Talk:Symphony No. 9 (Beethoven)/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

English Translation

Which english translation is used here? There's likely many translations out there, Wikipedia should cite which translation is used.DavidRF (talk) 19:42, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

I believe that's a collaborative translation. Very Wiki. —  MusicMaker5376 20:00, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

I only ask for it because I just reverted a change. Someone had changed the translation of Freude, schöner Götterfunken from "Joy, beautiful spark of the gods" to "Joy, thou source of light immortal". The former looks like a more literal translation while the latter sounds more poetic in English -- though certainly its meaning has been interpreted in the latter statement. Neither one is "right"... (Freude, schöner Götterfunken is "right") so these types of tweaks and edits could continue indefinitely. I've seen other translations. "bright spark of divinity", "thou beauteous godly lightning", "fair spark of the gods", etc, etc. And that's just one phrase. In fact, there another transcription of the text at the Ode to Joy article. I was just curious if there was a public domain, cite-able translation that we should use here. DavidRF (talk) 02:57, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

There is a long discussion above about the translation, which indeed seems to be collaborative, and to have resulted in a not very good (ie ungrammatical and inconsistent) text. The German text is also odd in that it includes some repeats but not all of them. There is a reference to German wikisource for a complete German text with all repeats, so I propose:

1. to eliminate repeats in the German text and keep the ref to German wikisource for full repeats;

2. use the text translation in the BBC Proms 2013 concert programme with reference, as this is clearer, grammatical and consistent, and provides a non controversial external source in line with wikipedia protocols; and

3. English text would similarly not include repeats.

If no objections I will do this in the next few days. Keithuk (talk) 00:47, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

That seems to be a sensible suggestion. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 08:39, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

All done.Keithuk (talk) 10:59, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Gunslinger Girl

it was at the end of the series, notable? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.234.144.226 (talk) 20:03, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

It was also used as the melody for a Starz commercial in the 90s which I'd argue is about as notable as its inclusion in an obscure anime series (What I'm saying is "no"). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.49.210.238 (talk) 04:26, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Recordings on page (joke or vandalism??)

I'm inclined to say that it would be better to have no recordings directly available on the page than to have poorly played arrangements for recorder ensemble. These are not recordings of Beethoven's Ninth Symphony and that is not readily apparent. It is honestly embarrassing... they must have been put on the page as some sort of vandalism or joke. I would remove them myself but I have been absent from Wikipedia for years and I think it would be best left to another editor. --Bottesini (talk) 05:11, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

It would be a good idea to have recordings of the piece on the page despite the fact that the recorder ones were a bit ridiculous. It's not like PD ogg recordings are hard to find (as some people in this talk page have suggested). For example, there's one right here, https://archive.org/details/beethoven9. --123.3.242.195 (talk) 06:48, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

"greatest piece of music"

Although i also view Beethovens 9th to be probably the greatest piece of music ever written, i think its self-evident why one would change it from "best piece of music" to "best piece of western music". Although western music, according to Max Weber, is indeed superior in complexity through the "polyphonic revolution" to most other styles of music, it's clearly a eurocentric and "colonialist" view to put one cultural style of art principally over the others.

It's clearly obvious to see if one imagines how it would look if somebody described a polyphonic African folk song as the "greatest piece of music" on wikipedia.

That somebody has called it "greatest piece of music ever written" here in the first place is obviously a intrusion of fandom and rapture into the encyclopedic style.

The source itself used for this "exclamation" states also that its a superior work of the western tradition:

Beethoven: Symphony No. 9 (Cambridge Music Handbooks), Nicholas Cook, Cambridge University Press (24 June 1993), product description (blurb). ISBN 9780521399241. "Beethoven's Ninth Symphony is acknowledged as one of the supreme masterpieces of the Western tradition. More than any other musical work it has become an international symbol of unity and affirmation."

Saflid (talk) 18:46, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

World Heritage claim is wrong.

