accounts as "German" and some accounts as "Moor"

- - - A note on the "Moor" thing: Moor was used at that time to describe not only Moors, but all darker skinned people who were not considered European. Thus, someone described as "Moorish" could very EASILY be black.

A response to everything you've said here has already been produced above (or below). However, two brief emphases most pertinent to what you've just claimed:

His ancestry can be proven by DNA analysis (in favor of either argument, of course).
In response to "Thus, someone described as "Moorish" could very EASILY be black": No, not when their genealogy and contemporary visual representations indicate otherwise.

If every time a marginal party claimed something implausible and demanded refutation, and mainstream academia reacted, do you think any acquisition of knowledge would occur as progressively as it should? No serious professional scholar is going to try to prove that Beethoven was white, because they understand that obviously tendentious claims like this one shouldn't be allowed to divert time and energy and other resources away from more worthy and consequential pursuits. A note on the German/Moorish issue: Beethoven was German because his ancestors and his ethnicity were (in the liberal sense of Germanic, as he was also of Belgian extraction); his appearance was described as "Moorish". Also worthy of emphasis is the fact that this was a mere comparison. He was also described as a "Spaniard", but that doesn't mean that he was one (or that he could "EASILY" have been one) simply because someone suggested it. Review my arguments. There's no credible reason to believe that he was negroid. --Jugbo 19:42, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

The current edition of the section on Beethoven's race is an absolute disgrace. It's referential basis - a German race study from 1914 - is itself laughable. But even putting aside its blatantly rascist (and sexist - that one slips in too) agenda, the actual argument leaves something to be desired. It starts from the premiss that Beethoven was an “Alpinid”, which we are told means Celtic. We are then given a second premiss - namely that Alpinids are not “Negrids”. Ergo, syllogistic form leads us to the conclusion that Beethoven was not a “Negrid”. That is the central argument, although our good annalist goes so far as to adorn it with an analysis of the racial constitution of "the Moors" (does the adjective "Moorish" actually occur here?). Firstly now, (let's get this set out nice and clear so that we can all follow it) the initial premiss simply asserts what is at issue. Secondly the racial divisions, of which Negrid and Armenid are two, are too copious (I forget exactly how many) to allow for any strict boundary between seperate "races". That is, the "if Armenid then not Negrid" premiss just might not be as watertight as it intially appeared to be. Indeed, I would venture to suggest that these classifications from the (otherwise, I am sure, seminal) 1914 study are in fact arbitrary, informed by prejudice, and utterly without merit. Our esteemed chronicler's assurance that this literature has gained some favourable reception in the United States deos more harm to the reputation of that country than it adds to the reputation of the study. Finally, one might indeed enquire “what on earth is a Negrid?! An Alpinid?! Mediterannid-Aethiopid-Armenid???!!!” This article should be closed from gereral editing if this kind of trite, idiotic, bigoted drivel continues to appear.

- - Science has nothing to say about how people should behave; it concerns itself with questions of "is" or "isn't". Arguments focusing on "should" and "shouldn't", or yelling foul because some social convention or political norm has been violated are red herrings; these are political considerations, and scientists needn't be concerned or intimidated by them.

- - In science, things are proven or disproven by scientific methods.

--Johan77

According to the British Museum, Oxford University and Egyptologist scholar Stanley Lane-Poole, author of "Moors in Spain" Poole proves that Moors were African and of Ethiopic and Berber origin and corrects the previously wrong notion that they were the slaves of the European Moors who then adopted the customs and language of their former masters. Find this in "Moors" here in Wikipedia.

To the above user, I had to move your post to here from right in the middle of my previous post. Don't ever do that again anywhere else - it just doesn't make sense. There's no reason not to respond below every one else's comments. And to answer your post, have you been to the Moors page lately? Your statement is an inaccurate one. The Moors were Arabs and Berbers, with black slaves, and there has never been any such thing as "European Moors". --Jugbo 02:10, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Jugbo how could you send these readers to the Moors page here in Wikipedia when right there in the first paragraph it says The Moors were mainly comprised of Ethiopians, West Africans, Sub Saharan Africans, Arabs and Berbers? Beats me. Another myth bites the dust. Tom 06/12/06

The Moors page changes a lot. --Jugbo 05:46, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

History doesn't change Jugbo. I'm sure that you would change the Moors page if you could so that it would reflect the things that you've written above, as well as save you some embarrassment. However you will never remove from the earth what really happened. Myths will come and go, but the truth will always resurface. Forever. With the truth of the Moors ethnicity being clear (according to Wikipedia) we can now revisit Beethoven's contemporaries describing him as one. Or we can once again return to modern hypothesis. It's a matter of who you're going to believe. The people who knew and described him or those who never met the man. Tom 07/24/06

I see that the Moor page has been changed. And it is written that their appearance ran the distance between very dark and very light. It states that they were a diverse lot. It appears that there was a lot of intermingling between the races, which is normal even today.

No, history doesn't change, but its interpretation can, and there are always conflicting viewpoints, some far more credible and solid than others. Keep an eye on the Moors page and watch what I'm talking about. There will eventually re-appear a version of it that you don't like, and then any one who agrees with it should then be able to declare that the truth has then been revealed. It is indeed a matter of who you're going to believe. Suffice it to say, you won't convince mainstream society and academia of the validity of your fringe views. Beethoven's identity is known, and we've been over this so much already, Tom, but I'll review it anyway. Beethoven's ancestry is known through his genealogy. He was German and Flemish. His appearance is known through contemporary portraits and of him. He was white (in accordance with his ancestry). Your response to this is that it's all fabricated. I've explained to you the manner and conventions of usage of color terms throughout history and the world and why this "Moorish" comparison doesn't mean what you think it does. You insist that these descriptions are different. I've cited genetic studies to prove to you that the sub-Saharan component of North Africa is minor. I've pointed out to you how it's known that the medieval Muslim invaders of Iberia were Arabs from the Middle East and Berbers from North Africa. You deny it and insist they were black. We eventually tumble into an epistemological conundrum in which no truth exists because history doesn't please all by giving everyone a piece of the pie. We can't simply rewrite history according to our wishes, Tom. We also can't simply disrespect the heritage of others without expecting something in return. You very well may sow resentment in others that will return to you with consequences you didn't originally wish for. Such is the stuff racism is made of. --Jugbo 19:05, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Jugbo whether I'm correct or not about my belief in Beethovens ethnicity doesn't make me a racist. The most that I can be is incorrect. In many of the earlier writings above you've attacked me racially without knowing what race I am. You assume that I'm black because of the stance that I take commensurate with what was written by Beethovens contemporaries. You would also have everyone believe that when the Berbers and the Arabs entered North Africa, (the key word being "enter"), that it was theretofore an uninhabited land. There is clear archeological evidence of a dark skinned african People in North Africa predating the Berbers by centuries. There is also clear evidence of a dark skinned wooly haired Arab people existing then and even today. Archeology has shown that the farther back history goes, the darker the population of these lands get. These are not black archeological reports I might add. The Berbers are modern history by comparison. The slaves of the Moors often looked like their slave masters. Recently Wikipedias stance on the Moors ethnicity didn't change to suit my beliefs, it changed to suit yours. A change I suspect, that you had something to do with. Whether you did or not, this is a discredit to Wikipedia. I lend no more credibility to your genetic reports than I do to the changes of the Moors page. But to your constant accusations of me being a racist, "I think thou protest too much". It is also noticed by all readers that you are the catalyst for the racist accusations listed herein and above. Behavior does not lie. Tom 08/02/06

First of all, Tom, I wasn't calling you a racist, but was rather explaining to you that such unjustified appropriation of others' heritage, as what you've been doing, nudges people in the direction of prejudice.

Secondly, your stance is not "commensurate with what was written by Beethoven's contemporaries". I've explained this to you, Tom. These descriptions don't mean what you wish they mean. Besides, Beethoven's genealogy is enough in itself to override such a conclusion, and his portraits are overkill.

"There is clear archeological evidence of a dark skinned african People in North Africa predating the Berbers by centuries. There is also clear evidence of a dark skinned wooly haired Arab people existing then and even today. Archeology has shown that the farther back history goes, the darker the population of these lands get. These are not black archeological reports I might add. The Berbers are modern history by comparison. The slaves of the Moors often looked like their slave masters."

Can you support that? See the Berbers and Maghreb pages to see how the rest of Wikipedia (with the exception of the "African By Nature" link at the bottom of the Berbers page, which will be removed by intelligent Wikipedians in due time) contradict you. I would like to point out this page, especially, that explains who the Berbers are and shows what they look like. Also, archaeology can't reveal skin color, Tom.

"Recently Wikipedias stance on the Moors ethnicity didn't change to suit my beliefs, it changed to suit yours. A change I suspect, that you had something to do with."

Uh - no. Just check the history of the page (or my history). Believe it or not, Tom, I'm not the only person that uses Wikipedia that disagrees with you (as evidenced in my last paragraph). The page as it is (talking about both black and white Moors) still contradicts mainstream sources like MSN Encarta Encyclopedia and others (with the exception, predictably, of the reference to Wikipedia, which has been doing exactly what it's not supposed to be doing by not according with mainstream academia).

"Whether you did or not, this is a discredit to Wikipedia."

The whole page is a discredit to Wikipedia.

"I lend no more credibility to your genetic reports than I do to the changes of the Moors page."

No, of course you don't.

"But to your constant accusations of me being a racist, 'I think thou protest too much'."

Tom, thou doth not know what goes on here, methinks. I haven't "constantly" accused you of racism. You've accused me of racism, or, rather, implied that I and others were racist:

"Jugbo you should think deeply about where the racism may truly be. Is it true that I am trying to make Beethoven black, or is it more true that Jugbo and others can't bear the thought that he might not have been causcasion?"

"It is also noticed by all readers that you are the catalyst for the racist accusations listed herein and above. Behavior does not lie."

Whatever, Tom. You're the one who started this; and you're the one who keeps it going. The bottom line is that neither Beethoven nor the Moors were black. You're simply wrong. --Jugbo 17:04, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

This is silly, I'm out. Tom 08/26/06

Anyone who thinks that the Moors of North Africa were untouched ethnically by Africans probably thinks that Europeons are ethnically untouched by native Americans. How can anyone say that a people declared of Arab and Berber decent are white when the Arabs themselves are not white. Even if the Moors were white with black slaves, they mated with those slaves like all slave owners did. The Moors were mutts. Much of their period art depicts them as a mixed people. Amongst their Arab ranks were many valiant dark skinned wooly haired warriors. In many cases slave and slave owner looked alike and in many cases they did not.

