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

Beethoven's Legacy

Looking at the article on Mozart, I think one of the things that are lacking in this article is Beethoven's influence/legacy. The article on Mozart not only described Mozart's influence on other composers, but also (interestingly) included many of the praises that Mozart received. Now, I'm sure there's a LOT more that can be said about Beethoven's influence/legacy. Spartan 76.166.97.147 05:04, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Accomplished violinist

In the first paragraph the claim is made that Beethoven was an accomplished violinist. While I'm not at a position to dispute it, I remember reading (possibly in the booklet that came with a CD) that Beethoven was not a very good violinist. There was a quote from one his 'apprentices' on the subject. (forgot to sign) O Violinista 03:30, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

More on the portrait

You'll see under the discussion above (see under "Dueling Portraits") that the portrait by Carl Jaeger that originally began this article was done long after Beethoven's death, and represents a retrospective, romanticized portrayal. Since there are now a number of authentic Beethoven portraits on the Wikimedia Commons, I selected one (the 1804 portrayal by Maehler) and replaced the Jaeger portrait. (Also, I got rid of that bulky box, which had nothing in it other than the life dates--already in the first line of the article). Opus33 00:30, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Was Beethoven Really Prussian?

Beethoven grew up in Bonn and then moved to Vienna. Was either place in Prussia during the late 18th and early 19th centuries?

According to the Bonn page, "In 1815 Bonn was taken by Prussia and remained a Prussian city until 1945." It doesn't appear that Vienna was ever annexed by Prussia. However, I don't think Beethoven was an ethnic Prussian. --Jugbo 03:32, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

It's a bit complicated: When B. was born in 1770 Bonn was part of the Archbishopric of Köln, when he settled in Wien in 1792 that city was situated in the Archduchy Austria, both being part of the Holy Roman Empire of the German Nation that ended in 1806, when the Holy Roman Emperor Franz II. - who in reaction to Napoléon crowning himself Emperor of the French had taken on the title of "Emperor of Austria" (as Franz I.) in 1804 - abdicated as Holy Roman Emperor. After Napoléon's defeat Europe was newly organized at the Congress of Vienna in 1814/15. The mostly German-speaking regions of Central Europe (with the exception of the German-speaking parts of Switzerland) were comprised in a loose confederation called the "Deutscher Bund" (German Confederation), which included the regions of the Austrian (Habsburg-)Empire and the Kingdom of Prussia (Hohenzollern) which had earlier been parts of the Holy Roman Empire. The "Rhineland", the region of Beethovens birth, came to be ruled by the Hohenzollern, the archbishopric having ended with the Secularization of 1803 (which, incidentally, also put an end to the Archbishopric Salzburg, the territory of Mozart's birth).

I wouldn't know what an "ethnic Prussian" is. Someone with a genetic propulsion for "goose-stepping" ?Ver sacrum 00:16, 13 September 2006 (UTC),

Its a ridiculous designation. Ethnic Prussian would refer to a person of a particular Baltic tribe. There is no such thing as a native Prussian in the German sense, although one could be born in Prussia and be native to that region, or Brandenburg, the homeland of the state of Prussia 'proper', or be as Beethoven was a native of the Rhineland with some Dutch and German forebears. Eusebius12 17:56, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

On the "Beethoven the Romantic?" section

Wikipedia has a general ban on putting original research into articles; see the policy page Wikipedia:No original research. the "Beethoven the Romantic?" section has only one (very informal) citation, to Carl Dahlhaus, and the bulk of it seems to be just the author(s)' opinions. Unless there is a big hue and cry over the next few days, I propose to delete this section as a violation of the No Original Research policy. In the future, perhaps we could have a section on this topic (or perhaps a separate article), but it would have to report what published scholars have said, not our own opinions. Opus33 15:05, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

There was more information about Beethoven as a Romantic composer in todays Classic FM broadcast with Tony Robinson for corobboration.--88.96.3.206 19:17, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

