Talk:Piano Sonata No. 23 (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.

Folk song

The discussion of first movement proposes that "On the banks of Allan Water" inspired the rhythm of the opening and then shoots the idea down saying "there is no support in that fact for the claim that the rhythm is based on a folk song." The second theme is then, somewhat implausibly, proposed to be a quotation of the song. A quick listen to the folk song suggests that they have only a passing similarity. I think a citation showing that some music critic of note has proposed this connection is necessary to keep any of this discussion. Otherwise, I will remove it. Iellwood (talk) 20:02, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It is utter tosh and I will remove it right now. Syek88 (talk) 22:52, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Movements

three movements are wrong?

2. Introduzione: Adagio molto

3. Rondo: Allegro moderato - Prestissimo

A response to the above comment above, which actually refers to Sonata No. 21, the Waldstein (Opus 53), and also to the article on the sonata Opus 57 ("Appassionata"):

At least one person, Hans von Bulow (not the greatest interpreter of Beethoven) said Opus 53 has two movements, but everyone else seems to call the Introduzione to be a separate movement (despite its name) from the Rondo. Sometimes they are put on the same track in recordings, but really the third movement seems to be separate from its introduzione structurally, and thus referring to the sonata as a three movement work makes sense.

The article on Opus 57 says the finale has "all the repeats" of sonata form, but this is inaccurate. Significantly, this is the one of the only instances--in fact, probably the only single instance--in a large scale sonata form movement wherein only the second section (development and recapitulation) is repeated and the exposition is not. While von Bulow and others find this repeat off-putting in performance, it is critical in prolonging the passion and despair of the movement, and as the neither of the outer movements repeat the exposition (as though the forward momentum cannot be stopped) this repeat is totally shocking to the listener. So insistent was Beethoven that this crucial repeat be observed he specifies in the score "la seconda parte due volte" ("the second part two times") in addition to the repeat signs and also includes a relatively long first ending. It is notable that Beethoven thought to include this very unusual structural feature in the first movement of Opus 59 No. 1, the F major string quartet, but cancelled it out and the movement has no repeats at all. (In the finale, he was going to repeat both exposition and the second part, but again cancelled the second repeat while leaving the exposition repeat intact.)

5:6 ratio

This text is misleading: "The main theme has an odd rhythm, somewhat like a dotted rhythm, except with a 5:6 ratio instead of 3:4, that is difficult to play" There is a 5:1 ratio of note lengths, or 5/6 note length, and it is not difficult to play. In the development, to make it even more misleading, there is a section involving pentuplet semiquavers set against the original 5:1 ratio theme, which a little difficult to play, but not very much so because there is only one semiquaver to set against the pentuplets. I have no idea how to fix this problem without losing information.

I removed it entirely, and I think we can live with losing the information. The rhythm is not really odd, and thus I see no reason to mention it at all. It's just a dotted rhythm, notated in 12/8, and it's not difficult to play. EldKatt (Talk) 07:52, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Judicious. :) Quendus 07:53, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It isn't difficult to play, but it is an interesting rhythm. I think, the way most people play it, it has little or no interest. The fault is there's and not Beethoven's. 75.48.19.159 (talk) 06:28, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Beethoven's reception to the title

The text says, While the early Sonata No. 8, Pathétique, was named by Beethoven himself, the Appassionata was so labeled by the publisher. Beethoven was outraged with the nickname, feeling that all his works were written to be played passionately and not just this one. but the linked BBC article says The subtitle for the Sonata was the publisher's addition, but Beethoven did not for once see cause to object. Can GregW, who inserted the comment, or anyone else, find a cite for the current text? - Gyan 03:19, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I can't find conclusive information on this, but didn't he write this sonata for a duke or some noble of the sort? And the noble was the publisher, since the piece was dedicated to him. The noble thus gave the piece a nickname, and Beethoven, although unhappy, could not really do anything about it or object. I remember having read that somewhere, but I don't really remember where. - dagamezmasta June 13 2006

Funny, one source I just checked has informed me that no references to the title Appassionata have been found before 1838, long after Beethoven's death.... I wonder if anyone's actually researched this. 69.86.17.145 (talk) 20:52, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Currently the text quoted above (Pathétique, was named by Beethoven himself) has been changed and is now telling quite the opposite... Actually, one generally says that Pathetique and Les Adieux are the only Beethoven sonatas that have actually been named by the composer. Though some musicologists have been telling otherwise, they never gave any proof for their claim (as far as I know, the idea started with Prod'homme^[1] and Tovey^[2]). Admittedly, there is no hard proof for the "other side" either. However Beethovens friend and early biographer implicitly suggests that the title has been assigned by Beethoven himself^[3]. Anyway, the original 1800 print of the scores already carried the name Grande Sonate Pathétique. (--Chrispi80 (talk) 16:19, 26 April 2009 (UTC))[reply]