I must say, when I first saw the header for this section, I expected a joke of somewhat questionable punchlinery, not a discourse on how Beethoven's black blood manifested itself in his jungle rhythms - that type of argument smacks not only of ignorance and idiocy, but barely-veiled racism. I am of strong Italian descent, but this does not lend to me the genetic ability to make delicious spaghetti sauce. The presence of "negroid" features, quoted of by supposed Beethovenian contemporaries, referenced from a page that deals with little more than conspiracy theory, shows not only a complete lack of common sense, scholarly thinking, and taste, but a complete disregard for the integrity of Wikipedia as an online encyclopedia, and for the Wikipedia community as a whole. --Milton 06:31, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Birthdate

I removed the "born December 16" which was added by an anonymous editor. As far as I know, his exact birth date is not known with certainty, but inferred from the usual custom at the time of baptising infants a day or two after birth. The New Grove gives no birthdate; Slonimsky gives "December 15 or 16." At any rate this issue is covered in the full life and work article. I'm open to alternative opinions, including putting the date back if others feel it is sufficiently well established, or if there is a good source on his birthdate I don't know about. Antandrus 01:42, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

This is not the first time--see discussion above. I think what's happening is that people who don't know much about Beethoven think they know he was born on December 16, because they've seen that date somewhere (perhaps in material presented to children, who seldom are given the nuances). Thus they put it in December 16, thinking they are improving the article. We just have to be persistent here... Opus33 16:34, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)

--

To prevent that, how about putting "Born: unknown. Often put as December 16 or 16"?

Hi! good point

Beethoven Relics

I know people have saved locks of Beethoven's hair, etc. Has anyone ever attributed any miracles to these relics? I've seen [ http://www.robert.to/beetweep/ ] this web site, but I don't know if its for real or not.

Flowery prose

I reverted:

"As a monolith of the music of his era, his legacy cast a wide shadow on those that succeeded him; he has left an indelible mark on the tradition of European classical music."

Editor Bleh Fu actually expressed a qualm about this edit when offering it, i.e. that it might be a bit "flowery". I think this intuition is dead on, and would like to give a reason in support: most Wikipedia readers go to our encyclopedia to get facts, not flowery prose. If you agree with me (and I hope you do) that we write the Wikipedia for our readers and not for ourselves, than that's a good reason to go for a "just the facts" approach and keep the prose non-distracting. Thanks for listening. Opus33 16:07, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I've added some language on reputation, it isn't the most felicitous, but I think that the fact beneath the prose should be there: that Beethoven did indeed cast a long shadow. Stirling Newberry 16:52, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I was trying to avoid peacock terms in the description; there should definitely be an elaboration on *why* Beethoven is considered the greatest of composers, even if it is in twelve words or less. Regarding "just the facts", is is already a grey area once we use expressions like "is widely regarded as". I think Stirling's edit is good, and should stand. --bleh fu talk fu 21:23, Jan 23, 2005 (UTC)

"His reputation and genius have inspired— and in many cases intimidated— ensuing generations of composers, musicians, and audiences." Intimidated? Clarityfiend 09:37, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

"Almost certain" birth date

Concerning the "almost certainly" birth date, which I also reverted, please see the discussion from earlier in this forum--we've gone through this one several times already. I can't see any justification for including it unless the anonymous contributor can cite solid evidence from scholarly literature--what is actually known about 18th century baptismal practices in this part of Germany? In the absence of such documentation, we should stick to the facts.

Opus33 16:07, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Agreed, no one has found any sources since the last time. Stirling Newberry 16:25, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)

chiming in: I'm with you too. His actual, certain birth date is not known. Antandrus 16:26, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I'm also chiming in. I've never seen any primary documentary evidence of his birth date, only his baptism date. Old reference works that blandly stated "B. was born on 16th December" were simply regurgitating the "facts" that they read elsewhere, but these "facts" are not primary sources and therefore, by definition, unreliable. However, I have seen a horoscope of Beethoven drawn by A T Mann, which rectifies his birth to a precise moment of time on a particular day (16th December), based on the known circumstances of his life. This, while no doubt fascinating for astromusicologists (or musico-astrologists), has no credibility for scholarly research. Cheers JackofOz 02:46, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

My copy editing

I think this is a good article: a sensible length, with many useful links for those wanting detail. I have lightly edited all of it, without altering much at all in the content. I respect people's well-researched efforts, and feel little need to supplement them. Punctuation was often faulty, and there was some inconsistency in capitalisation. At a couple of points I felt the need to fix the wording, so that the point being made would be easier to grasp without the distraction of grammatical or stylistic problems. Please weigh these carefully if you intend to revert anything: especially, if you make a well-considered and well-explained alteration or reversion in wording, take care not to introduce or re-introduce bad punctuation and the like. (I would welcome comments.) --Noetica 02:40, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

who cares about Beethoven in fiction

I would like to delete the section on "Beethoven as Fictional Character". Who else agrees with me? Whenever someone tries to delete it, the deletion gets reverted. An encyclopedia article on the greatest composer who ever lived (debatable, of course) should not have some silliness about a clone of Beethoven in an anime novel. Pfalstad 03:57, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)

You could break it out as another satellite article, since we have already reduced a lot of the clutter that way without deleting information (for example, Beethoven: life and work. Maybe keep the heading Beethoven as fictional character, and retain its first paragraph only (which isn't so bad), preceded by the standard see-also line

Main article: Beethoven as a fictional character

I too stumble over that anime paragraph every time I see it, but perhaps others disagree. And as I recall, Hollywood made Beethoven into a dog once (though it will be a windy cold day in the underworld that I ever add it to the article, LOL) Antandrus 04:23, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I second the satellite article proposal; seeing it in the main article makes me cringe. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 18:25, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Done. I solicit improvements (though it seems that those on writing on this page may not be all that enthusiastic about the topic anyway ;=) )

Opus33 05:24, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

That's a huge improvement, Opus, both to the Beethoven article and to the spinoff. Thanks! Antandrus 06:34, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Roman Catholic?

I know Beethoven was born into a Roman Catholic family, and in my view he wrote some of the greatest devotional music. However I am not clear that this qualifies him for consideration as a R.C.; he probably does not qualify through personal faith, Haydn considered him an atheist (see Ludwig van Beethoven's religious beliefs) and I remain unconvinced that his output is notably R.C. I notice that currently Madonna and Jenny McCarthy are also in the category, so I'm really not clear what the criteria are. I have respectfully removed the Roman Catholic artists category pending discussion. Anyone else have a view? --RobertG ♬ talk 08:30, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Well, I found him in this list. That's why I added him. I'm not an expert on his life. Personally, I don't know what to make out of all of it. You tell me. EliasAlucard|Talk 12:23, 14 Jun, 2005 (UTC)

I looked at that list, and it says This list of Roman Catholics is comprised of notables who were baptized as Catholics but may not be practicing, people who converted to Catholicism, people who are practicing Catholics or people who may be lapsed Catholics. On that basis he qualifies for the list, but I think to categorise Beethoven as a Roman Catholic artist is misleading. I think the appropriate action is to leave him out of the category. --RobertG ♬ talk 10:56, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Would you distinguish between a practicing vs. non-practicing Jew, as opposed to a practicing vs. non-practicing Catholic? Being Jewish carries an obvious religious connotation, and yet a number of famous Jews have been agnostics or atheists. Does that make them any less Jewish? Wahkeenah 11:37, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Does that analogy break down? Doesn't "Roman Catholic" mean "adherent of Roman Catholicism", while "Jewish" in the sense invoked above has meanings other than "adherent of Judaism"? But the discussion is not whether Beethoven can be said to have been a Roman Catholic (even an atheist or agnostic one), but whether he should be classified as a Roman Catholic artist on Wikipedia. Let me make it clear I have no objection to the categorisation if there's consensus. --RobertG ♬ talk 14:49, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

So, is there some kind of test every Catholic must take in order to qualify for Wikipedia's religion category? :) Come on, clearly, he was a Catholic. Well, I'm not going to decide this too much. As I see it, these composers were more religious than they usually are today, since atheism wasn't that popular in those days as it is today.

EliasAlucard|Talk 17:06, 14 Jun, 2005 (UTC)

I'm beginning to wish I'd never asked the question. I'm going to restate my question for the last time, because I obviously haven't been clear, and then I'm withdrawing from this discussion to get on with something more important :-).

The question I thought I was asking was whether Wikipedia could reach consensus on whether classifying Beethoven as a Roman Catholic artist (which I would take to mean one whose Roman Catholicism impinged significantly on his/her art) is useful, or misleading. I think it's misleading. If I have misunderstood the purpose of the category then I apologise, but point out that it certainly misled one reasonably experienced Wikipedian (me) and should be made clearer. If it's a category of artists who happened to be vaguely Roman Catholic then so be it, but forgive me for not immediately understanding how users of Wikipedia will benefit from that category.

A question I was definitely not intending to ask is whether Beethoven could be said to have been a Roman Catholic (atheist or otherwise). --RobertG ♬ talk 16:01, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Oh, well, I see. The category is for artists that just happen to be Roman Catholic, whether they're the most devout Catholics on earth, practising, or not. Strictly speaking, there aren't many Roman Catholic artists that have their work influenced by their religion. Sure, there are people like Mel Gibson, Madonna in her earlier career (Like a Prayer), and Rembrandt (don't know if he was Roman Catholic though, but he had some Christian paintings), but other than that, I doubt it would suffice for an entire category on Wikipedia. So, that being said, should I add him back into the category? And perhaps, the category needs a description?

EliasAlucard|Talk 18:40, 14 Jun, 2005 (UTC)

I understand. Can we wait a bit and see if anyone else expresses a view? I feel a bit close to it, after all that!!! --RobertG ♬ talk 16:55, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I might argue that the first and best Roman Catholic "artist" was the guy that painted the Sistine Chapel. :) Here's another angle to look at, which might or might not help: You often hear about someone being labeled a "Jewish comedian". Now, does that mean the comedian is Jewish and also tells primarily jokes that center on Judaism? Or does it mean he happens to be Jewish but tells jokes of all kinds? If it's the latter, then Myron Cohen was a lot more of a "Jewish comedian" than was Jacob Cohen (a.k.a. Rodney Dangerfield). If it's the former, they both qualify. Wahkeenah 17:26, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

So, should we add him in the Roman Catholic Artists category? Give me your conclusions.

EliasAlucard|Talk 04:01, 16 Jun, 2005 (UTC)

No. Adding him to the RC category is extremely misleading, to say the least. All the evidence from his biographers, as well as from his sketchbooks and notebooks, indicates that his religious beliefs tended towards the pantheist or even the deist. His Missa Solemnis is a setting of a Latin mass, but plenty of composers--some of them atheists or agnostics (e.g. Verdi, Janacek) set the Mass. Anyway, that's my opinion in the matter. Beethoven was a deeply spiritual man but not a traditionally religious one. Antandrus (talk) 02:11, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Well, okay. Just have in mind though, that it's not required to be the Pope in order to qualify in that category. Personally, I think he qualifies, but I'm no expert on his life.