I wholeheartedly agree that this should be deleted. Bach is not a Renaissance composer because he uses cantus firmus, or strict counterpoint. Every composer begins his work like the masters before him, before finding his stride and taking off. Beethoven's taking off ushered in the Romantic era, and the overwhelming majority of his pieces performed today are from this time. His third, fifth, seventh, and ninth symphonies are his huge works, in addition to his LATER piano sonatas and string pieces (some of which, incidentally, are extremely chromatic). I see no reason to have a section discussing this. However, I think a section on WHY he's a Romantic composer would be outstanding (dealing not with reasons, but what how he ushered it in). --Milton 23:06, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I've taken it out now. Opus33 21:55, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

In my opinion, its ridiculous to say that there is no place here to discuss Beethoven's status as a Classic/Romantic composer. It is far from accepted that B. is merely to be classified 'romantic'- there is indeed much literature discussing this point. Indeed in most articles in musical encyclopedias, this very point is discussed. Cf Oxford Companion to Music- "Looked at in this manner, and with an eye to the type of feeling he expressed, Beethoven may be considered as the last of the classical and the first of the romantic composers..., with the proviso that all these adjectives are relative and hence applicable in some sort of way to certain composers of every period." Of course, such designations are imperfect, even gauche at times, but it doesn't require the say so of "Tony Robinson" or "Milton Stanley" to decide what category to put Beethoven in. The bulk of scholarly opinion on this subject, still appears to be that Beethoven can best be described as Classic/Romantic. (Or just classical). Extreme chromaticism? You must be joking. Tell me how that applies to Bach's chromaticism? Not to mention Gesualdo, or Frescobaldi, or Froberger, or Purcell for that matter. What about Mozart's 'dissonance' quartet? Or the 'commendatore' scene in Don Giovanni? Chromaticism is as old as the hills, this is merely one of the features of Beethoven's music which was incomprehensible to his contemporaries. Nevertheless, he established the old norms of classicism as well as creating some.

I am disappointed that this page should be so bereft of good scholarship, since Beethoven is a major figure, just as important as Thomas Jefferson or Ayn Rand (actually much more so! but you wouldn't tell by reading their respective pages).

Eusebius12 18:12, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Greetings Eusebius. I regret that I have to disagree with you on several points in your last post, most notably your personal attack on my person, as well as the fact that the overwhelming majority of your previous rebuttal to my statement is based on a vast misunderstanding of what I said. Nowhere did I say that Beethoven was not a classical composer, or that chromaticism never existed until it sprang forth from Beethoven's head . First, you are welcome to refer to me either as Milton or Milton Stanley, as that is my real name. Second, yes, chromaticism had been around for years. Gesualdo's music was indeed insanely chromatic (word choice intended), but it was in the context of modality, so I don't think that analogy is completely fair, though it was indeed a style that wasn't heard until the 1800's. Frescobaldi had some as well, but for the most part he wrote in styles of his day. Purcell the same. The latter two were indeed innovative, but not to the point Beethoven was. I'll agree with you regarding Mozart - the first time hearing his dissonance quartet, I was amazed to learn it was him. But the majority of his works, while innovative, are still characteristic of the classical era. Beethoven, though, is characterized by his Romantic compositions. Yes, some of his works are classical, but it's fullish to characterize a composer by a few of his works. Beethoven's Eroica is a departure from classical composition in every way - harmony, rhythm, even overall form (see coda in 1st movement, also the extremely deceptive title of the second). My dislike for the "Beethoven the Romantic?" was for the supposed original research, and for the fact that it was a long collection of nonresolved statements. My statements regarding his extreme chromaticism grew from the fact that know several successful string players who won't play his later quartets due to their perceived atonality. You are more than welcome to rewrite that section, and include your previous statements (which I agree with), as well as the Thomas Jefferson and Ayn Rand (who, incidentally, I'm not familiar with outside of her work). Regards --Milton 19:54, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

For Eusebius:

I think you're saying two things here, Eusebius: that the "Classical vs. Romantic" issue is worth including, and that the article as it stands is "bereft of good scholarship". Well, I think the right way to proceed is to address both goals at once: put in what recognized scholars, writing in peer-reviewed outlets, have said on the question of Beethoven as Classic/Romantic. The section I deleted was almost entirely what "Joe Wikipedia Editor" thinks about the question--ideal for informal bull sessions and chatrooms, but not at all appropriate for an encyclopedia.

