Talk:Piano Sonata No. 8 (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
	This article is supported by Compositions task force.

Timing

By the way, you have to roar along at a pretty good clip to play all three movements in 19 minutes. The Emil Gilels recording I have now is 20:15 including the gaps between movements, and the old Emil Giles mono LP I used to have was, I think, a little longer.

UninvitedCompany 23:12, 31 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Just for the record, I have Arrau doing it in about nineteen and a half minutes, and Schnabel in eighteen and a half. --Camembert

Difficulty

The first movement is not really that difficult -- it's pretty much the same thing repeated twice, partly transposed the second time... it's rather long, though, about 8 minutes... =P cryptfiend64 01:44, May 18, 2004 (UTC)

Depends on your point of reference. Compared to most of the other classical repertoire, including Beethoven's other sonatas, it's fairly difficult. But then, it is not as difficult as, say, a Chopin piano concerto, or Rhapsody in Blue, or some of the Liszt etudes. Compared to baroque keyboard music, well, it depends on the perfomer since some find five melodic lines more frustrating due to the difficulty in reading them, while others find the more technically demanding segments in classical era works harder. UninvitedCompany 04:46, 18 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Since there isn't any consensus on this point, and it's quite subjective in any event, I've deleted, hoping no one will be bent out of shape. Note that we don't seem to be evaluating piano pieces for difficulty in the general case. Opus33 05:47, 18 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

"it's pretty much the same thing repeated twice, partly transposed the second time" — Yes, that's how sonatas are built. :-D — Mütze (talk) 23:21, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's tough... but only if you play it right. 75.48.19.159 (talk) 06:36, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Three tweaks

Thanks, Wahoofive, for pointing out the resemblance between the first theme of the third movement and the second theme of the first. I put this in.
I moved the discussion of Mozart's K. 457 down a bit where it wouldn't interrupt the flow, and fleshed it out a bit.
On an impulse I removed:

Professional MIDI recordings of Beethoven's works

having listened a bit to the MIDI. This is of course just an esthetic opinion, but I feel that the Op. 13 performance you find at this site sounds awful--no rhythmic or dynamic differentiation, left hand drowns out the right, tone quality like what you hear in old silent movies. Not a good intro to the work for those who haven't heard it before. Feel free to revert if you truly feel that anyone would benefit from hearing this performance.

Opus33 14:56, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Bustin' Loose?

The theme song from the film Bustin' Loose (1981) uses some of the same progressions as the adagio of "Pathétique". Is it close enough to be notable? --Damian Yerrick (☎) 01:15, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The bad sound file

Sorry if im not following protocol, not sure how to post. but i would like to point out that the version of the sonata avaliable for download on the page is horrendous. Can it be replaced with a decent version or taken off? I don't think the pianist playing the piece does it justice. For one the piano is out of tune (it sounds like a honky tonk). Then there are multiple wrong notes. Many chords are not together (left and right hand out of time with each other), there are missing notes (not voiced properly) and the tempo changes are erratic and misguided. The opening grave section is rushed, the allegro section is too slow, etc. Has anyone listened to it? It sounds almost as if this person was sight reading it. There are also background noises such as slaps (like a door or something). There are places where the pianist pauses briefly (presumbably to find the right notes, and to make it worse, after the pauses the notes are still wrong). I've ranted a bit but the playing is such sub-performance standard that I feel I need to say something. I have heard free to download midis that sound better.

Thanks, anonymous. I agree with you that bad sound files do not help the Wikipedia but unfortunately my efforts to remove them tend to get reverted by other editors and I've mostly given up on doing this. If other editors chime in perhaps we could declare a consensus get it deleted. Opus33 18:32, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree too. Many preformers I know would sight read this much better than the version that is here. I hope I don't offend anyone by saying this, but even if the preformer reads this, he would probably agree. I would rather have the mutopia project midi than this preformance. uigrad 5 Sept 2006

"Me too." I don't know about sight-reading it better, but I certainly agree that this recording is not suited for public performance of any kind. Start by tuning the freaking piano, especially Eb5. Then learn all the notes, and listen to a professional recording so you know how not to butcher the transitions between themes.