EliasAlucard|Talk 04:14, 16 Jun, 2005 (UTC)

If Brooke Shields can be categorized a "Roman Catholic artist", I don't see why Beethoven shouldn't be. Wahkeenah 18:22, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Why did Beethoven get rid of all his chickens???

They kept saying Bach, Bach, Bach... I must be 6 yrs old. --Lord Voldemort ^{(Dark Mark)} 19:06, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

Awesome. You're my new idol. :) I assume you've heard what happened when they exhumed him? Wahkeenah 23:15, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

Who? Bach or Beethoven? I must have missed that little news item. --Lord Voldemort ^{(Dark Mark)} 13:49, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

I was referring to Beethoven, but either one works for this: They found him furiously erasing music sheets. Wahkeenah 14:41, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

Not quite sure I get it. Call me dense. --Lord Voldemort ^{(Dark Mark)} 14:50, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

He was DE-COMPOSING. >:) Wahkeenah 15:01, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

Oh... My... Goodness... I can't believe I just laughed at that. I have the dumbest sense of humour ever. --Lord Voldemort ^{(Dark Mark)} 15:39, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

Also explains why there was music coming out of his grave backwards... (Which is about as old...) Trekphiler 08:43, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Truly hilarious though needed explaining. I will remember that for my fav, Schubert. Still not quite sure why Beethoven shouldn't have been getting rid of his dogs not his chickens, SqueakBox 15:47, July 29, 2005 (UTC)

Well, it works better spoken. Chickens say "bach, bach, bach." Onomatopoeia of their clucking. Not quite a bark. Like I said... I must be about 6. --Lord Voldemort ^{(Dark Mark)} 15:51, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

Oh, I dunno. I liked it. Trekphiler 08:43, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Well I was singing that old classic perennial favourite Old Macdonald had a farm but I couldn't remember what the chickens said, SqueakBox 15:54, July 29, 2005 (UTC)

Now I'm not sure if you are patronizing me or are being serious. --Lord Voldemort ^{(Dark Mark)} 15:59, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

The latter. Why would you think otherwise. Well lets reframe that and say I was being as serious as anyone else, SqueakBox 16:10, July 29, 2005 (UTC)

People like to talk down to the Dark Lord. But I just couldn't tell if you were trying to say, "DUH! Of course I know chickens' clucks sound like 'bach'. Everyone knows the song." Or if you were trying to say, "Oh, Thank you for refreshing my memory. I couldn't quite remember the song." Okay, see ya Squeaks. --Lord Voldemort ^{(Dark Mark)} 16:15, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

It may be more of an English song. I love singing it but my wife gets me to shut up if she is around. She also wishes the great composers were decomposing so she didn't have to put up with the Missa Solemnis and others favourites of mine, SqueakBox 16:20, July 29, 2005 (UTC)

Hey, it could still be "bark"... if the dog spoke with a Bostonian accent, yes? Meanwhile, back here with the chickens, I wonder if you've ever heard Ray Stevens' version of In the Mood done by "The Henhouse Five"? Wahkeenah 16:28, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

Strains of genius in his hair?

The article at present has the following interesting sentence at the end of the Life & Work chapter (italics mine):

When the hair was analysed chemically in 1996, distinctive trace-metal patterns associated with genius, irritability, glucose disorders, and malabsorption were not present.

To quote Graham Chapman: "What?" -- Klehti 12:26, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

Here's the edit that introduced it. It offers a source. San Jose State University, Statement by William J. Walsh, Ph.D., Director of Beethoven Research Project: "Distinctive trace-metal patterns associated with genius, irritability, glucose disorders, and malabsorption were not present in the Beethoven samples tested by McCrone Research Institute.". Disclaimer on said page, though: "The Ira F. Brilliant Center for Beethoven Studies at San José State University is reproducing this statement for informational purposes only and is not responsible for its content." Rl 12:37, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

Very odd claim. Speaking as a doctor, I've never heard of reproducible methods of detecting or estimating genius and "irritability" via trace metal studies on hair. (Or trace metal studies on anything, for that matter). Extremely suspicious. I've rewritten the paragraph to read sensibly, and would have to take a closer look at that source page to see if it really ought to be struck off as well. enceph alon 11:11, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

van or von

Is his name "Van Beethoven" or "Von Beethoven" or maybe even simply "Beethoven"? Perhaps the article could say something about this. --MarSch 12:18, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

it was "van Beethoven" for at least two generations, and maybe more. Beethoven's great-grandfather was a burgher of Mechelen; I believe the family has been traced back a couple hundred years but I'm not sure: at any rate they were originally Flemish, hence the "van" rather than "von". (please see the Life and work of Ludwig van Beethoven article). Antandrus (talk) 15:26, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

This raises an interesting lexicograhical question - what part (or parts) of a person's name do we consider to be their surname? He certainly was Ludwig van Beethoven (definitely not von), but he is usually listed under "B" for Beethoven, not under "V" for "van". Nobody talks about "van Beethoven, the composer". Yet we all talk about "van Gogh, the painter", and a lexicographer who listed the painter under "G" for "Gogh" would have to be prepared for the consequences. Maybe he'd be perfectly justified technically in listing the painter under "G", but popular usage would say this was ill-considered. And yet popular usage for Beethoven is 180 degrees different. Popular usage is very fickle, but nevertheless very powerful, and lexicographers who try to remain purists tend to come to sticky ends. What about Manuel de Falla? In Spain, his surname is considered to be "Falla" for the purposes of alphabetic ordering. But in English-speaking countries, we sometimes see him under "F" for Falla, and sometimes under "D" for de Falla. I guess he's not considered great enough for everybody outside Spain to be in agreement about his name. Then we come to transliterations from languages that use non-Latin characters. Before even starting, there needs to be agreement about the transliteration system used, and that's a huge minefield all by itself. If we use a system that approximates as closely as possible to the original sound, then we can get somewhere. But still there are problems. Such a system would have poor old Pyotr Ilyich spelled as CHAYKOVSKY, but nobody would ever think of looking for him under that spelling because we're all so used to seeing TSCHAIKOWSKY, or TCHAIKOVSKY, or various other variants all starting with T. And why T, if the initial sound is CH? Because the accepted English transliteration has come to us via the German TSCH, despite the fact that the frequently-encountered version starting with TCH is not German, or indeed from any other written language that I know of. Oh, I could go on for hours ... but I won't. Nicolas Slonimsky in his preface to Baker's Encyclopaedia of Music has some very interesting things to say on this subject. Do check it out. Cheers JackofOz 03:16, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

TCH is in french. 21:58, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

"I don't have a solution, but I admire your problem." Very interesting posting. Rl 07:22, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

Thanks. I admire my problem too. I've often thought of writing a book about such issues. Maybe I will one day. By the way, it's Baker's Dictionary of Music and Musicians, not what I said above. Sorry.

Interesting. I started looking in Grove to see how they do it: the ONLY names that they have under "Von" are those who have become Anglicised (i.e. they took up residence in English-speaking countries) (Frederica Von Stade, Albert Von Tilzer, Harry Von Tilzer, a couple others). All others--von Suppé, etc. are under the last portion of the surname. Antandrus (talk) 03:28, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for enlightening me on the von/van issue. In Dutch the van part is called a "tussenvoegsel", that is "something stuck in between". For alphebetizing it is never considered, but neither does anyone refer to someone called "L. van Beethoven" as mister Beethoven. Instead they would always say mister "Van Beethoven". Interestingly I just read on dutch wikipedia [30] that german people _would_ say mister Beethoven. Maybe this is why the van part is always(often) omitted (even in holland). --MarSch 16:17, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

If his name was Ludwig VON Beethoven, then Germans would definitely say Herr von Beethoven. Like Herr von Karajan. Maybe they don't do it in the case of VAN because, even though VAN means the same as VON, VAN is not part of German. That argument (in reverse) would also explain why dictionaries show Frederica Von Stade under Von and not under Stade. Particles like van, von, de and di, all meant "of" in their original langauge - but when they become part of a surname in another language (which has happened in the Von Stade case, but not in the Beethoven case), they lose that meaning and become merely some of the letters that form a part of the overall surname. That book is looking more and more necessary by the day. JackofOz 00:05, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

Just a minor correction to prevent you from running off into the wrong direction: Germans do not refer to Beethoven as "Mister Beethoven" or "Herr Beethoven" (in fact, this usage sounds definitely odd to German ears). He would be Herr van Beethoven. The particle can be omitted in German much in the same fashion it can be left out in English: If you talk or write of someone in the third person. Thus "Beethoven wrote the Waldstein sonata" is possible in both languages. But there is no idiosyncratic German usage that automatically deprives Beethoven of his "van". The Dutch Wikipedia is definitely wrong on this point, as the composer is beyond doubt known in German as "Ludwig van Beethoven" Christian Rödel (Historian/Musician/German) (sorry, coudn't resist)

Template on TfD

I discovered that the template Template:Ludwig van Beethoven was listed on WP:TFD about a week ago. It says on the top of the TFD page to "give notice of its proposed deletion at relevant talk pages." As the most relevant talk page, I'm helpfully giving notice here now. --RobertG ♬ talk 14:51, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

Eponyms

I've added a section nearly at the end. Yeah, the Beethoven Peninsula. There are many other places and things named after the Great Man. The section can grow some, but then should probably be spun off into Beethoven eponyms. --FourthAve 09:16, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

That's a great idea, Fourth Ave. However, I thought it would be perfect for a disambig page, and so I started one. If there turns out to be a large number of interesting associations, we could reconsider adding a lively section on them. enceph alon 16:04, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

Ext links

I've edited this section that used to include a huge number of links to various personal/commercial sites. The Beethoven-Haus website is an impressively thorough and encyclopedic repository of all things eBeethoven, and is very professionaly done. I think it should satisfy most needs; I've also included the links to source material such as the CBC report and the page on the lock of hair. Regards enceph alon 11:07, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

Grosse Fuge manuscript

This section seems rather abruptly out of place in this article, which is a general overview of the chap. It seems to me that it will be best placed in an article about his works and writings, but that's a list. Perhaps Life and Works? I'll move it there soon if there are no better suggestions. Thanks guys. enceph alon 16:00, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

Chap? Chap?? Beethoven?? Really!! JackofOz 12:22, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Categories questioned

I removed Beethoven from the "Dutch people" category - there's no mention of anything Dutch in the article. Did the "van" in his name confuse someone? He was not a native of Vienna - he was born in Bonn. I tightened the categorisation from "German people" to "German composers". I removed categorisation in "Roman Catholics" as per Category talk:Roman Catholics. I also question his categorisation as a "pop icon". Is he? Or is this someone's opinion? I'm afraid I am unhip, and don't really understand exactly what a pop icon is, but when I see Buddha, Britney Spears and Madonna also in that category I worry. Anyone else have a view? --RobertG ♬ talk 12:20, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

Childhood?