The lede claims that #9 was " added to the United Nations World Heritage List". This is false. The citation link doesn't work so I can't verify what the editor meant, but I assume (and am going to change it to reflect) that what was meant was the UNESCO "Memory of the World" heritage list. I have verified that #9 is on that list.Abitslow (talk) 22:20, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Symphony No. 9 (Beethoven). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120303091407/https://www.breitkopf.com/downloads/kataloge/pdf_en/33_Beeth_Symph_en.pdf to https://www.breitkopf.com/downloads/kataloge/pdf_en/33_Beeth_Symph_en.pdf
• Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.exp-math.uni-essen.de/~immink/pdf/beethoven.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 14:27, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

I was hoping to find here some information on the role of the key of B Flat in the finale in particular, but also throughout - it's the key of the slow movement for example. It is mentioned once in the main article, but if it is mentioned at all in the talk section I've missed it. In the opening of the finale Beethoven presents a deliberate clash of two keys, B flat and D, so it was obviously of some significance to him. Frankly I don't much care about how long Bernstein took to perform the whole work, unless his performance can tell me about the role of B flat in the structure. Or anyone else.86.165.153.128 (talk) 13:08, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

Influence of Philipp Matthäus Hahn to Schiller and Beethoven's friends Thun und Hohenstein

For the very erudite the knowledge of biography, historical context and influences is useful to the understanding of Beethoven’s music. The pastor and astronome Philipp Matthäus Hahn has influenced Schiller, esp. his Ode to Joy, and the family of the Counts von Thun und Hohenstein in Wien, important friends of Mozart and Beethoven. Three of my universities were the University of Bonn, the University of Cologne and the Cologne University of Music. This explicate my interest of Beethoven. I came in connection with Professor Martin Staehelin, the former director of the Beethoven Archive and Beethoven House in Bonn.91.46.19.153 (talk) 17:41, 11 September 2016 (UTC)Breymayer (talk) 17:44, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Influence

There is no doubt that Bruckner learnt from the scale and some of the features of Beethoven's Ninth, (so did Wagner - disastrously in his completed early symphony, and creatively in his Eine Faust-Ouverture) but I can't see that the form of the Beethoven Ninth slow movement and that of Bruckner's Seventh have anything at all in common. Beethoven's form derives from Haydn- it's a set of variations on two themes, not an alternation of sections, and Beethoven's coda here has no echo at all in the Bruckner Seventh. Oddly Bruckner can be sometimes be found building his first movement coda on a ground bass exactly as Beethoven does in his Ninth, and the opening of Bruckner's Ninth almost replicates Beethoven's use of his bassoon before the opening unison climax. Even so, Bruckner owed just as much to Haydn as he did to BeethovenDelahays (talk) 14:09, 19 December 2016 (UTC).

10,000 Singing Ode to Joy Annually in Japan

Please overlook any weakness in these comments stemming from the fact that I am not qualified to contribute directly to an article as important and technical as this one. My goal is to provide you a report a development branching from Opus 125 by Beethoven, not mentioned in this articleThe annual performance of this symphony by 10,000 singers in Osaka Japan warrants prominent and lengthy mention.

If you never have seen and heard a sample of what I am talking about, I urge you to take two minutes now to view the finale. If you do not now have [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xBlQZyTF_LY 20 minutes observe a more complete recording, then you need to find 20 minutes to get a glimpse at the impact of these performances.

It does not take musicologist or any kind of degree to tell you, these performances are a pinnacle of human endeavor, on par with any achievement in any field, because of the history that makes these performances what they are, and the effect these performances have on so many people. The human race has war and technology on the one hand, and we have something else in the other. This is the best of that something else. There is no finer example anywhere. Even the 1991 performance in Berlin, celebrating the sudden fall of the Iron Curtain, pales in comparison to this.

Reflecting on this excellent article, I would have to say, this article is out of balance. The musicology is all great and relevant, but the article on this particular music should have at least as much, possibly 100 times as much to say, about the impact of this music. It's probably outside your field to write much about that. Let's get some help on the job.

Thank you.Danallenhtn (talk) 01:34, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Can you provide a reliable source which has discussed this? We need not just evidence of its existence, but of its significance. Or, to put it another way, the question isn't whether the tree fell in the woods, but whether anyone heard it. Cheers! DonIago (talk) 16:44, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Thank you.DonIago (talk)

Thank you for considering my comments. Your point well taken. I cannot find a reliable source for the hytothesis I am talking about. There is no doubt this tree's fall was heard, but not much has been written about it in English. There might be more written in Japanese. I understand that Wikipedia is not the place for original research, so I see the problem this presents for adding to the article on Beethoven's 9th. Still, if I may satisfy a curiosity, I would ask you, if you have watched video of any of these performances in Osaka, can you hear the fall of this tree? I am not challenging the problem of needing reliable sources for a wikipedia article, I am just wondering if others observe what I do. Maybe what I am writing about is only in my mind. Danallenhtn (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 16:10, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

DonIago, This video is evidence of the impact. Have you looked at it? Danallenhtn (talk) 20:43, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

I watched the beginning of it. The video is of the performance, which in no way demonstrates that the performance is significant, only that it occurred. Every day hundreds(?) of plays are performed, often multiple times in a single day, worldwide. Yet for Wikipedia purposes none of those performances is appropriate for inclusion on its own terms unless a reliable source calls attention to it. Given your prior comment, I kind of thought you understood the conundrum.