I removed the sound file (again?), asking anybody who wishes to reinstate it, to first reach a consensus supporting his intention on this talk page. Some time in the future, we will need a better version of this. Any volunteers? — Mütze 11:36, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree totally that this file is not suited for public sharing. I have a beautiful recording of this work on a cd. Does anyone know whether I'm allowed to put it on here, without infringing copyrights? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.101.236.15 (talk) 14:51, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are not allowed to upload the contents of any CD unless it has a public domain or creative commons license, which rules out 99.99999% of all CDs. And to add to the discussion. Yes the recording is not very good, but it is better than nothing. I say keep it, until someone donates a better version. Janderk 11:10, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I completely agree, too (or three?). In fact, I was just about to place a message on this talk page about it. As an alternative...how about a link to a YouTube video? I found a nice one here, played by Freddy Kempff. --~~MusicalConnoisseur~~ Got Classical? 05:05, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with your idea of linking a YouTube video instead of having the current audio file on here, but the problem I see with a lot of classical performances on YouTube is the video length limit often cut the performance into many chunks right in the middle of a moment, or in this case, not the entire piece...only a selected movements. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cl191 (talk • contribs) 07:04, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I like the YouTube video too but it is a clear copyright violation. If someone finds a better performance that does not violate the copyright we will have to do with the current version. Janderk (talk) 22:56, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright violation or not, I've just listened to the first two minutes of the recording available here, having watched the Freddy Kempf version directly beforehand. It's so awful, I couldn't listen to the rest. I really don't think it should be on Wikipedia, as no recording is arguably better than a badly-played one. Übermensch (talk) 18:35, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please someone remove this horrible sound file. A bad display of a piece is worse than having nothing there at all. It discourages people reading about the piece from looking up more. It is as if the author made an editorial judgement in writing saying that "this piece is probably not worth listening to". That statement would be removed by other editors before even considering whether or not there was an appropriate statement to replace it with. Similarly, the music at the beginning of this article should be taken off the website. It's not a matter of interpretation, this music is an obviously poor performance, and it discourages further reading. (June 30th, 2012)

Reverting erroneous edit

According to the program notes written by musicologist Eric Blom for the complete sonata recordings made by Artur Schnabel, Beethoven did indeed give the title "Pathetique" to this sonata. Opus33 18:47, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

András Schiff, in his lecture-recitals at the Wigmore Hall (downloadable from http://music.guardian.co.uk/classical/) credits Beethoven's publisher with the title, saying only that "Beethoven certainly didn't object"---though he doesn't cite this piece of information. cmsg

Analytical errors

Overall, the analytic section reads as though it is original work. Please insert references to cited sources!Tgkohn (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 07:25, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

1st mvt

Hello, this article is a bit shocking to be honest... even the key for the second subject of the first movement is given wrong. It is not E-flat Major, but e-flat minor. And it is not at all a customary choice of key at this point in music history. I'll correct that, but this article definitely needs some major cleaning up/expansion. the paragraph also calls the slow introduction 'first theme' - well it doesn't come back at the beginning of the Recapitulation. It is a structurally significant and subsequently developed introductory theme if anything. i have no time to correct this now, but if nobody will the next time i check i'll do it. but if someone took the effort that would be very much appreciated :)

Thanks - G from Connecticut, Hungary —Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.99.167.127 (talk) 05:31, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

2nd mvmt

In the modulating episodes descirbed in the analysis of the 2nd mvmt, the first was said to go from c-minor to E-flat-Major. In the score in front of me it seems to be _firmly_ in the key of f-minor at bar 16 with the following bars of i-V-i-V-i confirming this. I'd change it, but don't really know what I'm doing and don't want to screw up the page

Thank you for spotting this error, which I have fixed. Opus33 15:47, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have slighlty extended the description of the 2nd mvnt: since both "modulation episodes" involve two modulations, the previous concise version looked a bit confusing (in particular, it did not mention the 5 bars in the key of F-minor noted in the above discussion). Like the above poster, I would say "I don't really know what I'm doing", yet I did commence the change (as it seems in accord with the previous discussion), so if anyone could please proofread the present version, it would be great. 128.97.82.220 (talk) 04:00, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also strange that having a second movement in rondo form is described as unusual ("the movement is thus a simple rondo rather than the sonata form more common for movements of this seriousness"). This strikes me as a personal opinion, without a citation, and an inaccurate one at that. zweidinge 12:13, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge

I have proposed that a merge take place between this article and Pathétique Sonata in popular culture, because I do not believe that a small collection of trivia deserves its own separates article. You can discuss this here, or on Talk:Pathétique Sonata in popular culture. Thanks. --Mr. Lefty _{Talk to me!} 20:15, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Mr. Lefty: Please don't do this. If you will look at this page: [1], you will see that quite a few editors strongly disapprove of loading up the mainstream articles with popular culture items. In fact, there is a (non-binding) policy page saying that WP articles should not be filled up with trivia; see Wikipedia:Avoid trivia sections in articles.

Generally, when someone has set up an "X in popular culture" article, this represents a pragmatic attempt to keep articles trivia-free, taking the realist view that people are going to keep putting in this material no matter what we do. I would like to continue doing this with respect to the Pathetique Sonata article.

If this particular pop culture article isn't long enough for you now, trust me, it will grow. The flow of additions is pretty steady. Yours very sincerely, Opus33 22:23, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, that's fine. Thanks for the info. --Mr. Lefty _{Talk to me!} 22:47, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much, ML. Opus33 23:19, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted section

I've taken out this section:

==Possible influences==

It is possible that the "Pathétique" sonata was inspired by an earlier work of Mozart, his piano sonata K. 475 (1784). Mozart's work is likewise in C minor, has three movements in roughly the same character as Beethoven's, and in the first movement includes menacing rolling octaves for the left hand. The second movement of Mozart's sonata employs a theme of remarkable similarity to the adagio cantabile melody of the Pathétique.

The Grave section of the first movement closely resembles the opening section of Johanne Sebastian Bach's Partita #2 in C minor.

Another piano sonata that the "Pathétique" resembles in mood is the Sonata in C minor, op. 35 no. 3, C. 151 by Jan Ladislav Dussek. The opening movement of Dussek's sonata, which was published in London in 1797, displays a brooding restlessness that is comparable to Beethoven's. The similarity in the extensive and imaginative use of broken octaves is especially noticeable. Dussek's last movement being folk-like, however, is quite different in character to Beethoven's.

because all three contributions are observations of individual Wikipedia editors and violate the rule against original research. We can put these back in if we can find a legitimate source for them and cite it.

This was all my fault (the Mozart was mine, and then the others joined in); sorry. Opus33 04:26, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The part about the Dussek sonata isn't OR (though I'm not responsible for it); I've seen this comment in a book before. On Monday when I've had the chance to look in the library I found it in, I'll say what it was. Maybe.

The part about the Bach partita should definitely be out, and I haven't seen the Mozart so I won't comment on it. Quendus 22:16, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I was responsible for the Dussek/Beethoven comparison. It's from an article that musicologist Eric Blom wrote: 'The Prophecies of Dussek,' Musical Opinion, December 1927. I'll look more into the citation format before putting that back. Aznwolfie 00:11, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is the Pathetique Sonata a cyclic form?

(This topic, now spanning three years of discussion, is moved to the bottom as the most recent change.)

Trying to balance the "Romantic" view--this is a classical work in many ways.

The text concerning the last movement currently says that it "refers to themes from both of previous movements". Can GaryW or anyone else specify what these references are? One usually thinks of such cross-references as being more characteristic of the later Beethoven, so I am puzzled...

Opus33 04:24, 28 Oct 2003 (UTC)

I don't think there is really any such reference. I'll listen for it next time I play it.