I'd like to see someone with the know-how update the article on Beethoven's childhood and youth. There is very little mention of this.

                                Ludwig's Childhood:

Ludwig van Beethoven suffered a tragic childhood. His father was an alcoholic and often abused him. Johann would force Ludwig to practice all of the time, and when Beethoven would make a mistake, he would slam the piano cover on his knuckles and make him play it over again. Moreover, if Beethoven would play a piece perfectly, his father would not provide any positive reinforcement. Often times, Johann would stay out late drinking with his buddies, and then bring them home at one o'clock in the morning to listen to little Ludwig play. Of course a little boy of Beethoven's age would be asleep at this hour of the night, but that didn't stop Johann. He would slap little Ludwig in the head to get him up, and make Ludwig play for all of his drunken buddies. They all would critique his playing, and correct him with force if he messed up. Because Beethoven was so poorly treated by his father he developed a close relationship with his mother. She died when Beethoven was a teenager, this devastated Ludwig. Because Johann was increasingly becoming worse and worse with his drinking, he had lost his job as a tenor at the Electoral court. Beethoven, realizing that he now had to support himself and his brothers, sought work, and by 1782 he served as deputy organist when Christian Neefe (Court Organist) took leave. By this time, Beethoven was already composing works and was considered to be a piano virtuoso, and the next year, Ludwig was hired as orchestral harpsichordist at the court. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.2.71.150 (talk • contribs) .

"Widely regarded as one of the..."

Hi User:82.181.158.247, with respect to the above claim in the intro, I think it's more in keeping with the NPOV of an international encyclopedia that it be qualified. Beethoven was possibly the finest composer of music in the Western tradition, true; however

there are a number of other claimants to that honor, and using "widely regarded as" for Beethoven does not do them justice;
there are a number of other highly developed musical systems in the world as complex and refined as the European classical; saying that Beethoven's compositions are superior to all musical icons, even in those traditions, is a Eurocentric point-of-view, and not NPOV.

Thus, my compromise wording. I don't think the sentence "He was a major musical figure in the transitional period between the Classical and Romantic eras, and is widely regarded as one of the greatest composers in history" does serious violence to Beethoven's reputation and is, all things considered, probably the fairest way of putting it. However, it does retain the problem described in WP:WEASEL; a quote from a suitably weighty authority may be an improvement. Kind regards encephalon 00:32, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

"widely regarded as" follows with the qualifier "one of the greatest..." which allows the sentence to retain neutrality. No person would seriously dispute that Beethoven has a mammoth reputation surpassing other composers (except for maybe Mozart), so "widely regarded" is an accurate description. No one would disagree that "Hitler is widely regarded as one of the most hated figures in history", whether one agrees with that comment or not. Taco325i 02:08, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

"widely regarded as" follows with the qualifier "one of the greatest..." which allows the sentence to retain neutrality. My point precisely. I'm happy that you agree, Taco325i. I don't think the sentence as I've re-written it is problematic, but would be happy to hear other views. Regards encephalon 17:54, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

Hi. My main point was that the sentence had bad grammar (at least in my browser it read: "regarded as one the greatest composers"). I think it is equally true that he is widely regarded as THE greatest composer of all time, but one could qualify this as well. At its present state, there is no indication that his reputation is greater than e.g. Schubert's. Could we use something like "widely regarded as one of the greatest composers in history, and by many as the greatest composer of all time" in order to clarify the matter? --82.181.158.247 09:20, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Hi there. I can see what you're saying, but I'm not sure we can write a sentence that satisfies all views and yet remain NPOV and unawkward. "...widely regarded as one of the greatest composers in history, and by many as the greatest composer of all time" seems to me very awkward, Sir/Miss. "...is widely regarded as one of the greatest composers in history" seems to capture most of what we want to say while retaining some stylistic merit. Furthermore, to say that someone "is widely regarded as one of the greatest composers in history" seems to me to be closest to what NPOV and the facts allow us to say. Very kind regards encephalon 00:48, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Beethoven the Negro? Section

The following previously existed as part of the article body:

BEETHOVEN THE NEGRO?

Another continuing controversy surrounding Beethoven is whether he was a "white man" or a "black man". What specifically is being referenced, is the true identity of Ludwig van Beethoven, considered Europe’s greatest classical music composer. Directly, Beethoven was a black man. Specifically, his mother was a Moor, that group of Muslim Africans who conquered parts of Europe--making Spain their capital--for some 800 years.

In order to make such a substantial statement, presentation of verifiable evidence is compulsory. Let's start with what some of Beethoven's contemporaries and biographers say about his appearance. Frau Fisher, a close friend of Beethoven, described him with “blackish-brown complexion.” Frederick Hertz, German anthropologist, used these terms to describe him: “Negroid traits, dark skin, flat, thick nose.”

Emil Ludwig, in his book “Beethoven,” says: “His face reveals no trace of the German. He was so dark that people dubbed him Spagnol [dark-skinned].” Fanny Giannatasio del Rio, in her book “An Unrequited Love: An Episode in the Life of Beethoven,” wrote “His somewhat flat broad nose and rather wide mouth, his small piercing eyes and swarthy [dark] complexion, pockmarked into the bargain, gave him a strong resemblance to a mulatto.” C. Czerny stated, “His beard--he had not shaved for several days--made the lower part of his already brown face still darker.”

Following are one word descriptions of Beethoven from various writers: Grillparzer, “dark” Bettina von Armin, “brown” Schindler, “red and brown” Rellstab, “brownish” Gelinek, “short, dark.”

The above text, apart from leaving something to be desired stylistically, is not, I think, appropriate for inclusion in the encyclopedia article on Beethoven. First, it states a theory widely held to be... less than creditable by the international academic community. Second, it supports the theory entirely by (thin) circumstantial and hearsay evidence, with no direct evidence supporting any of the claims and no independent corroborations. Much of the evidence consists of double-hearsay (i.e., a book claiming to say what someone else claimed to say about Beethoven), and most of that is to the effect that Beethoven had darker skin and/or non-"Germanic" features. Aside from the evidentiary flimsiness, it simply does not follow logically that because Beethoven had dark skin, he was therefore a "negro." Additionally, the information about his mother's ethnicity is totally unsubstantiated. Third, the above does not define terms with sufficient rigor: what constitutes a "black man" as opposed to a "white man" for the purposes of this theory? What criteria must be met? How must they be met?

Thus, in light of the weakness of the argument, and the overwhelming presumption of both the academic community and the public at large that Beethoven was Caucasian, I don't see why this argument warrants an entire section. Perhaps a short mention might be warranted, but even then it would need to be so heavily caveated that it probably doesn't make sense. RiseAbove 06:33, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

I agree with RiseAbove. --RobertG ♬ talk 09:02, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

Also agreed. RiseAbove, thanks for removing it. Antandrus (talk) 15:40, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

--- Well if you are so unsure that Beethoven was black then how can you be so sure he was white. You provide no evidence or proof. There is no book describing him as a white man or flemish or anything of such.

No need. We know Germany and Austria were countries where the great majority of people were white in that time. Therefore if he had been black it would have evoked interest whereas him being white evoked no interest whatsoever, so this is somnething we do NOT need to source, SqueakBox 02:32, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

The "black Beethoven" camp is the one on the defensive. They need to prove that Beethoven was black, because that is the challenge to accepted fact. Mainstream historians don't need to prove he was white. Why would a person from Germany be especially noted as being white, as if it were exceptional or outstanding. When reading biographies, we don't find any mention that the person is/was a human being, do we? No, because it's a given. Why should it be written that Beethoven was German and then follow that with an explanation that he was white - it's redundant and assumed, and that's why if he had been mulatto, it would have been mentioned. There are records of his family's Flemish and German origins, as well as contemporary portrayals of him that do not depict a black man. --Jugbo

To the user who just deleted my comment above, knock it off. If you have a problem with it, come see me. --Jugbo 03:09, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

I don't necessarily agree that Beethoven was black at all and it probably should be the one that has to be proven. However at the same time we have no proof that Beethoven was any specific ethnic group or that he was even a european ethnic group. For all we know he could have been gypsy or jewish or chinese(probably not)but if people are going to state he is slavic and flemish they better give some proof. —This unsigned comment was added by Dualldual (talk • contribs) .

It appears that none of the contributions on Beethoven's negroid appearance are considered relevant by modern mainstream historians. There are several writers mentioned above that have listed in well respected literature that Beethoven had the appearance of a mulatto with one saying that he had no German features at all. Do Mainstream historians attack Beethoven's contemporaries directly. Are their writings considered false. Apparently. Mainstream historians who discount or dillute the writings of Grillparzer, Bettina Von Armin, Schindler, Ludwig, Hertz or Beethoven's close friend Frau Fisher cannot in any way be considered an authority on Beethoven. Beethoven has to be proven to be different than these writers have described him, not vice versa. Modern mainstream historical accounts that differ from these original writings pale in comparison to these writings. Who is to be believed, modern historians or Beethovens contemporaries? Jugbo and Squeakbox have stated that if Beethoven was negroid in appearance that surely it would have been mentioned. But that's exactly what Beethoven's contemporaries did. MENTION IT. Several of them wrote about it in world respected literature. Beethoven's contemporaries are mainstream and modern historians who discredit what they wrote are the renegades. Try as they may, modern historians will never be able to remove these original writings from the pages of history. Tom 15 April 2006 (UTC)

We don't "prove" things here, we present what is published in standard sources. There's nothing controversial in the slightest about the Flemish origin of the paternal side of Beethoven's family, and it's in the standard references (see the New Grove, for example). Antandrus (talk) 05:32, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

====Paper never refused ink. A lot of stuff published in standard sources is incorrect.

Yeah, like those works that argue that he was black. --Jugbo 02:11, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Whether Beethoven has Moor ancestry is a probability. However labeling him Black simply because of that is totally retarded. The is 1 drop of black ancestry = Black, no matter what percentage of white ancestry is totally racist. If proven, it should be mentioned that he had mixed ancestry, not Black alone since we know he had Flemish ancestry on his paternal side. ---moyogo 08:16, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

The origin of the claim that Beethoven had "Moorish" or "African" ancestry has been explained and needless to say, the source isn't reputable. It's a simple allegation, not a "probability", but I agree with you that if it were to be proven through genetic analysis, then it would be appropriate to include it in the article. However, as has been argued, there's no bit of credible evidence to further the contention that he had black ancestry, just descriptions (which I've explained already) that, if erroneously interpreted literally and through a modern lens, would contradict his genealogy and contemporary artistic representations. --Jugbo 01:00, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Beethoven and Romanticism

The article currently states "If we consider the Romantic movement as an aesthetic epoch in literature and the arts generally, Beethoven sits squarely in the first half along with literary Romantics such as the German poets Goethe and Schiller". From my limited understanding of the history of German literature, neither Goethe or Schiller are considered to be part of the Romantic movement, and therefore this statement is incorrect. Jeremy J. Shapiro 21:34, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

"One of the most important"

I prefer to discuss this rather than revert it. I changed "Beethoven was one of the most important figures" to "Beethoven was an important figure" because the former really means the latter but just uses excess verbiage. If you look at a standard English style book, such as Strunk and White, etc., they tell you to avoid the expression "one of the most" because it is the equivalent of what on Wikipedia is called a weasel word. Either say something is the most important x, or say that it's an important x, but saying "one of the most important" x doesn't really say much. Jeremy J. Shapiro 18:53, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Everybody's a critic

Allegedly, after a critic complained of his 3d Symphony that nobody'd listen to a 40min symphony, he wrote a 90min one... Trekphiler 08:46, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Music in Leon the Professional

Copied from the Reference desk hoping someone knows something.