There is actually a contradiction between this article and that of Sonata Pathétique:

"Unlike the early Sonata No. 8, Pathétique[1], the Appassionata was not named by the composer, but was so labeled in 1838 by the publisher of a four-hand arrangement of the work." (this article)

"Although commonly thought to be one of the few works to be named by the composer himself, it was actually named (to Beethoven's liking) by the publisher, who was impressed by the sonata's tragic sonorities.[2]" (article of Pathétique: http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Piano_Sonata_No._8_(Beethoven) )

Both claims are cited, but I think some internal consistency would be nice. Can we get to the bottom of this, or is it all just speculation? DreadSam (talk) 07:26, 6 May 2009 (UTC)DreadSam[reply]

Well, yes, we can get to the bottom of the question - however this will still leave us with some speculation (as is typical when discussing historical details of minor importance). Here are the undisputed facts: (a) the title did appear on the first print of the sonata, (b) Beethoven mentioned the title in writing several times without hinting at anything that might suggest that he did not choose the title. But then (c) the composer did neither say explicitly that he choose the title personally. As there is no autograph of op. 13, we only can rely on such information as Beethovens contempories have left us. Tracing back, the very earliest note stating that the title is genuinely Beethovens is the one that I cited here (though the copy I cited has been printed in the 20th century, it's an exact graphical reprint of the mid 19th century original). The author, Schindler, has been a friend of Beethovens and had also access to a series of original documents of which some are lost today. Nobody contradicted him at that time. On the other hand, Schindler later has been criticed for not holding up to standards of academic writings. Anyway: the thesis, that Beethoven (and not the publisher) assigned the title has been undisputed for more than one century; then suddenly some authors started to tell a different story but without citing any references or giving any other proof, thus rendering there claim worthless (from a scientific point of view). Most notably, there is no single paper discussion the problem of who came up with that title; even worse, it seems like virtually nobody did actually really care for the question, with statements about the title having been assigned by Beethoven (or his publisher) mostly appearing just to beef up the introduction to some other article with some fancy side notes. Thus I personally assume that this idea surfaced accidently with a mistake made by one mid 20th century author (possibly French musicologist Prod'homme) and then travelled from article to article, just as noone thought it necessary to check the references for such an unimportant question (but this is nothing more but my personal beliefs). If it should have happened like that, this process would have been supported by the different claims beeing scattered unevenly in different musicolists communities: while German (and most of the French) literature on Beethoven until today exclusively features the "Beethoven has choosen title" claim, the opposite opinion seems to be somewhat more popular in English publications, lately. --Chrispi80 (talk) 11:38, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Jaques-Gabriel Prod'homme, Les Sonates pour piano de Beethoven, Librairie Delagrave, p. 73
^ Donald Francis Tovey, A Companion to Beethoven's Pianoforte Sonatas, The Associated Board of The Royal Schools of Music, 1951, p. 63
^ Anton Schindler, Biographie von Ludwig van Beethoven, Reprografischer Nachdruck der Ausgabe M"unster 1871., Georg Olms Verlag, 1970, p. 66

Verbatim unattributed excerpt

I wonder if it necessary to include in the article a verbatim excerpt from a separate text on the Web, in fact one of the references: <http://www.all-about-beethoven.com/apasionata.html> [sic]. The article's paragraph that begins "The third movement" is almost all taken verbatim from the text at this URL. (Not that I disagree with its content.) If no one can think of anything more appropriate to say, then at least the reference should be given credit for the verbatim excerpt.Daqu 00:10, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Would someone kindly respond to my query above (Verbatim unattributed excerpt) ?

And, can someone please explain why my comments regarding the first and third movements of the Appassionata were removed? If there is no response after a reasonable period, I will revert them, and replace the verbatim plagiarism with a link to the original.Daqu 20:01, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Concern: "Sonata for a good man?"

I don't believe it is correct that the Appassionata was the sonata featured in the film "the lives of others." can someone verify this.