I'm quite taken with what Charles Rosen says about this question -- see the opening pages of the first Beethoven chapter of The Classical Style. He votes "classical", and gives some very good (at least to me) reasons. I haven't seen anything that made a sensible case for Beethoven being a Romantic composer, but perhaps there is something good out there. Opus33 20:16, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

For Milton Stanley:

I'm concerned that you might not be "with the program" here. In fact, no editor is allowed to put his or her own findings or opinions into the Wikipedia. For the rules that are applicable, please read--with care--Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Verifiability. Sincerely, Opus33 20:16, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Howdy, Opus33. I'm afraid that I "don't know what you mean" regarding your "with the program" statement, or where I "put [my] own findings or opinions into the Wikipedia." Of course I've read "with care" the no original research and verifiability entries, and I also don't believe I have ever put my "findings or opinions into" this article - in fact, I don't think I've contributed to it at all, outside of this "talk" page. Cordially, Milton 22:26, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough, and sorry for the misunderstanding. Opus33 00:41, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Not a problem at all - we both have the same goal in mind. --Milton 04:33, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Moonlight Sonata - recommend deletion

The Piano Sonata No. 14 in C-sharp minor, 1st movement recording is hidious, it presents a really bad image as it appears to be a recording of a midi sequencer or maybe a robot. It needs a replacement with a good version if anyone has one, deletion if not, or at least a note adding that it's a low quality recording. This should stop people who come here to read about a great composer somehow getting the idea that he was deaf or something ;) In the mean time I have marked it as low quality. --88.96.3.206 16:26, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Beethoven and the piano

Hello--

I'm moving this passage off the article and putting it here for reference:

During his lifetime, Beethoven also radically influenced the evolution of the piano. There had previously existed two common schools of piano making: in Vienna the instruments were made light and easy to play for purposes of precision with less dynamic range whereas those in London had a fuller sound with heavier keyboard action. Beethoven, though living in Vienna, had adopted a much heavier style of playing than most of his contemporaries, and although he was not the only pianist of the time to lobby for a heavier instrument, he was the only one whose musical genius had become synonymous with the artistic culture of Vienna. More specifically, Beethoven had connections to the prominent piano manufacturer Andreas Streicher and as Beethoven's esteem increased, the pianos in Vienna evolved to fit his specific taste.

Reasons: (a) it doesn't cite any reference sources; (b) The one serious reference source I've read, i.e. Edwin Good's history of the piano, says it's wrong; the piano makers were not falling over each other to make a piano that would satisfy Beethoven in particular. It's certainly true that the piano evolved rapidly in Beethoven's day, but I'd want to see a cited source if we're going to include the idea that the piano changed specifically at Beethoven's instigation. Opus33 21:48, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree with this removal. If anything, the evolving piano influenced Beethoven, not the reverse. We are generally tightening up our referencing and sourcing here, and I think this is a good example of what needs to be done. Alternatively, if a good reliable source can be found which shows that piano makers changed their approach to instrument-building specifically to suit Beethoven, we can put that in. Cheers, Antandrus (talk) 21:55, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, Antandrus. Of course I'm not adding any sources at all yet! But perhaps the right path to follow with this article is first to trim back, then to build up again, with good sources as part of the ongoing Wikipedia scholarship upgrade. If I can get the time, I want to channel Thayer a bit... Opus33 22:32, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Removing a redundant paragraph

I checked carefully through this paragraph:

Born in Bonn, Germany, he moved to Vienna, Austria, in his early twenties, and settled there, studying with Joseph Haydn and quickly gaining a reputation as a virtuoso pianist. In his late twenties he began to lose his hearing, and yet continued to produce notable masterpieces throughout his life in the face of this personal disaster. Beethoven was one of the first composers who worked as a freelance - arranging subscription concerts, selling his compositions to publishers, and gaining financial support from a number of wealthy patrons - rather than being permanently employed by the Church or by an aristocratic court.