There is this really cool scene in leon the professional where the crazy police cheif guy breaks into the guy's apartment and kills his entire family to the music of beethoven. There is this quote - "I like these calm little moments before the storm; it reminds me of beethoven" Then he kicks down the door and murders the entire family with beethoven's music in the background. At the end he corners the guy that is holding out on him and says "you don't like beethoven - you don't know what you're missing" then he kills him.

I love this song as it is so powerfull and fits the scene so perfectly. However, it is not listed in the credits and I can not find it anywhere. Has anyone that has seen this movie recognize it?--God of War 07:15, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

If I recall correctly (it's been a while since I've seen it) it's Symphony No. 9. I remember thinking it was a reference to A Clockwork Orange (film), in which the same piece is used. Natgoo 11:26, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Wasn't the police chief drinking milk in that scene? David Sneek 11:42, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

The Ninth symphony is very long. Do you know which movement the movie uses?--God of War 02:24, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Second. Wallie 19:28, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Don't delete comments

Don't delete talk page comments unless they are extremely offensive (or possibly completely off topic). See Wikipedia:Talk page, and Wikipedia:Delete personal attacks. Sam Spade 15:55, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Is there some reason User:Pavel Vozenilek is deleting questions? [31]--God_of War 07:49, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Für Elise a bagatelle??

It is claimed that Für Elise is a bagatelle. I would agree but only in the most generic sense. It was certainly not titled "bagatelle" by Beethoven, and does not appear in the Urtext complete edition of the Bagatelles. JackofOz 22:20, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

It was me who made the change, but you raised some doubts in my head. A quick quite unscientific search on Amazon shows that half of the CDs name it Bagatelle in A minor, WoO 59 Für Elise. The others just say Für Elise. Alfred Brendel names it a Bagatelle and put it on his Beethoven bagatelles CD. I'd say if somebody should know how to name Beethoven pieces, it is he. But if you want to change it back, go ahead. Janderk 00:21, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. It is a very minor issue - one might even say a "trifle" (that's my one and only joke for 2006). Clearly it has been called a "bagatelle" even if that wasn't Beethoven's title for it. Of course, he didn't give the Moonlight or the Emperor their by-names either, but I certainly wouldn't quibble with them. Before doing anything, I want to check out a bit further how "bagatelle" came to be associated with this piece. JackofOz 00:34, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

FWIW, the New Grove calls it a bagatelle (Woo59, Bagatelle "Für Elise", a minor, composition 1808, first performance 1810, first publication Stuttgart 1867; autograph lost, but possibly ascribed Für Therese, like the Sonata op. 78). Without the autograph it's hard to know if Beethoven used the title or not. Cheers! Antandrus (talk) 00:41, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Curiouser and curiouser.

Grove 5 has: "Bagatelle 'Für Elise am 27. April zur Erinnerung von L. v. Bthvn.' " - so Grove has been consistent at least since 1954.
The G. Henle-Verlag edition of the Complete Bagatelles includes the Opp. 33, 119, and 126, and WoO52 and WoO56 - but not WoO59 (Für Elise). The notes in my copy of this score are dated 1970, but I purchased it brand new only about 5 years ago.
Apparently Brendel has changed his tune. He seems to call it "bagatelle" on his CDs now (as per above). But back in 1968 when he recorded it on Turnabout LP "Beethoven: Variations and Vignettes", the sleeve note says: "More recent researches indicate that this short Albumblatt may have been intended ....".

I guess that without the autograph we'll never really know what Beethoven called it. It seems the name "bagatelle" has become associated with it, even if it's not accepted by everyone. On balance, I'm happy to leave the text stand. Thanks folks. JackofOz 14:06, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

The Dueling Portraits

I'd like to offer an opinion about the two portraits of Beethoven that are competing here.

One of the rivals is a gray-toned portrait, quite Romantic in character, painted by Carl Jäger. It was originally uploaded by Chris K, and has been amplified and defended by Janderk. It looks like this: [32], and shows a person who could be considered conventionally very handsome.

Competing with the Jäger portrait is a portrait posted by Qcanfixit and described as follows:

Engraving by Blasius Hofel, Beethoven, 1814, color facsimile of engraving after a pencil drawing by Louis Letronne. This engraving was regarded in Beethoven's circle as particularly lifelike. Beethoven himself thought highly of it, and gave several copies.

It looks like this: [33], and shows a somewhat funny-looking guy.

The "handsome" Jäger portrait is more familiar to the general public, I suspect.

Here is some further background. If you follow the links from the Jäger portrait, you'll find that Carl Jäger was born in 1833, six years after Beethoven died. Moreover, I've read in biographical material that Beethoven was not conventionally handsome, and I've also read that, following Beethoven's death, his image was idealized and Romanticized throughout the rest of the nineteenth century. (Sorry no reference sources on these two points, but I can look them up for you if you insist.)

With this in mind, I propose that we should post the Hofel portrait, that is, the "ugly" one. This is because we are supposed to be a scholarly work, and therefore should post the portrait that has the best chance of being realistic--even if it is not the portrait that people are most familiar with. The over-handsome, Romanticized portrait by Jäger might be work keeping, too--but only as an illustration of what the later 19th century thought about Beethoven.

Please note that a very similar discussion has taken place before (posted here) concerning rival portraits of Mozart. In this case, the from-composer's-lifetime, most-likely-to-be-accurate portrait did win out in the end. So I propose we follow precedent, and do the same for the Beethoven portrait.

Thanks for listening, Opus33 23:05, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Just to clarify, I was not defending the Jäger drawing. The only reason I reverted to the original Jäger drawing is because it was the original. People should not overwrite any image with a totally different one, as it renders the title and any text that relates to that image in any wikipedia entry that uses it incorrect. If somebody wants the Hofel image in the Beethoven article then it should be uploaded under a new name and the link in the Beethoven article should be changed to the new image. As a sidenote, I think it's a good thing to start a vote about the main Beethoven image, but maybe we should first select a few more candidates for it. Janderk 09:47, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, Janderk; you're quite right about procedure. When I next have time to edit I'll try to put together a menu of possibilities, if no one else wants to. Opus33 17:15, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

The various depictions of Beethoven are so diverse that it is difficult to imagine what he actually looked like, or that they even represent the same person. However, I think that his favorite depiction of himself should be used, but there are better images than the blurry copy of the engraving (a better image of the same engraving can be found here [34], third to the right, top row). On this page [35], I find the third image from the top in the leftmost column particularly attractive (and it even resembles the engraving). I think it would be good to display diverse images of Beethoven, and the image currently there doesn't help this end, as it looks like the one further down. --Jugbo 22:40, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

The Jäger portrait was painted after the composer's death. Do you think Jäger could have painted an accurate picture of Beethoven? I think not. I would remove that portrait! I suggest this 1815 Mähler portrait [[36]] or this Stieler one [[37]]--Stratford15 01:58, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Name (Beethoven or Van Beethoven)

why don't you accept his real name "van" Beethoven in this article?

calling him Beethoven in the article will suffice. that is what he is commonly known as. Kingturtle 10:39, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

"commonly known" can be incorrect; Wikipedia has to teach the right terms to "commonly". You dont change Charles de Gaulle in "Gaulle", or Vincent van Gogh in "Gogh", don't you? The first name is Ludwig, the second is "van Beethoven".

You would need to provide a reputable documentary source that argues conclusively for your position. For us to now change all the references to "Beethoven" in Wikipedia (and there are thousands - it's not just in this article) to "van Beethoven" because one person claims "Beethoven" is wrong, would be considered original research, which is against our rules. JackofOz 20:34, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Van Beethoven is a Dutch name (his grandfather was born in Mechelen, Flanders and Southern Netherlands at that time), which is why it is van and not von. As a native Dutch speaking person I can tell you that everybody calls him Beethoven over here (without the van) while Van Gogh is called Van Gogh. Don't ask me why but that's the way it is. But if you have any authoritive sources stating that it should be Van Beethoven I'd be interested to know. Janderk 11:09, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Is Ludwig Van Beethoven himself is "authoritive" enough afbeelding:Van_Beethoven.jpg?

Sure, but as far as I am aware he always signed his letters using either his full name (Ludwig van Beethoven) or just Beethoven; never with Van Beethoven. But I am quite interested if you have proof showing otherwise. The link you posted above is unfortenately broken. Also could you please sign your comments with your name and date, otherwise the Talk page gets confusing really quickly. Janderk 14:04, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Flemish/Dutch

Surely that is not the way to say this? Style-wise I mean. It's vague and not encyclopedic. I would replace it by simply "Flemish". After the separation of the northern and southern Netherlands, I think Dutch would mean from the Northern Netherlands. Flemish is not very correct either since his father was from Brabant, but it seems Flemish is generally used to indicate this region too. Considering the quality of the article I hesitate to change this. Any reactions? Piet 15:26, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Removed it. Piet 10:13, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Ode To Joy media

Is the current Ode To Joy media sample really the best we can do? When I downloaded it I was expecting the full ochestral impact, the rousing music that makes you want to go up to a complete stranger and hug them and then punch the air with a triumphant yell of solidarity! YEAH!! But all I got was a piano solo walking rather sedately across the main tune. It's supposed to be Ode To Joy not Ode To Insomnia. I don't mean any disrepect to whomever upoloaded this version, I mean OK it does go over the basic tune for those who don't know it. But the file for the first movement of his Fifth goes on for 7.5 minutes, surely we can do the same for Ode To Joy? -Stenun, 30 January, around half-eightish on a cold winter's evening

Having lower quality sound files to provide an indication of what a piece is about is fine, but this awfull midi file is just too bad. I vote to take it off the Beethoven page at least and keep it on the Ode to Joy page until there is a better one. Janderk 09:16, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Beethoven's Legacy and Ernest Ansermet

