Talk:Violin Concerto (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

"The solo violin's entrance, after the original statement of the first theme, is considered to be the most tricky to pull off out of all concerti."

Excluding the Mendelssohn, Mozart #5 and countless more modern works. Changing to "one of the most". --Lambyuk 17:34, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I have yet to hear a satisfactory explanation as to why, in the development of the first movement, violinists want to slow down the tempo so much. Beethoven gave no such indication; in fact, the piece works much better inztrict time, as strict time preserves the rhythmic cell of the five repeated crotchets on the timpni, which open the movement.

I also think the violin arrangements of the piano version cadenzas deserve more attention. I think that musically and atmospherically, the piano cadenzas belong to the piece far more than any of the violin cadenzas I have heard.

I agree totally with the above remarks. The main thematic cell of the first movement is rhythmic in nature. The fact that this stated by the timpani further emphasis this point. The section which violinists love to slow down, depends very much, musically, on the steady continuous repetition of this underlying rhthymic cell. Slow it down, and this effect is destroyed. My piano teacher used to say that violinists have a concept of timing and rhythm unique to themselves. How right he was! It seems that in the passage in question, violinists are only interested in the soaring tone of their instruments, and lose all sense of the overall musical integrity of the piece. Also agree with the remarks about the cadenzas. Also the bridging cadenza in the piano version, between the second and third movements work much better musically.

As far as the question of who actually did the piano arrangement, I thought it was well established that Beethoven himself was responsible for it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.253.61.46 (talk) 13:13, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Trivia

I restored the trivia section that was removed last May. I don't see why it should be removed. User:Alexandergreenb, 18 June, 2009, 15:37 EST. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alexandergreenb (talk • contribs) 19:37, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Remarcable notes. Please, keep them coming... Carlos, —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.57.109.221 (talk) 05:40, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect?

Why is there a redirect from Beethoven's Piano Concerto No. 6? Surely anyone looking for a page on piano concerto no. 6 would not mistake it for the violin concerto. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.31.82.80 (talk) 13:20, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Beethoven arranged this work for piano and orchestra with a different cadenza which got published as Op. 61a. For a bit there was a separate stub for that work to which No. 6 redirected. That stub was merged into this article and the redirect went along with it. I don't think this is a big deal.DavidRF (talk) 13:57, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Stern's Cadenza

Does anyone if the cadenza used by Isaac Stern was written by someone else or was it his own creation? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.164.76.2 (talk) 05:30, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Beethoven's Only Violin Concerto?

I have the idea that this was Beethoven's only violin concerto. Is that so? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 154.5.185.213 (talk) 20:03, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Stowell book(s)

The book currently cited in the article is from 1998. Somehow I got into a Google Books 1994 book in which there was a chapter starting on p. 198 by Robert Philip, "Traditional Habits of Performance in Early Twentieth Century Recordings of Beethoven." I did not find in that chapter anything I wanted to cite. To add to my confusion, it now turns out that the 1998 book is a Google Book. In that, I did not find "Robert Philip" or "early twentieth century". So for now, I'm leaving the Stowell reference as it had been, with him as sole author. Marlindale (talk) 17:14, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ah-ha! Yes, sound like different books. But thank you for your attention to detail. :) The Land (talk) 18:06, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Natural or French horn?

Looking at the articles french horn and natural horn, it seems that in 1806 the natural horn was more likely to have been used, so I plan to revise accordingly. If someone finds more definite information it would be appreciated. Marlindale (talk) 03:08, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

From the French horn article it seems that valves, as in that instrument, were not invented until 1815 or after. Marlindale (talk) 03:17, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Violin Concerto (Beethoven). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://archive.is/20151124191004/http://www.warnerclassics.com/shop/381582,0825646433636/alexandre-da-costa-violin-concerto-symphony-no-7 to http://www.warnerclassics.com/shop/381582,0825646433636/alexandre-da-costa-violin-concerto-symphony-no-7

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:44, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]