and found that it says nothing that isn't said later on in the bio section. It doesn't seem sensible to take just the first part of Beethoven's biography and have it included in the intro section, so I took it out. Opus33 21:53, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Opus33, I just noticed that this paragraph had been removed. Sorry, but I disagree with you entirely and am putting it back: the purpose of the lead is to precis the article, so "it says nothing that isn't said later" is entirely the point. The lead cannot be a precis of the article without saying something about his life. I happen to think it is a brilliantly succinct complete biography (but then I wrote it :-). Best wishes, --RobertG ♬ talk 10:50, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

AB:-limitations of articles Howdy guys. Its great to see people jousting in such an erudite manner. I appreciate the effort that has gone into the Beethoven article. It must have been a daunting task writing such a piece, given the greatness of the man, and the strength of feeling that many people have about his life and work. You will never be able to please everyone with such an article.

After reading the above piece, and the arguments that it has raised, I would like to make two observations. Firsly through out all the technical language and dissection of his work, I have no sense of Beethoven as a man, or an artist. I have no sense of his music having being heard or listened to.

I guess this leads onto the second observation, which is the limitation of the 'dispassionate' encylopedic method. Biography, and aesthetic discussion by its nature has to be felt, and experienced, dare I say, 'impassioned'.

I think I understand and respect what the editors are attempting to achieve through this Wickipedia. I am not for an instant suggesting a swooning romanticizing engagement of the topic. I can see the place for such a dry, factual account of the man's life, devoid of opinion or human colour.

I merely point out that Beethoven is best appreciated through the act of listening, and experiencing, rather than dry fact. He is after all, the most intensely human of all composers (Yes, that is opinionated.)

Before signing off on this somewhat self-indulgent rant, I would like to quote from the opening sentence of an Encylopedia Britanica Article, written sometime in the 1960s, which is bold, engaging, but would never be published under your current rules...so opinionated.

"He who is tired of Beethoven, is tired of life..."

Keep up the good work guys AB

A few more removals

I would like to remove just a few more things. Here they are, so you can check if you would prefer them to stay in.

From Social difficulties section:

He didn't publish anything during this period, but he released an enormous amount of material in 1816.

First sentence is definitely false; look at any listing of works that has the dates. Second part: I'm not sure whether this is true or not, but since the first part is wrong and no reference source is given, I think we're safer doing without it.

His last musical sketches belong to the composition of a string quintet in C Major [1].

No published source, and it certainly doesn't fit into the context where it appeared.

In the death section:

(Beethoven died), in the midst of a fierce thunderstorm, and legend has it that the dying man shook his fists in defiance of the heavens.

Please see Life and work of Ludwig van Beethoven for the soberer version told by biographer Thayer. The thunderstorm is probably true, but the bit about "fists" is pretty wild. Long ago, some biographers exaggerated the lifting of a hand into the making of a fist. And whoever put this into the Wikipedia has amplified further - now it's two fists! This is informative for how legends arise (everybody want to put a bit more zip on the story as it's retold), but not very helpful in an encyclopedia.

From "The Three Periods":

Considering the depth and extent of Beethoven's artistic explorations, as well as the composer's success in making himself comprehensible to the widest possible audience, the Austrian-born British musician and writer Hans Keller pronounced Beethoven "humanity's greatest mind altogether".

Maybe someone will want to put this back, but my feeling is that it's just an opinion - it doesn't inform us in any way about Beethoven.