It seems to me that the short section on Beethoven's Legacy is biased and doesn't add much to this article. Ernest Ansermet was a highly regarded conductor and his Les Fondements de la Musique dans la Conscience Humaine was one of the first major books on the phenomenology of music. However, it also seems to be highly idiosyncratic and unrepresentative of generally accepted views. (See Otto Karolyi's Review in The Musical Times Vol. 106, No. 1464 (Feb. 1965), pp. 116-117, for example.) I haven't gotten my hands on a copy of it but, judging from the quotes I've read from the book, Ansermet's position involves defending the "natural laws" of tonal music (with their associations of spirituality, ethics, and freedom) against twelve-tone, serial composition. (See comments on the book in the Wikipedia article on Ernest Ansermet as well.) The phrase "incomprehensible modern atonal musical "language"" is hardly neutral and, moreover, doesn't say anything about Beethoven: it's merely a cheap (and unsupported) shot at Schoenberg. If by "Beethoven's legacy", we mean "what people think of Beethoven's importance today", then we are opening up a vast field which ought to include references to multiple, significant viewpoints, for example Adorno's take on the relationship between Beethoven and Hegel. As it stands, though, I think Beethoven's musical legacy is already well represented by the article on his musical style and innovations. My view is that the current paragraph on Beethoven's legacy should either be moved to the page on Ansermet (if it forms a significant part of his philosophy) or deleted. What does everyone else think? JonathanDS 10:05, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

To move them , doesn't make the statements more wrong or right.They are very pertinent, especially because Beethoven's importance has been downplayed significantly since 1945 massively ("Entmythisierung") due to political reasons.Why have those people done that ? Some well-known spin doctors who control musicology wordlwide since 1945 have done it within the Boasian multiculturalism and the deceptive leftist Frankfurt school (see e.g. Kevin MacDonald, "The culture of critique,2002, essentially right despite of minor slips).80.138.193.56 00:29, 2 February 2006 (UTC) .I will never stop to restore the section,please save your time and nerves. I know you do this with good intentions.But please get more informed first before you do harm to a good article.80.138.193.56 00:32, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Never is a long time and there are editors with a much longer track record than yourself, SqueakBox 00:44, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Never is a short time if someone has a lot of conform disciples having diciples again who are eager to do this.80.138.193.56 00:48, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

You've only been editing 24 hours. Why not sign into an account and become anonymous, SqueakBox 00:51, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Is Derrida's deconstructionism your guide in formulating semantically paradox sentences (;-)) ?80.138.193.56 00:54, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Nope. Either you are using an anonymizer or I can tell which city you are in, SqueakBox 00:58, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Are you from the Tscheka ? I can tell you something new about Beethoven only.As you have nothing to do with Beethoven, please go back to the anthropological topics and don't troll around.80.138.192.206 02:18, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

I strongly agree with JonathanDS, this paragraph is redundant and highly POV, in my POV. The idea that Beethoven is being persecuted or not given his due is, in my opinion, specious (to be nice). I just graduated from music school, and we studied the Eroica in three courses. Fully. Three, and in depth. And that's just the eroica, not counting the other symphonies or anything. Makemi 04:29, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Beethoven is unique in the most forceful expression of the masculine hero and his struggle., despite Mozart's universality and Bach's polyphonic compositorical skills and Schönberg's being a "titan"(?). For the leftists is :Beethoven=Bushmen music (Sanids)=Schönberg's atonality.

If you want to make a case for Beethoven's importance, just use a NPOV. As for myself, I agree with Makemi that at my conservatory it's taught that Beethoven's influence on future music was more important than any other composer's, and there is hardly need to argue that he is important. However, for encyclopedic purposes, it would be good to write something in this article about Beethoven's influence, which seems rather lacking. -Sesquialtera II 20:53, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

funny..

Beethoven is widely regarded as one of history's supreme composers who produced notable works even after he completely lost his hearing.

is there a lot of competition for supreme composers that lost their hearing? :) It's not quite that bad, since it doesn't say "they lost their hearing", but I'll remove the ambiguity. -Sesquialtera II 20:56, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

I only would like to have Ansermet's opinion included, no matter if someone believes in it or not . You are free to add other evaluations, I will delete not a single word of it as I have never done. As Ansermet was an important figure, I do not understand why his opinion which was clearly said to be his cannot be included here.Do you maybe fear Ansermet's opinion which is clearly within the spectrum of serious musicology ?80.138.192.206 22:01, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Ansermet is an important music philosopher, I reverted it as I have read not one single serious statement of yours about it.80.138.172.139 23:54, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

We are not disputing that Ansermet is an important music philosopher. I at least am disputing that his views on Beethoven are or should be the last word on the subject. Beethoven's "legacy" is a huge topic, and in my opinion it is a disservice to it to have the views of just one person as the basis of the whole thing. Also, it is completely unneccesary for there to be a denigration of other composers in order to make the point that Beethoven was great. Prove that he was great by positives, not by disrespecting other composers. Finally, just because you disagree with our arguments does not mean that they are not serious. You have not responded to anyone's comments specifically. Makemi 00:15, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Please feel free to add evaluations by others,I will not change a single word, but there is no need to exclude Ansermet.The deletion of the mere headline with the "under construction sign" shows me, that you want to avoid evaluations at all ,according to your leftists Boasian multicultural ideology .Do you really think , only sports achievements can be compared ? Maybe there is a big portion of self-deception involved in your case.You are confusing serious evaluations with grumbling. 80.138.172.139 01:32, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

We obviously need to write a section on Beethoven's legacy. That's not a trivial undertaking, as anyone who has studied Beethoven's music knows; his legacy was huge, and includes the atonal composers hated by 80.138, since the idea of deriving an entire composition from the slimmest of germinal motifs arguably originated with Beethoven.

1) I think the portion of Ansermet's comment about the 5th and 9th symphonies is good to include, somehow, since it is well-supported by other commentators. However it should only be added after there is more to this section than an out-of-context quote from a single musicologist.

2) the portion about the awfulness of atonal music is quite irrelevant to the article, and should not be included under any circumstances. The article is about Beethoven, not about tonality versus "incomprehensible" music.

3) It's interesting to note how this is playing out on the German Wikipedia as well [38]; though of course we will arrive at our own consensus on this talk page. Antandrus (talk) 02:50, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Certainly, Ansermet should be included in a balanced overview of musicological opinion on Beethoven (one which includes "Leftist" positions as well as more conservative views). I think that a section on Beethoven's legacy should also address his massive influence on subsequent composers (starting with Wagner, Brahms, et al) which continues to the present day, and notable interpreters of Beethoven (Ansermet might fit in here as well). The legacy portion of the Bach article is a good example of this sort of thing. I'd be happy to do some research and draft a paragraph or two, but I probably won't be able to get around to it for a week or so. JonathanDS 09:53, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Flemish origins?

What proof is there of this?

Beethoven was of African descent

Prove Beethoven was of african or partial black/moor descent make your case and use refernces. No one gives a damn about your opinion.

I second that.

Beethoven was a full blooded European

Prove Beethoven was fully european make your case and use refernces. No one gives a dam about your opinion.

I second that.

Now, please be civil. --Stratford15 01:46, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Piano Sonata no. 3

I've removed the media file for Beethoven's Piano Sonata no. 3. As I said in the edit summary, it is only slightly better than a midi file. Staccatos are not used, the dynamic range is not nearly great enough, and to be honest the faster parts sound like nails being scraped on a blackboard. I don't think that's the best way to hear Beethoven, but I've left the file in the article for the sonata to serve as an example. Graham talk 12:26, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

I've also removed the Ode to Joy excerpt. As said above, it doesn't sound anything like the full orchestral version. The media on this page should be informative. Graham talk 12:37, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Beethoven's ethnicity again

I am not the first to have removed the following from the article:

There have been claims by Afro-American scholars of Beethoven being a Negrid. This seems to be false because of the follwing: Beethoven was a member of the Alpinid (Celtic) human race being one of the 36 human races according to the Martin-Saller-Knußmann manual ("Lehrbuch der vergleichenden Biologie und Humangenetik,2. rev.ed. 1996, setting the world standard since 1914; many American biology and anthropology professors have been using it,too).Although the Alpinind race has some features in common with the Negrids (flat, round nose; often dark complexion), Beethoven was clearly an Alpinid. That he had some Moorish genes via the Spanish Netherlands cannot be excluded, but it also cannot be excluded in a pure blond Nordid as the genotype can differ significantly from the phenotype. As the Moors were a Mediterannid-Aethiopid-Armenid mixture and none component is considered by some authorities to be Negrid (e.g. John Randal Baker, "Race", Oxford University Press",1974, who studies this problem in detail), Beethoven was no Negrid at all. Beethoven was claimed to be a Negrid obviously due to afrocentric ideology without any scientific basis.

I propose it stays removed because, in my opinion, it is (a) recondite, (b) peripheral, (c) unencyclopedic, (d) unimportant, (e) opinion, (f) boring. Anyone have another opinion? --RobertG ♬ talk 11:56, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

I support not mentioning the color of his skin of which the discusion is about as interesting as a research into the length of his nostril hairs or the theory that he manicured the nails of his dog. Janderk 13:39, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree with the above. It smacks of really bad early 20th century/ late 19th century scholarship of the most reprehensible kind. Let's not perpetuate it. It's not an important part of understanding Beethoven or his legacy, it might be important in the historical interpretation of race and the arts or something. After 4 yrs of music school and at least one course where every other sentence was "In my book on Beethoven...." I have not heard this come up once. It's not important. Mak emi 16:28, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Adding one more voice to the chorus here. Let's keep this out. It adds nothing to our understanding of Beethoven's accomplishment. Thanks, Antandrus (talk) 16:44, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Beethoven's contemporaries thought it worthy to mention his appearance. Apparently their descriptions are unpopular with modern scholars. Rather than have him look like a mulatto as he was described, modern scholars prefer to make him caucasion or faceless instead. The descritions of Grillparzer, Bettina Von Armin, Schindler, Ludwig, Hertz and his close friend Frau Fisher are completely ignored by modern scholars. So much so, that modern scholars would prefer to take the opinion of researchers who never met the man over those who did. Why? Since the writings of Beethoven's contemporaries cannot be erased, and since we have to study his contemporaries to understand Beethoven's life, then let's acknowledge all of their observations about this wonderful man. Tom Apr 2006.

This user also re-added a paragraph on Beethoven's legacy. It looks ok to me on first glance, but I'd appreciate it if people would double check it. Thanks, Mak emi 18:54, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Saying this does not belong in a discussion of Beethoven's life and work is an understatement one might make when trying to assume good faith from a suspected vandal. Good faith should no longer be assumed from this editor, and anything he adds should be automatically suspect. User 80.138.xxx.xxx is a vandal known as the "Asian Fetish Vandal." His agenda is to spread extremist propaganda on Wikipedia. He submits racist, anti-Semitic, misogynistic pseudo-science and paranoid conspiracy theories on Wikipedia. Google the book he references ("Lehrbuch der vergleichenden Biologie und Humangenetik") and you get only one hit-- a source provided by 80.138.xxx.xxx himself on German Wikipedia. The Beethoven article is under attack by an extremist vandal. The only course of action is to delete it whenever he reverts it, and he will continuously revert.

