Talk:Piano Sonata No. 3 (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.

Untitled

I'm removing the "citation needed" after the sentence that refers to the "numerous demanding piano techniques." No authority is needed, in my opinion; this is a simple fact. 129.79.132.127 (talk) 18:01, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Piano Sonata No. 1 (Beethoven) which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RM bot 13:15, 30 August 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) 23:14, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Stub

Who else thinks this article has enough sufficient content to not be considered a stub? I think it's long enough to be not considered one. --Bryce (talk | contribs) 06:18, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Other than the boiler plate movement list, external links and template there's very little else. Expansion of the article would help. What's the rush to remove the tag? Most readers don't notice the stub tags, its mainly to encourage expansion from editors.DavidRF (talk) 14:52, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Then let's expand it. --Bryce (talk |

contribs) 05:35, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I signed up to contribute to this page. The analysis seems to be based upon original research and contains a lot of vague phrasing so best perhaps to start there. What kind of analysis is expected on this kind of page?Liccposting (talk) 21:56, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a little late to this discussion, sorry. I'm trained musician (flutist) who studied at the Aaron Copland School of Music at Queens College-CUNY in New York (quite a mouthful, right?). While there I was immersed in music theory, analysis and history, and swallowed it whole. I'm probably the only musician in the world who LOVED reading Donald J. Grout's A History of Western Music, and finished up reading the portions of Charles Rosen's The Classical Style: Haydn, Mozart, Beethoven that my music history teacher didn't cover over my summer vacation. Nuts, right? My theory/analysis teachers included Charles Burkhart who compiled Anthology for Musical Analysis that was used across the US and Carl E. Schachter who is a noted expert on Schenkerian analysis. All this to say, I've been trained by some of the best.

Music analysis is at best a little vague as you noticed. How in the world can you truly "analyze" this sonata: it's IMMENSE. So the thing I notice about it is the motivic unity that can be found if you look at the different elements of the piece. Just take the first 2 bars of the first movement: that rather simple motive, E-D-E-F-E-D-G (leaving out the "decorative" repetition) shows up EVERYWHERE. Check out the opening of the second movement, same shape transposed to E major. I would contend that the opening of the Scherzo is based on the second movement but transposed back to C major (though with that sneaky F#), along with the opening of the final movement which has it now firmly in C Major, and even incorporates the final G as a pick-up. MIND BLOWN! And I haven't even tried looking at the harmonies and the way Beethoven shapes what we call "the form" of this sonata.

One of the things that was said in the past is that the movements of a symphony or sonata are like rooms in a house, separate. My professors showed me that isn't necessarily the case; the best of music compositions work as an organic, unified whole. For example, the second movement of this sonata wouldn't work as well if dropped into Beethoven's Piano Sonata No. 9 in E major, Op. 14, No. 1. The tonality is the same (E major) but everything else is just wrong, in my opinion.

I don't think Beethoven sat and consciously outlined this before writing the piece. I make the analogy to an author writing a story - certain themes, ideas and words gradually permeate short stories, plays, essays and books. Sometimes that can be quite deliberate. And I think that for Beethoven (along with Mozart, Haydn, Bach, Handel, Telemann, Chopin, Schubert, Mendelssohn, Brahms, Faure, Ravel, Schoenberg, Elliott Carter and a host of others) composing is writing in a "native" language that was polished throughout their lives.

So have I now made it completely impenetrable, or does this help? DMHNEW (talk) 19:55, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Unverifiable Information

I can't verify the sentence 'Some believed Beethoven was influenced here by the Weiner ideals of expressionism.' in the section about the first movement. This sentence was also vandalized and also starts with a vague attribution. Can someone find the source and deal with the beginning of the sentence? JamesC101 (talk) 15:40, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]