It isn't the Sonata for a good man, but it is referenced in the film; I have reworded the article to reflect this. MarcelLionheart 02:50, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move: Appassionata

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

No consensus to move. Vegaswikian (talk) 17:53, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Piano Sonata No. 23 (Beethoven) → Appassionata – Relisted. --rgpk (comment) 14:31, 16 September 2011 (UTC).[reply]

I get 3,510 post-1990 Google Book hits for Beethoven Appassionata piano sonata -Wikipedia, compared to 419 for Beethoven piano "Sonata No. 23" -wikipedia. Beethoven's sonatas currently all have article titles in this format, i.e. No. 1, No. 2, No. 3, etc. IMO, this is a most unfortunate convention since it makes all the names confusingly similar. It would be like using Zip codes instead of city names. After all, the point of names is to allow us to easily distinguish among similar items. Kauffner (talk) 08:19, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. There is a redirect which is found. No need to give up consistency. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:14, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I should add that as Sonata No. 14 has already been renamed Moonlight Sonata, there is no longer consistency in naming regardless of what happens to this title. As I already argued in the nom, these names represent consistency taken to its reducio ad absurdum. Kauffner (talk) 16:53, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Mondscheinsonate (Beethoven would not have said it in English, nor in German ...) was moved with one oppose and one support. I wonder why that was considered a consensus? Reductio ad absurdum, please, if we need Latin, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:07, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I agree with Gerda that consensus wasn't reached on that one. Looks like there isn't a lot of feedback being generated by these requests. Try the talk page at WP:CM for more editors.DavidRF (talk) 20:53, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. This isn't needed.DavidRF (talk) 20:53, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. I'd move Moonlight Sonata back also. It should all be managed consistently and efficiently with redirects.
We need more multiple RMs, to fix these things systematically. Noetica^Tea? 23:00, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that the time has come to explain in detail why it is better to use a common name than an obscure name as an article title. To give such similar names to so many pieces of music ignores not only the titling guidelines, but also the practical reasons that article titles exist. If you Google up "Appassionata", you get various results, each with a title that appears in a way that focuses the reader's attention on that. So it is important that the user be able to determine from the titles which results are about the topic he is looking for. Then when he arrives at the article, he should be able to look at the title and see immediately if he is at the right place or not. As far as redirects go, these have very little effect on traffic patterns compared to article titles. "Appassionata" gets eight times more Google Book hits than "Sonata No. 23", presumably because the vast majority of authors on this subject understand it to be the more recognizable title. Kauffner (talk) 02:01, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please show precisely what Google searches warrant that claim, Kauffner. And note that the term "appassionata" refers to many more items than the Beethoven sonata, in any list of hits from a simple search. You also need to take account of variant forms for the other title: "Sonata 23"; "Sonata #23"; "23rd Sonata"; "twenty-third sonata"; "sonata twenty-three". Noetica^Tea? 02:15, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support as Appassionata is used much more frequently than No. 23, and many pianists would not recognize the No. 23 as the being the Appassionata sonata. Similar to Moonlight Sonata's move. Clarity should not be sacrificed for consistency. -down load ׀ talk 05:07, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Which pianists? - You find the article just as well under Appassionata NOW because of the redirect, why change? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:11, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Maybe we could make a hybrid title like Piano Sonata No. 23 "Appassionata"? They already do something similar to this at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (aircraft) by stipulating a title format of manufacturer-designation-name. If we introduced this kind of naming convention here, the article names could be consistent and still recognisable, and pieces with no commonly-used nickname could stay at their current titles. — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 04:52, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I Second the Comment. Recordings are usually labeled 'Piano Sonata No. 23 "Appassionata"', so why not use that with both parts included ? In fact, it should be 'Piano Sonata No. 23, Op. 57 "Appassionata"' with the Opus number as well, as that is actually what is used on CDs. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.196.195.124 (talk) 23:54, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress which affects this page. Please participate at Talk:Piano Sonata No. 1 (Beethoven) - Requested move and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RM bot 11:00, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note the date of the foregoing notice. The discussion, now long closed, concerned whether to move the sonata articles to new titles incorporating opus numbers. The conclusion was not to do so. Drhoehl (talk) 23:46, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress which affects this page. Please participate at Talk:Piano Sonata No. 8 (Beethoven) - Requested move and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RM bot 20:40, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note the date of the foregoing notice. The discussion, speedily closed long ago, concerned whether to move this article to a new title "Appassionata Sonata." Drhoehl (talk) 23:46, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for speedy deletion:

You can see the reasons for deletion at the file description pages linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 00:08, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

[1] Jaques-Gabriel Prod'homme, Les Sonates pour piano de Beethoven, Librairie Delagrave, p. 73

[2] Donald Francis Tovey, A Companion to Beethoven's Pianoforte Sonatas, The Associated Board of The Royal Schools of Music, 1951, p. 63

[3] Anton Schindler, Biographie von Ludwig van Beethoven, Reprografischer Nachdruck der Ausgabe M"unster 1871., Georg Olms Verlag, 1970, p. 66

[1]

[2]

[3]