For reference see:

http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/User_talk:Wzhao553#The_Rubenstein_group_has_just_started_to_destroy_our_anthropology_section_.21

(Ok, I tried googling some of the topics that this Karl user is suggesting and guess what kind of links I found? Links to racist white supermacist sites such as Stormfront. It appears that the "Asian Fetish" article is under a coordinated attack by white supremacists.)

http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/User_talk:Gnetwerker#Vandalism_in_progress_report

(A vandal coming from a range of IP addresses (from dial-ins to a German ISP) listed below has been vandalizing Asian fetish, Racial fetishism, Anti-relativity, Arudou_Debito and other pages with anti-Semitic and racist tracts since January 14. The vandalism has resulted in several cases of these pages needing to be semi-protected.)

http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/User:Infinity0/Vandal_report

(This vandal (or POV pusher), has variously referred to himself as a "German professor", "a soldier" taken POW at Stalangrad, and "Karl." The terms he uses are in use by white supremacist sites and the sources he quotes, including Knußmann, likewise.)Natsume Soseki 18:56, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Tom, let it go. Beethoven wasn't black, and we've already discussed these descriptions. --Jugbo 01:31, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Franz Boas' multi-culturalism due to Jewish group interests

Truth seeking is more important than reaching a consensus despite being a wikipedia principle.Because by consensus , truth seeking should be made possible. Please read the lenghty sources first and judge later, anything else is unscientific. You believe in an ideology developed by Franz Boas single-handedly due to Jewish group interests being harmful to the Western White majority.After reading the sources and additional material (e.g. Kevin B. MacDonald "The Culture of Critique",2002) ,you will see that my edits present reality correctly. Then you can modify my edits and write lenghty comments , but we won't accept a leftist censorship.My disciples and I will never accept that, besides it is un-American (think of what Thomas Jefferson said about the freedom of speech).80.138.169.47 18:36, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

What's America got to do with Beethoven. He was German, lived in Austria and I wasn't aware of any US connections, so an article about Beethoven should hopefully be European in orientation, ie specifically unAmerican, Ras Billy I 01:20, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

If you actually wanted to participate in Wikipedia, as opposed to vandalizing it, you would log in and become accountable for your actions, instead of using rotating IP addresses. The majority of Wikipedia believes you to be a vandal, and unless you become a responsible member of the community, that impression will continue. Note: the above person is the Asian fetish vandal. -- Gnetwerker 18:41, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Note: gnetwerker is not consistent (according to e.g Wzhoa533) , he first re-edited our racial pedomorphosis statement explicitly before he denied that he had ever done so.This shows only the leftist helplessness in combining reality with leftist ideology.While I am a decent scientist promoting the natural interests of the authochthonous European people in their homeland, leftist ideologists like gnetwerker are responsible for the decline of the West. Do you deconstructionists really doubt that e.g. Franz Boas had a strong Jewish self-identification and developed multi-culturalism single-handedly ? 80.138.169.47 19:50, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Wow, I never realized my own power. "Responsible for the decline of the West" indeed! And I always thought I was lazy! Oh, but what does this have to do with Beethoven? -- Gnetwerker 22:01, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

As a typical leftist American intellectual , you have only an atomized knowledge in a special field (s. e.g. Geoffrey Gorer, "Americans" for this general problemacy) being helpless in 99% of science and all important matters as cosmology, nonexistence of God,anthropology, physics, culture etc. You are unable to acknowledge the following truth while aping the leftist mainstream: 1. Beethoven was an Alpinid , 2. there are about 36 human races/stirpes/taxa etc. 3. race informs culture/music , 4. there are significant statistical differences in intellectual capacity between these taxa. There is an overwhelming amount of evidence, but the lazy (according to your own statement) leftist maybe is a too weak mind (femininity ?) to acknowledge this.80.138.128.153 02:09, 25 March 2006 (UTC) You can only make your point because there are 100 more leftist apers helping you.80.138.128.153 02:12, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

I applaud Gnetworker. WP:NOT#Wikipedia is not a soapbox. If this anonymous editor thinks truth is more important than consensus, then he or she is welcome to author a private website or a blog. Wikipedia has its own standards and everyone who edits here shares a responsibility to abide by those rules. Durova 04:01, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

It sounds like Mr. Anonymous is more concerned with promoting conservatism and the notion that whites are superior to other races than with editing the Beethoven article on Wikipedia. [[Hesperides

]]

He certainly is trying to promote the idea of Americanism, bizarre in an article about Beethoven. If he is trying to promote the idea of the superiority of the white races he is trying to promote an idea that the humanist Beethoven forcefully rejected, ie that not all men (people) are equal. Whoever heard of Beethoven being a conservative anyway? Ras Billy I 01:24, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Bipolar disorder paragraph

I removed the following from the article today:

==Bipolar Disorder and it's musical influence==

Recent research has shown that many of the greatest composers suffered from serious depression and physchiatric illnesses. Beethoven is believed to have suffered from a rare illness known as Bipolar Syndrome or Bipolar disorder. As a normal human may face mood swings from time to time, 'Bipolars' have an exaggerated expression of their mood swings. This reflected largely on most of his greatest compositions including Fur Elise and the Fifth Symphony. Note how the mood of his songs shift almost instantly from melancholy to aggression to cheerfulness to depression.

I don't think it belongs, and even if it does (i.e. if it is true), this kind of detail should go in the satellite article Life and work of Ludwig van Beethoven. To include it we need a cite; I haven't heard this before, but maybe there's some legitimate research on this. At any rate, leaping from a diagnosis of bipolar disorder (not "rare" by a long shot, by the way) to a "you can hear it in Fur Elise and the Fifth Symphony" is original research. I don't think you need to explain dramatic contrast in the work of a famous composer by correlating it with a mental disorder. See Occam's Razor. Thanks, Antandrus (talk) 18:42, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Plus, Beethoven himself attributed his depression to his deafness and the isolation it caused (in a letter to his brother), which is a perfectly plausible explanation. Mak emi 19:18, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Introduction

I boldly recast introduction. It said almost nothing about his biography, which I think needs at least a sentence or two coverage. I worry that the section on "his most widely recognized compositions" is someone's opinion, or possibly WP:OR - it seems to me to require at least a reference. I do not necessarily disagree with the choice of works listed - but does "recognized" here mean "recognized as Beethoven by the man on the Clapham omnibus", or does it mean "the man on the Clapham omnibus would be able to name the work while listening to it", or does it mean "your average keen western-classical-music lover would recognize the work"? If the first meaning is intended then a case could probably be made for adding the Triple Concerto, the last movement of the Waldstein, bits of the Septet, the Spring sonata, the fourth Piano Concerto, and bits of the Archduke trio, but if the last meaning is intended then most of us who are interested would probably be able to name at least a third of his opus from hearing a fragment of each piece anyway, and we would probably recognise as Beethoven much more. I think the editors of this article mostly probably fall into this last category, and are therefore the last people who should be expressing opinions on "what people recognize". What do others think? --RobertG ♬ talk 09:35, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Firstly, very nice job. I don't necessarily think that a whole list of his widely recognized works is necessary for the intro, but I think it bears mentioning that his work is recognized by "the man on the Clapham omnibus". Although the vast majority of westerners recognize Bach's name, I doubt that nearly as many of them would recognize snippets of his work. So we need to find a way to say "if the man on the clapham omnibus hears the last mvmt. of Beethoven's Ninth symphony, he'll immediately recognize it, probably sing along, connect it with various things such as A Clockwork Orange (film), and might very well know it's by Beethoven", while at the same time not venture into original research, or devolving into a whole list, gradually branching into the more and more obscure ("Beethoven's brilliant and seminal song cycle!!!"). Mak (talk) 15:46, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

An editor has removed the {{fact}} template from the "most widely recognised compositions" paragraph. I have already outlined my concerns above. Can we reach a consensus on, firstly, recognised by whom, and secondly what works to list. Even given that we can come to agreement, I still worry that without WP:V it is WP:OR. --RobertG ♬ talk 09:20, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't think the 'by whom' question is actually that important. The list at the moment is a reasonable length, and while different whoms could justify longer lists, that would be out of place in the introduction. FWIW I, as a fairly well-educated, but not hugely musical westerner, would much more readily recognise the ones currently listed (not chosen by me) than the other works you mentioned above. Henry ^Flower 10:00, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Beethoven's ancestry

It seems as if there is no discussion on the topic but there should be some to get the issue resolved. People who claim Beethoven of Slavic and other European origins provided no sources to substantiate their claims. From a non-bias point of view I would have to say that as it stands more evidence(using sources not simply opinion) has been provided in this discussion page to support that Beethoven was moor or such. The people who claim Beethoven was Flemish or Slavic have not provided one source which leads me to believe one of two things. You are pulling it out of your ass. You are simply asserting Beethoven is not moor because you assume if he is from Europe he must be a European, which is an unfair assumption to make and is based on your opnion not historical fact. I don't give a dam what race he is but I will delete any mention of Beethoven origins that does not provide a source because no one here has ever talked to Beethoven and asked him personally.

You say: You are simply asserting Beethoven is not moor because you assume if he is from Europe he must be a European, which is an unfair assumption to make and is based on your opnion not historical fact.

OK, then, how about we assume Ronald Reagan and Queen Elizabeth and Pablo Picasso and George Bernard Shaw were all moors because there's no document that says they weren't. That really is an absurb way to construct a biography. JackofOz 02:20, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

There is evidence Ronald Reagan and Queen Elizabeth and Pablo Picasso and George Bernard Shaw were all white. There is also no evidence they are moors. If someone where to claim Queen Elizabeth as a moor I would ask for proof, like how I ask for proof from both sides for Beethoven, there is no evidence, no books, no documentary to suggest that Elizabeth is moor. On top of that if people who argued that Elizabeth was moor, simply asserted her moorness, and refuted all of the proofs that she was white simply because they had none that shows she was moor, then I would have no choice but to conclude that she was white. Apply that to Beethoven and I have no choice except to accept that he was moor. There has been not one ounce of proof, even questionable white supremcist website proof, google searches, that have suggested Beethoven was white. I'm all open to any evidence of it, but there has been none provided. The argument that Beethoven is white is an assertion made based on peoples opnion and no fact(no sources), simply their assumptions that he must be white because he is from Europe. The people who claim the Beethoven is white have provided no proof and say all the books written on the subject that says he is moor, are simply based on heresay of 200 years. Well a book that says Beethoven is moor written by his teacher is alot more convincing than the opnion you just pulled out of your ass.

