Talk:Piano Concerto No. 0 (Beethoven)

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

zero?

i think this may be a naming error. Death glean ^er 23:28, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Its not uncommon for an unpublished work by a composer that precedes all other published works to obtain the colloquial appellation "No. 0". I don't necessarily agree with that in this case, though. I'd prefer the article be named Piano Concerto in E flat, WoO 4 (Beethoven) or something. DavidRF (talk) 20:38, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is actually very uncommon. Symphony No. 0 is only aware of 4 cases. If a mathematically-minded publisher had such an interest, he'd be better advised to reverse the numbering of the first two canonic piano concertos, and also Chopin's Piano Concertos 1 and 2, all of which were numbered according to their order of publication and contrary to their order of composition. Also, the numbering of Mendelssohn's and Dvorak's symphonies bore scant relationship to their order of composition - although, in the latter case they were all later renumbered. But there's not a snowflake's chance in hell that that's ever going to happen to the Beethoven piano concertos, so why impose such a silly idea on this fragmentary work? It is not widely or generally known as the "Piano Concerto No. 0".

I support your renaming, with the addition of a hyphen: Piano Concerto in E-flat, WoO 4 (Beethoven). -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 02:27, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You Tube agrees. (It also has Piano Concerto No. 6 and Symphony No. 10.) Rothorpe (talk) 14:32, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Neither Youtube nor Wikipedia should determine the name of a musical work. Either forum should use the appropriate extant name. There are at least three recordings on CD using the number "0". As a music listener, I would prefer an obvious name, either "number 0" or a small catalog number to transparently indicate the rough date of composition. Wcmead3 (talk) 21:38, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

History and provenance

It might be useful for this article to have a little more thorough discussion of the background of this work. A reader might ask questions such as: - How certain is it that this is really Beethoven's work? - Why did the manuscript show up so late in the process of cataloging Beethoven's work? - Is there any doubt that it was composed by Beethoven? - Was there ever a Beethoven-composed orchestration for the "concerto"? - Is there any evidence about a performance of this work near the time of composition? Wcmead3 (talk) 21:19, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a better account of the work, though there are probably more direct sources: https://www.brilliantclassics.com/articles/b/beethoven-triple-concerto-piano-concerto-no0/ Wcmead3 (talk) 21:41, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]