Cheers, Opus33 22:32, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

I disagree, so I put it back. It is a valid opinion, held by a diverse range of people, including EM Forster, and others whose names escape me just at the moment (but including the great cricketer, Keith Miller, for what that's worth- hey it is 4 in the morning here). Although you are right, it is an opinion, it is an informed opinion, and as I said valid, although of course not the only viewpoint. It reflects Beethoven's artistic stature. Something I hate is the first few lines, which say something about him being 'widely regarded as one of the greatest blah blah...' now this in my view are weaselly words. He is regarded as the one of the greatest composers, and widely regarded as the greatest. One or the other phraseology is required- I will change it to the latter, although of course anybody can change it if they feel that I am going way over the top. But I fail to see why that could get anyone's dander up. Eusebius12 18:20, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Huzzah to you, sir, for using the phrase "weasel words." I agree with the deletions included here, except the last one - I think opinions by Hans Keller are informed enough to be included here. --Milton 04:32, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I chickened out and said 'generally considered one of the greatest composers who ever lived"- now this is accurate, there are very few dissenting voices on that point (Goethe obviously was one, although he didn't actually dispute the 'greatness' of Beethoven's music- I suppose Adolf Henselt was a dissenter, not that I expect too many to have heard of him).

Cultural depictions of Ludwig van Beethoven

I've started an approach that may apply to Wikipedia's Core Biography articles: creating a branching list page based on in popular culture information. I started that last year while I raised Joan of Arc to featured article when I created Cultural depictions of Joan of Arc, which has become a featured list. Recently I also created Cultural depictions of Alexander the Great out of material that had been deleted from the biography article. I see that Beethoven already has a separate page for fictional representations. Perhaps it would be a good idea to expand that to include other types of cultural references. Regards, Durova 15:46, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Greetings Durova. I think that's a splendid idea. I heartily encourage you to do so, I've always found cultural depictions to be most enlightening. --Milton 15:04, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Sexuality

Just a tad curious. NNDB's entry lists it as a matter of dispute. Aside from never marrying, is there anything substantial to suggest he may have been gay or bisexual to some degree or another? --AWF

Hello AWF, I looked at this NNDB site and as far as I can tell, it's edited by amateurs just like Wikipedia. I've never seen any "Beethoven was gay" stuff in scholarly publications like the New Grove or Britannica. Maybe someone else has... Opus33 15:55, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Never. All of his rumoured sexual dalliances, or at least interests, were towards women, it is thought that he visited the local whorehouses on occasion as well as clearly pursuing Countess Giuletta Guicciardi, Marie Moke and others.

Eusebius12 08:32, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

We need a great Beethoven article!

Beethoven was one of the most important people who ever lived! He should have a featured article quickly! The same goes for Da Vinci, Newton, Aristotle, and Shakespeare, just to name a few. 129.15.127.254 14:30, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Alright, Newton already has one. Good. But we need to get our priorities straight! 129.15.127.254 14:34, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

The article is too short. Compare it with Franz Schuberts and he only lived till 31, or even Mozarts, I'm sure there's more that can be said about Beethoven!! --Witchinghour 20:26, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

It's waaaaaaaaaay too damn short. 129.15.107.60 23:05, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

As far as article length goes, the article used to be a lot longer as you'll see in the article history. I believe it has been shortened to make it more encyclopedic (i.e. concise) and split into several pages linked to in the template at the bottom. I do feel this particular article is still a bit short though, especially in comparison the the lengths of articles like Stalin. I've yet to read Wikipedia:Article size though, so I'm not sure if this is the optimal size desired by the project.

Edit: My concern over the short size was in fact merely due to incompletely reverted recent vandalism by one of our little IP address friends. The current article length seems more appropriate. Richard001 07:23, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

i agree the article is wayyyyy too short!! how about including more on some of his greatest works? or atleast having links to some of them. he also had manic depression. shouldnt that be included somewhere as it influenced his life in huge ways..--Gaurav 15:46, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

The article is too short. Just looking at the French article dwarfs ours. I think that we should at least look to theirs for ideas. Daniel 23:11, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Woodwind quintets?

Here's a question: Did he ever write any wind quintets, or is it my imagination? I ask because he's not mentioned in the Wind Quintet article... Cha! cha_daniels@hotmail.com

No, although his music has been arranged for wind quintet by others. There's an early piece (written before 1793, first published 1954) for a quintet of oboe, three horns, and bassoon (hard to call it a "woodwind" quintet when the horns outnumber the woodwinds ... ) Antandrus (talk)

Lengthening the article I: how not to

i can make the article really detailed. but that would include changing almost the entire article if that is alright?--Gaurav 15:54, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi Gaurav, As you could probably guess from your edit getting reverted, just putting in stuff from your own head won't suffice - it has to be from good reference sources, such as Thayer or the New Grove. Opus33 14:43, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

ok how about from the international cyclopedia of music and musicians? is that reference good enough? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Gauravsundar (talk • contribs) 6 November 2006.