The theme of the rondo is quite similar to the SECOND theme of the first movement. --Wahoofive 01:03, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The chord changes in the third movement are very similar to those in the second, just they go much faster. --Sbrools ^{(talk . contribs)} 01:56, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

True enough; both are i - V - i, with the V sitting on top of a tonic pedal. Is this something worth including or is what the article already says enough? Opus33 03:30, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm…I hope that my edit that added the word "Allegro" to the text was what was meant (see page edit history). That meaning seemed to match the closest with the notes to me, but I did not consider chord structure or and other kind of complex similarities. If this is not what was meant, please change it. The last sentence of the article concerning Beethoven's originally having the Rondo as an independent piece of the Sonata brings this claim into further question. I think that the analysis should be removed unless a good reference is found to back it up, or at least further explanation is given, as I tried to do in my edit. If the only simmilarity is a chord structure, especially one as simple as i - V - i, than it should go. Asmeurer 04:55, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Playing the Sonata

Does anyone think that a section describing how to play this piece to the amateur pianist would be useful? For example, the proposed section could include tips on style and execution from persons who are familiar with the entire sonata and have played it many times. By the way, are there any other sections like this in articles for other songs? RalphRedFox 00:53, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think it might be useful, but only if there is a very strict policy only to use quotations from authentic, recognized authorities. E.g., I'd be happy to read how Alfred Brendel or Mitsuko Uchida think the sonata should be played, but having "Joe Blow Wikipedian" offer his personal opinions would only be irritating (it would also violate the Wikipedia policy requiring that all edits have a reference source). Opus33 15:19, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree on the strict guidlines. Is Professor Maurice Hinson considered a recognized authority? I have a book on classical sonatas that was edited by him, and it talks about style and excecution in a number of Beethoven's sonatas, including the Páthetique. Is it possible to quote some of Prof. Hinson's suggestions in this article, or are there copyright regulations against that?RalphRedFox 19:27, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I believe Hinson is the real thing; i.e. he's edited various editions of the classical composers issued by mainstream publishers. You can quote him in the same way that book reviewers are allowed to quote brief passages; that is, pithy short things, but you can't incorporate his advice wholesale into the Wikipedia, which would be a ripoff.

One other bit: Hinson seems ok to me for the basics, but I hope you will also look at Charles Rosen's book on playing the Beethoven sonatas. Rosen is pianistically in the same league as Brendel and Uchida and I've found his book to be quite stimulating. [Title: Beethoven's Piano Sonatas: A Short Companion (2001, New Haven: Yale University Press): ISBN 0-300-09070-6] Opus33 21:27, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the book recommendation, Opus33. I'll look for it the next time I go to a music store. About my idea: since I think a 'performance' section would be beneficial for many different songs which can be performed by amateur musicians (in addition to the Pathétique Sonata), should I discuss this on the Classical Music Project talk page (instead of here)? I would like to know what other classical musicians think about my proposal and if they think it could prove to be useful.RalphRedFox 02:27, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mozart's Influence

From http://www.all-about-beethoven.com/patetica.html

"Beethoven’s Pathetique may very well have been inspired from Mozart’s piano sonata K. 457, since both compositions are in C minor and have three very similar movements. This is, however, just a theory since musicologists don’t seem to come to an agreement on this issue, especially since the unique connection of motifs throughout the sonata constitutes a major step forward from Haydn or Mozart’s creation. Beethoven's Pathetique, still remains one of his most popular sonatas even 200 years after its composition."

I think that the second movements of these two sonatas especially show a strong similarity. Perhaps this is worth mentioning in the main article. This similarity is mentioned in the article for Mozart's Piano Sonata No. 14: http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/K._457#Relation_to_Beethoven.27s_.22Path.C3.A9tique.22

Attys 02:49, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed the arguments

Changed the whole sentence regarding exactly who named this song.

Removed the "bad download" section.. it works just fine for me. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.113.26.135 (talk) 10:29, August 20, 2007 (UTC)

Name Origin

I noticed this article claims the origin of 'pathetique' are disputed, yet [2] says (and i quote):

This Sonata represents one of the few cases in which the popular title came from the composer himself - its full name is 'Grande sonate pathétique' (pathetic in the sense of 'suffering', rather than the English sense of 'pitiful'). It was written in 1798, a time when Beethoven was beginning to become aware of his encroaching deafness and yet was leading a relatively contented domestic life. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.51.58.227 (talk) 23:50, August 29, 2007 (UTC)

There are other sources that say undeniably it was named by someone else... so its better left as is i suppose. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.67.206.179 (talk) 04:47, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pop culture section

Billy Joel's "This Night Can Last Forever" uses (quite nicely) the melody from the Adagio Cantabile. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.127.98.100 (talk) 14:57, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Influence of Bach's c-minor partita?