If the performance is significant, particularly in Japan (as seems likely), then I would think that finding a reliable source that discusses it wouldn't be a difficult undertaking. DonIago (talk) 00:51, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

12 years since last public performance?

The 8th symphony Wikipedia page says the premier was led by Beethoven in 1814. How can it be then that "This was the composer's first onstage appearance in 12 years" if it was premiered in 1824 ? Either this page or the other must be wrong about this detail. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.222.14.59 (talk) 20:36, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Does the second movement end in D major or D minor?

You guys who have heard the symphony would know that the second movement (Molto vivace - Presto) ends with a brief repeat of the Presto trio and a coda that just has a number of 'A' and 'D' notes as the closing cadence. Would you say it has resolved itself in D major or returned to D minor? I have looked at a score of the piece, and at the end of the movement, in the last few bars, from the repeat of the trio until the end, it does not change - the trio is in D major, which has two sharps in its key signature, and when its main theme is repeated briefly and when the coda comes up, the key signature does not change to one flat (D minor) in the score, so I assume that it ends in D major. You might have a different say, but let me know if so. --MoonMan2 (talk) 04:02, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

I hear the final three measures as being in D minor. First, each time we have heard those measures before they have been in D minor, so we associate them with that key. Second, the one-measure pause is sufficient to achieve a transition from D major to D minor without modulation. Third, the sudden transition is explicable as a compositional device: Beethoven is luring the listener into thinking that the D-major section has returned, which would be highly unconventional, before ending it abruptly in the home key. Fourth, D minor is the home key, and a conventional scherzo movement should end in the home key. Fifth, D minor is the dominant minor of B-flat, which is the key of the following movement. D major, on the other hand, is far remote from B-flat. It therefore makes more cyclical sense to conceive of the ending as being in D minor. Sixth, Beethoven wouldn't have seen any need to change the key signature for only three bars.

When I have returned to a better internet connection I will look for some academic comments on the ending, which carry infinitely more weight than my own opinion. Syek88 (talk) 09:33, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

If it closes with an open fifth, why not say that? It's interesting. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:15, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Both of you have good points. I am attending a "school of music", and although I already know a good number of things about music, there are still some things I ignore such as compositional devices. Gerda, your view about it ending in a open fifth is actually interesting - it is something I have never considered before, so maybe I should just think that. And Syek88, thanks for stating your opinion as well as you can. It's good that I can see someone else's opinion on the end. However, there are one or two things I would still like to say (I'm not angry at you for trying to prove me wrong, and I'm certainly not trying to prove you wrong): not ending a scherzo in its home key isn't always unconventional. In Beethoven's 5th (which is in C minor, as you may already know), after a repeat of the scherzo, it goes into C major and creates a bridge passage into the final movement, which is in C major. And in Dvorak's 8th, the scherzo is in G minor, and the trio is in G major. After the second repeat of the scherzo, there is a coda in G major (which is understandable, since he did write the symphony in G major, not G minor). And in Boccherini's Guitar Quintet No. 5, which is in D major, the the Scherzo begins in D minor, and is in that key for some parts of it (even though most of it is in D major). I will reiterate, I'm not saying that you are wrong, I'm just telling you that "unconventional" is a kind of subjective term when it comes to things like this. MoonMan2 (talk) 17:09, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Also, D minor is the MEDIANT minor of B-flat, not the dominant minor. The dominant minor of B-flat would be F minor, since F major is B-flat's dominant key. (Note names on scale: Tonic - Supertonic - Mediant - Subdominant - Dominant - Submediant - Leading note - Tonic / B-flat major scale: B-flat (tonic) - C (supertonic) - D (mediant) - E-flat (subdominant) - F (dominant) - G (submediant) - A (leading note) - B-flat again.) Just a small correction. --MoonMan2 (talk 01:14, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