Hi Gaurav. I have discovered that citing another encyclopedia is generally frowned upon among Wikipedians, and Wikipedia's founder Jimbo Wales has himself said it is to be avoided. Other encyclopedias such as the one you mention all get their information from other sources: there are enough good books out there to research from without using encyclopedias!

In response to your suggestion about making the article really detailed: I suggest that gradually introducing individually referenced details into the article would be the best method, rather than undertaking a wholesale rewrite. Best wishes, RobertG ♬ talk 15:21, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Robert, I just added an article on his music, i hope it's acceptable by wiki standards. (They seem pretty high lol)Gaurav 17:58, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Lengthening the article II: how?

I've checked Thayer vol. I out of my local library and will sooner or later try to use it to put in details and in-line references.

But for now, I have a query. We have a satellite article, Life and work of Ludwig van Beethoven. Would it be sensible just to fold its content into the main article and make it a redirect? This would beef up the Ludwig van Beethoven article pretty quickly, addressing the complaints above.

Opus33 14:43, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Note that Thayer is a really old book and of mixed quality. Better check some newer ones. Here is another old book (online from project gutenberg): [2]. 67.117.130.181 11:14, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

I'd like to add a link to a podcast created by the Isabella Stewart Gardner Museum that contains excellent recordings of Beethoven pieces, licensed under Creative Commons licenses. Would it be possible to be able to do this, although the article is currently edit protected?

User:GardnerGal 15:45, 1 November 2006

Sure if it isn't copyrighted or anything. I can add it for you if you give me a link to it.--Team6and7 01:21, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

If the recordings are suitably licensed for upload to wikimedia commons, they should be uploaded and linked. If they're not suitably licensed for upload (in particular the widespread "no derivatives" and "non commercial" CC licenses are unsuitable), I don't think they should be linked, this article has too many external links already and some should be removed. Wikipedia is supposed to be an encyclopedia, not a link farm. Is there some reason the article is protected? 67.117.130.181 11:10, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

The Late Quartets

I am not the first person to say that these are the non plus ultra in Classical music. Put simply, this music has never been surpassed. They are the definition of sublime.

Beethoven is composing from such a high intellectual plane that he can sing, dance or stand still, improvise, or even 'mess around' in any way he feels like with this music. He has discovered complete freedom in art.

Jonathan FeBland 12:22, 6 November 2006

Thanks for playing. Pick up your prize on the way out. - Eyeresist 08:53, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Sources

I found in the text some seriously dubious assertions. Like "interlocking thematic device or "germ-motives" to achieve inter-movement unity in long compositions", Haydn did this as early as 1774 and even more scandalous is "making it (ie. the rondo) more elastic and spacious bringing it closer to the sonata-form.", this is a well known triat of Haydn's and Mozart's music. I would like to see the sources of these assertions as the seem to me to be stamming from a laudatory XIX century biography.201.80.49.137 12:45, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

      I slightly altered the sentence to -'He was one of the first composers to systematically and consistently use interlocking thematic devices, or "germ-motives"'.

Also the source of the above is the international cyclopedia of music and musicians. It is included in the reference section if you would like to see it. Moreover your claim that 'this is a well known trait of Haydn's and Mozart's music' is not entirely true as Mozart used a variant type of sonata rondo form, in which the themes of the recapitulation are rearranged: the opening bars reappear quite late, after most of the music of the exposition has been recapitulated, but before the final sequence of themes ("codetta") that rounds off the section. It's more of the [A B' Codetta]exp [A C"]dev [B A Codetta]recap form. The rondo in fact is in the ABACAD form. This was changed to a [A B']exp [A C"]dev [A B]recap form which is more similar to the rondo form.Gaurav 16:30, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Semi-protect?