Maybe it's worth checking whether the scholarly literature on this sonata has anything about the following observation. I once played the pathetique and Bach's 2nd Partita in C minor, BWV 826, at the same time and it struck me that one can make an even better case for saying that Beethoven used ideas from this Bach piece than for saying that he did from the Mozart c-minor sonata. Notice that the slow introductory Sinfonia of the partita also has the marking 'Grave' and figures similar to the beginning of the Pathetique. AFter the slow section of the sinfonia, there comes a medium-tempo bit with a melody going G C D Eb. These notes are used (rythmically transformed) by Beethoven in his 3rd movt main theme and in the hand-crossing passage in the first movt. Assuming these parallels aren't just chance, I don't know if Beethoven consciously or unconsciously used the Bach piece as inspiration. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Andrew.mcintyre (talk • contribs) 13:27, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Great observation, I found this talk page because I thought the same. Found Columbia music professor Elaine Sisman making this argument in a 1994 journal article, see reference #5. The similarities are striking and very specific, and we know Beethoven was very familiar with JSB's works. To get a little more speculative, the dense, virtuosic three-part counterpoint of the Capriccio, featuring a subject with a leap of a tenth, is very easy to hear in the Hammerklavier fugue. Awiemken (talk) 03:28, 14 May 2020 (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) 23:26, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Trivia in lead

This sentence about a popular culture reference is unsuitable for the article's lead and ought to be removed. The item had been added and removed before. I suggest that there is no need to mention this in this article at all and it ought to be removed again. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 05:05, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

done. Eusebeus (talk) 07:49, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move

The following is a closed 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.

The result of the proposal was

Speedy close in order to centralize discussion in one place, as this duplicates what is happening at Talk:Moonlight_Sonata#Requested_move. (Note: that discussion may need to move to an even more central location, such as the talk page for the Beethoven piano sonatas.) Antandrus (talk) 16:47, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It was proposed in this section that multiple pages be renamed and moved.

The discussion has been closed, and the result will be found in the closer's comment.