The claim that he had Moor ancestry is not on crack Beethoven: A Life Undone by Heavy Metal?, October 18, 2000, Washington Post:

The research team also said that future DNA analysis might answer lingering questions about Beethoven's ethnicity. As a young man, the dark-complexioned Beethoven sometimes was called "the Moor," and some historians have questioned whether he had African blood. Walsh said his analysis of the hair strands showed "no wrinkles or bends" typical among people of African descent, but that more tests may be conducted.

It seems worth mentioning, unfortunately I don't know if further tests were conducted and what were the results. ---moyogo 08:36, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Pathetique media should be deleted

The uploaded ogg-file is of very low musical quality, and should be deleted.

Beethoven's late works

If Beethoven's late works sound nothing like his Romantic contemporaries (i.e. Weber, Schubert), what do they sound like, works of later Romantic composers? Marcus 19:30, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

The strains of the Große Fuge, and the periodic silences in the late piano sonatas do not lend Beethoven the 'honour' of sounding like any of the works of later Romantic composers. Seeing as he knew not any of the great Romantic composers that followed his death, this question seems strange, perhaps one should seek to discover how 20th century music has been influenced by Beethoven? Stravinsky's famous quote on the Grosse Fuge springs to mind. an absolutely contemporary piece of music that will be contemporary forever. Gareth E Kegg 01:51, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Expand this article

It's saddening to see that articles on Britney Spears or Opie and Anthony are considerably longer than Beethoven. Could someone please expand this article?

There's no point in expanding it for the sake of making it longer. There are more facts knowen about Britney Spears et al, I suspect. While many more books (at least books of value) have been written about Beethoven, it's not nessesarly Wikipedia material. Unless you think there are specific areas where info is lacking, I think it should stay as is, rather than adding filler material to make it bigger. — Soupisgoodfood 10:45, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree with the first writer. Who said there are more facts known about Britney Spears than about van Beethoven? Maybe the fact is that Wikipedia is US and UK Centric at the moment. Britney Spears is maybe more important there, but arguable in other places.

Note that in other languages, such as Hungarian, German or French, the article is bigger for Beethoven than Spears, which reinforces my point. Wallie 08:42, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Manuscript of Beethoven's Ninth Symphony in UNESCO's Memory of the World Register

http://portal.unesco.org/ci/en/ev.php-URL_ID=7073&URL_DO=DO_TOPIC&URL_SECTION=201.html Perhaps this decision by the UNESCO regarding the Ninth Symphony is something important to add on this page--a testament to the universality of his music. - Spartan

Widely recoginized works

RE: Among his most widely-recognized works are his Third (Eroica), Fifth, Sixth (Pastoral) and Ninth (Choral) symphonies (the last containing the "Ode to Joy"), his Piano Concerto No. 5 ("Emperor"), his Missa Solemnis, Wellington's Victory, his opera Leonore, his Violin Concerto, his Pathétique, Moonlight, Hammerklavier, Waldstein, and Appassionata piano sonatas, his Razumovsky quartets, and the bagatelle Für Elise.

This text is important, as it introduces the reader to some of the major works of Beethoven. It doesn't matter if the list expanded further either. It probably should be.

Beethoven's works, at least in the film about him were I remember, the Ninth last movement, Missa Solemnis Credo, the Eroica first movement, the Moonlight Sonata first movement, the Fifth, first and last movements, Leonore (later Fideleo) chorus in the final act. Someone here pointed out that Britney Spears has a bigger article than Beethoven. Well this will continue, if it keeps getting cut back. Wallie 09:26, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

"Most recognisable" or "major" works

At the risk of appearing pedantic, I've removed this paragraph from the lead:

Among his major works, some of which are instantly recognizable, are his Third (Eroica), Fifth, Sixth (Pastoral) and Ninth (Choral) symphonies (the last containing the "Ode to Joy"), his Piano Concerto No. 5 ("Emperor"), his Missa Solemnis, Wellington's Victory, his opera Leonore, his Violin Concerto, his Pathétique, Moonlight, Hammerklavier, Waldstein, and Appassionata piano sonatas, his Razumovsky quartets, and the bagatelle Für Elise.

Until today it said "most recognisable works" which was equally (if not more) problematic in my view (see discussions about this above). I have several concerns, and tentatively suggest we reach consensus here before it is put back. Firstly, what criteria are we using to define "major works"? By no stretch of the imagination is Wellingtons Sieg a major work! How can we include the Rasumovskys and not opp. 130, 131 and 133? How can we include piano concerto 5 and not 4? How can we include Fur Elise (which is, again, not a "major work") and not the Diabelli variations? And as it stands none of it is directly verifiable and all of it is original research unless someone can find a universally accepted and unimpeachable reference that says "X, Y and Z are his major works". I am all in favour of naming a few works in the lead, to lead people in, but no-one is going to plough through a long list, so the smaller the list (maybe 5 works?) the better.

My proposal is: can we agree there should be around 5 works named in the lead, what those 5 should be, and exactly how it should be phrased? Comments please. Can anyone see a way forward? --RobertG ♬ talk 10:14, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes. I agree with you about Wellingons Sieg. I just happen to like it. So you can ditch that one if you like. It was more in the "recognizable" grouping. I would like more than five, but if it's cut back to five, then:

My five would be:

9th Symphony
Missa Solemnis
Rasumovsky quartets
Hammerklavier Sonata
Opera Fidelio wot no 5th symphony? --RobertG ♬ talk 15:03, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

One from five different categories too. However, I hate throwing out some of the others, ie, all of them. Finally, best to resolve this quickly. Thanks. Wallie 10:43, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps a better approach would be just to mention the main categories of his works- "His major works include nine symphonies, sixteen string quartets, thirty-two piano sonatas and the opera Fidelio". Less of a temptation for proliferation and bickering. 163.1.109.216 11:42, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

I see this is your very first post. Welcome to Wikipedia! Wallie 14:02, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree with you that it would be less of a temptation, but "…and seven instrumental concertos, and two masses, and a song cycle…" springs to mind unless we have consensus. If the object is to avoid temptation then better keep the paragraph removed! However, the lead certainly ought to say something about his compositions, and I absolutely agree that as it stood the paragraph was an open invitation to add!

Wallie, what exactly are your criteria for your selection of five? My cards on the table: if it's most recognisable (as in recognised by the man on the Clapham omnibus) I think a case can be made for listing Symphonies 5(i) (ubiquity of da-da-da-dum, use as V-for-Victory), 6 (Disney's Fantasia), 9 (iv) ("Ode to Joy"), Moonlight Sonata (i) (usually played mezzo forte, or like Dudley Moore in Beyond the Fringe!), and Für Elise (anyone with chopsticks in their repertoire also, it seems, plays the first four bars!) without being open to too much debate. I remain to be convinced about other works being "more recognisable" than these. But that's just my opinion; what about other Wikipedians?

Unless the paragraph has a well-defined reason to list each work (such as being his most culturally ingrained) then it will have to be pruned once a fortnight! If it's his seminal works then with Beethoven I think this is just too large a category for the lead. There is such a huge list of works that pushed the boundaries that someone will always be wanting to add one: Symphonies 3 (scale, & the importance of the artist), 5 (influence, triumph over adversity), 9 (scale, and choral finale), Hammerklavier sonata (scale), Op. 110 (first purely dramatic use of a fugue), Op. 111 (pinnacle of "decorative" variation form, apotheosis of the trill), Diabelli Variations (early example of variations where the theme is composed with, rather than altered or decorated), Piano Concerto No. 4 (the piano plays first), Missa Solemnis (ambitious scale), late string quartets (emotion, particularly the weeping of the Cavatina of op. 130), Fidelio (an "Ode to Freedom", astonishingly subversive for its time), and I've missed whole genres out, haven't I? But this is exactly my problem with such a paragraph - to assert "these are his most significant works" without a reference must be original research! I doubt we'd find a source listing "Beethoven's ten most significant compositions"! And if we did, I think we'd immediately be inclined to dismiss it as disreputable! If that's what we would think of other references, then so would others perceive Wikipedia.

Here's another suggestion: what about a completely different approach? How about a precis of Beethoven's musical style and innovations (itself not a model of objective verifiability) in the lead's third paragraph? Anyone else have a view? :-) --RobertG ♬ talk 15:03, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

I support the idea of removing the short list of "most recognisable" compositions from the lead. It's largely a practical problem: Wikipedia lists like this grow like patches of weeds, as each visitor insists on adding her own favourite favourite.

I think the idea of substituting a precis of Beethoven's style and innovations for the list is an excellent idea, and that is what I'd prefer. Another way would be to do something similar to what we have in the Mozart article (this is the second sentence of the first paragraph): "His enormous output includes works that are widely acknowledged as pinnacles of symphonic, chamber, piano, operatic, and choral music." Antandrus (talk) 15:18, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

I was concentrating on "significant" (or was it difficult like the Hammerklavier) rather than "recogisable". I also don't think there is a problem with edit wars on an article like this, as fans of Beethoven like all of his work. Wallie 16:11, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

So what happens now? Wallie 17:39, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
- On reflection, I return to my original conviction (and agree with Antandrus), that the complete removal of the paragraph was actually the best option, and most harmonious with Wikipedia policy. If I get a moment I may try to construct a suitable four-sentence paragraph about his style and innovations (unless someone beats me to it, of course). There's no great hurry. --RobertG ♬ talk 11:17, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Media

I've rearranged the list of music files section a bit. I hope that's ok. --Eleassar ^{my talk} 13:50, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Discography

Needs a list of the CDs he has put out. 67.183.121.68

He retired to the studio in 1807, suffering from the difficult 'second album phase'. Either that, or the above is the dumbest comment I've ever read. Gareth E Kegg 23:39, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Or else they want a list of important recordings of Beethoven's works and don't have terrific English. That would be a lot of work and a fluff magnet, but it might be worthwhile. I don't know enough to do it, though, and I'm not really looking forward to a list of "Bob Jones made the bestest recording of the Appassionata evar! It's on his myspace website!" Mak (talk) 23:52, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Yeh, the Wikinazis would put parity twixt Perahia and Liberace anyway Gareth E Kegg 23:59, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

External Link

In order to not get any edits I make deleted, I want to ask if this link could be added to the main Beethoven article page:

- Beethoven public domain sheet music

I thought this was a very useful site with only free sheet music. What do you think? --Kylepiano 17:34, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

I say Nay, especially since this user is making multiple sockpuppet accounts in order to add this same link to tons of composer articles. It doesn't have that much sheetmusic, although it does have a bit for Beethoven. Mak (talk) 16:43, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

I just wanted to point out that SheetMusicFox has over 200 Beethoven sheet music titles, whereas the other 2 links, Project Gutenberg, and IMSLP have considerably less.--Kylepiano 17:34, 3 July 2006 (UTC)