I've noticed a whole load of vandalism to the article very recently (see history); should we semi-protect it? — $PЯINGrαgђ 23:36, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Agreed! "Ludwig van Beethoven was a brilliant composer! He married Zac Efron who is only 19 years old as I write today. They had 100 children, 50 boys & 50 girls who which were very unactractive. Ludwig loved Zac oh so very much! Mozart was very jelous of Beethoven because Beethoven married Zac Efron, He was fighting Ludwig because he wanted to marry Zac. Anywho, when this happend Mozart got very mad, and got arrested for trespassing in their home,and suducing Zac. So Zac got so very angry he divorced both Beethoven and Mozart." is clearly untruthful.

That keeps getting added by the same IP. I've blocked it twice now and will block it hard next time. Let's hold off on protection for now. —Wknight94 (talk) 03:03, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Child prodigy?

The article says Beethoven was recognized early as very talented. I would like to see a reference for this, as it is uncertain to what extent this is true. MotherFunctor 22:40, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

You can find it in pretty much any biography on Beethoven. Just find a book and cite it. I dont feel like citing it myself though ^_^Ittan 02:50, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

He was talented, but he wasn't a Mozart. bibliomaniac 1 5 05:13, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

The online Grove has a decent reference we could use. It contains a description of a concert he played at the age of 11, about which there is some citeable written commentary. That is the same year he wrote his earliest known surviving work (the variations on a theme of Dressler, published in Mannheim, WOO 63). Biblio is right, however: he was not a child prodigy like Mozart (or Mendelssohn, or Erich Wolfgang Korngold for that matter). Antandrus (talk) 16:44, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Beethoven's ancestry

J.A. Roger's work, 100 AMAZING FACTS ABOUT THE NEGRO WITH COMPLETE PROOF, written in 1957.

The following is his proof:

Frederick Hertz, German anthropologist, in "Race and Civilization," 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).

In speaking of the immortal Haydn who was Beethoven's teacher, Andre de Hevesy, says: "Everybody knows the incident at Kismarton or Eisenstadt, the residence of Prince Esterhazy. In the middle of the first allegro of Haydn's symphony, His Highness asked the name of the author. He was brought forward. "'What!'exclaimed the prince, 'the music is by this blackamoor? 'Well, my fine blackamoor, henceforward, thou art in my service.'"

Carpani, who originally related this says that "Haydn's complexion gave room for the sarcasm." And that Haydn had the title of "second professor of music but his new comrades called him The Moor." (G. Carpani: Le Haydn, etc. Letter 5. Milan, 1812).

Referring to the above incident, 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, thick lipped mouth, short, thick nose, and proudly arched forehead." (Beethoven, p. 41, 1925. trans. Bozman). Thayer adds that Beethoven was an ugly little man, and no one would be more astonished than the great composer should he return and see how he has been idealized by sculptors and painters.

Beethoven's family originated in Belgium, which had been ruled for centuries by the Spaniards, who had large numbers of Negro soldiers in their army there. Theophile Gautier speaks of a Belgian type characterized by brown skin and dark hair "a second race which the soldiers of the Spanish Duke of Alva have sown between Brussels and Cambrai."

In short, the general description of Beethoven, even to his frizzly hair, fits that of many an Aframerican or West Indian mulatto. In the Southern States Beethoven would have been forced to ride in the jim-crow car. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.198.96.50 (talk) 06:25, 22 February 2007 (UTC).

What the deuce? O_o —Andrewski 11:04, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Archiving request (since granted)

This talkpage is currently pushing 50 kb long -- pushing the point where it takes forever to load and already too long for those of us (ie me) with old browsers to edit the templates at the top w/o destroying the page. ...I haven't been active editing here much, & I'm a bit uncomfortable declaring what of the above can be called resolved or moot, dates aside. Perhaps a more frequent LvB editor can take a couple of minutes & start a new archive 2 page and move out what seems unnecessary (including, by then, this comment)? Thx much —Turangalila ^talk 05:47, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

That was tricky because the threads were so scattered. I moved most threads with a final comment prior to March 2007 to Archive 2. Good suggestion. Antandrus (talk) 05:54, 17 April 2007 (UTC)