Links: current log • target log

– In the current move request at Talk:Moonlight Sonata, one of the main reasons given by the people who don't like that name is because it's the only one of Beethoven sonatas currently titled by its common name, instead of by Wikipedia's conventions. The purpose of this move request is to see whether there is consensus to move other of Beethoven's sonatas to their common names, and therefore have them named consistently with each other. Now WP:COMMONNAME is not king; but - shouldn't we name articles based on how people will search for them, instead of what looks nicer on a Wikipedia category list? Note that reliable sources, such as the Oxford Dictionary of Music (try searching for "appassionata") use the familiar names as the titles for their articles. And for those who would oppose because "that's not what Beethoven called them" - well, he called them Klaviersonate instead of Piano Sonata anyhow... Dohn joe (talk) 20:20, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support as nom. Let's look at some evidence. Ngrams for variations of "Pathetique" and "Sonata No. 8", "Appassionata" and "Sonata No. 23", "Waldstein" and "Sonata No. 21", and "Hammerklavier" and "Sonata No. 29" show roughly that these sonatas are overwhelmingly known by their commonly-used names in English-language sources. Isn't it more helpful to the reader to use the name that they're expecting to find? Dohn joe (talk) 20:20, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support. I get 372 deghosted post-1990 English-language Google Book results for Beethoven Pathetique-Sonata OR Sonata-Pathetique, 110 for Beethoven "Piano Sonata No. 8". Even if you look just at the latter results, it is unusual to see this subject referred to as simply "Piano Sonata No. 8". This phrase is normally used as part of a longer, formal title, such as 'Piano Sonata No. 8 "Pathetique"' or 'Piano Sonata No. 8 in C Minor ("Pathetique")'. The article title is not for the search engines. The common name is used to allow for immediate recognition, and to tell the reader how the subject is normally referred to. As far as recognizability goes, not many readers are typing in "Sonata No. 8" as a search term, as you can see here. Kauffner (talk) 22:27, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Oppose and move for Speedy Close - Why is this even being discussed? It looks like the Moonlight Sonata page might have the votes to move back to Piano Sonata No. 14 (Beethoven) and now four new page moves in the other direction are being proposed? This doesn't look like a constructive way to resolve this. This looks more like a game of wack-a-mole.DavidRF (talk) 01:37, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Did you note my nominating rationale? Essentially, the only reason most editors are opposing "Moonlight Sonata" is because it's the only Beethoven piano sonata titled by its common name. So here, I thought I'd see if there were support for changing other sonata articles to their common names - in which case the arguments at Talk:Moonlight Sonata would be moot - or at least challenged. Dohn joe (talk) 01:46, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well, unify the discussions then. This could easily be construed as trying to bypass the other debate.DavidRF (talk) 01:52, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that the first discussion (about the "Moonlight") should have included these others. But I don't know that they can't go in parallel. Dohn joe (talk) 01:59, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Parallel discussions are always bad. Its all rehashing in hopes of a different turnout. I don't even have that strong an opinion on the naming conventions but I *do* have a strong opinion against independent parallel counter-proposals such as this. This is actually even a rehash of previous moves. See Talk:Piano_Sonata_No._23_(Beethoven)#Requested_move:_Appassionata which was less than four months ago. The move of Moonlight was actually made when no one was paying attention (very little feedback on that move).DavidRF (talk) 02:15, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. The current page names are consistent with the widely-used established convention documented at WP:NCM. If you want to propose changing the convention you should discuss it there, not on a handful of individual works by one composer. --Deskford (talk) 01:49, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree that the current page names follow the convention, which says in the first paragraph "Do not include nicknames except when the work is almost exclusively known by its nickname" (my emphasis, there). The example given is Schubert's Trout Quintet. (There others, such as the Minute Waltz.) Would you agree that these sonatas (and the Moonlight) are "almost exclusively known" by their nicknames - at least to the same degree as the Trout Quintet? Dohn joe (talk) 01:59, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Milkunderwood's arguments in the move request for Moonlight Sonata (link: Talk:Moonlight Sonata#Requested move). Double sharp (talk) 02:40, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I've never seen Nr. 8 described as "Pathetique Sonata", but as Sonata Pathétique or Grande Sonate Pathétique or simply Pathétique. Similar with Appassionata, Waldstein, and Hammerklavier. There don't seem to be universal common names for these four sonatas, so I think the current naming scheme is more suitable.
I agree with others who felt that starting a requested move here before the one at Moonlight Sonata is closed seems "pointy". -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 03:35, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Copied from Talk:Moonlight Sonata#Requested move:

There appears to be a very small group - 3 or perhaps 4 individuals - who are determined to rename all of the Beethoven piano sonatas. They've been shot down twice now, but somehow in an illegally peremptory decision made without allowing for comment, they did succeed in screwing up Piano Sonata No. 14. Links are provided above in this discussion to their failures. I had not been aware of the new ones you've just now pointed to. There's got to be a way to put a stop to this nonsense - in my opinion it's starting to border on vandalism. Milkunderwood (talk) 03:40, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Oppose and move for Speedy Close per DavidRF. I'm surprised to see this being played out on multiple pages. I'm happy to participate and give my opinion once, not repeat the same thing again and again. (Michael Bednarek is of course right about the way these nicknames are actually used.) --Klein zach 05:26, 3 January 2012 (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.

Orchestral version

See recently initiated discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Classical music#Area for research - Orchestrations of Beethoven Sonatas. --Francis Schonken (talk) 14:29, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Lead Section needs work.

According to the lead section, there is nothing remarkable about this piece. Ho hum. Yawn. Wake me if anything….

Some people think "encyclopedic," or "academic" means; dry and boring. yuk.
--2602:306:CFCE:1EE0:CCB5:DDE9:52E:F9B3 (talk) 20:26, 13 February 2018 (UTC)Doug Bashford[reply]

influences

Why "Modern derivative works" section is removed from the article? Joe feyzullah (talk) 18:59, 2 November 2018 (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]

Additional Uses of Piano Sonata No. 8 for Inclusion in the "In Popular Culture" Section of this Article

Please note that the Wikipedia article on the "The Pez Dispenser" episode of the Seinfeld TV series indicates that Piano Sonata No. 8 was also performed in: (1) that episode; and (2) the 1944 film, "Gaslight". 38.99.114.101 (talk) 00:04, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]