For a Classical-era composer, D minor and D major are more like different colours of the same key, with the former just being darker, more chromatic, and more unstable. In short, the minor mode is a dissonance, and it either needs to be resolved harmonically into the major, or there must be some compensation from other musical parameters. In any case, I hear the ending as simply in D, neither major nor minor. It should be noted that mediant relationships are by no means unheard of in early Beethoven already, and from the sonatas op. 31 onward he is almost as likely to use a mediant or submediant as he is to use the true dominant, and resolve it as if it really was the dominant. In this he was of course following Haydn's example (see the quartets op. 71, 74, 76, and 77; the most remote relationship is probably op. 74 no. 3, which is in G minor but jumps straight into the beautiful, hymn-like E major slow movement). So a D major ending would not be ruled out by cyclical considerations: otherwise we would have a real problem explaining the key scheme of my favourite quartet op. 130 (B-flat major, B-flat minor, D-flat major, G major(!), E-flat major, B-flat major). Cyclic considerations only require the shift to have meaning, not that it cannot be too remote. Double sharp (talk) 06:14, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

Second movement Scherzo sonata form

It is stated that the Scherzo of the second movement is in complete sonata form. Isn't this stretching the concept a bit too far? When trying to fit the exposition–development–recapitulation scheme onto the piece, then the recapitulation starts with the ritmo di tre battute section. As the C major side theme is repeated in the second part in (D major), what's left for the development at most would be measures 117-143 and 360-395. Disregarding the fact that there is only one main development in standard sonata form, theses sections are quite short and are overall more of a transitional character with little thematic work. Wouldn't it be more fitting to simply call it Binary form? Also note that the second part starts in G major, which is expected for a second part of the binary form but not for a sonata form recapitulation. --Cebus (talk) 13:39, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Recapitulation does not mean that the main theme comes back. It means that harmonic resolution is achieved, with everything exposed outside the tonic being resolved in the tonic or a substitute like the subdominant. With its fragmentation of the main theme and lack of tonal stability the ritmo di tre battute section is very clearly more development. Meanwhile bars 360 to 395 are very clearly part of the recapitulation, given their harmonic stability. Double sharp (talk) 06:20, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Symphony No. 9 (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://web.archive.org/web/20071017101624/http://baerenreiter.com/html/lvb/index.html to https://www.baerenreiter.com/html/lvb/index.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.exp-math.uni-essen.de/~immink/pdf/beethoven.htm

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 06:08, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

"One of the most performed symphonies in the world"

The article currently states "In the 2010s, it stands as one of the most performed symphonies in the world", without any source given. But according to a statistic from bachtrack.com for 2016 ("Top 10 works" at the bottom of the page), it didn't make the top 6 of symphonies and not even the top 4 of Beethoven's symphonies performed in 2016. But maybe I am misinterpreting the phrase "most performed"? What do others read into "most performed"? Top 10? Top 20? I read something like top 3 to top 5, in which case the claim is (currently) false, according to that specific source. --Jhertel (talk) 11:25, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

@Michael Bednarek: 1) You reversed my edit where I added "citation missing" and you inserted a reference at the same time; I would like if another time you would just replace the "citation missing" text, which was correct, with the reference, without reverting anything. Reverting has a negative connotation, like saying that the edit was wrong, which it really wasn't. In effect you just further improved on my positive and correct edit; no need to use revert to simply make further improvements on an article. It doesn't matter that the final result was the same; what matters is the message that is being sent to the person making a positive and constructive change.

2) About the reference you inserted: It is to an unsourced remark in a newspaper article. I believe that actual statistics as the one mentioned above (which you probably didn't see until now) should override such an unsourced remark (the journalist does not state a source). The journalist might even have the claim from the unsourced Wikipedia statement, in which case it would be cyclic, or from hear-saying, in both cases sustaining a myth. If the current reference is to stay, the text in the article should rather say "Some believe the symphony is one of the most performed symphonies in the world", as that is really all that can be deducted from the specific reference. But I suggest removing the statement altogether, due to the statistics, or making it more precise (stating what "top X" of symphony performances it belongs to and finding a statistical source for that). --Jhertel (talk) 14:02, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

"One of the most performed symphonies in the world" is a vague statement. Consequently, sources can be found to support it. Statistics can only tabulate data that has been entered. The BachTrack statistics are based on performances listed there. I checked Alondra de la Parra's concerts this month (Cologne, Dortmund, Brisbane); none are listed there. They have no listings for the Queensland Symphony Orchestra at all; searching for them returns 2 events with the Australian Chamber Orchestra instead. So their results are flawed. The Boston Symphony Orchestra published what they counted from the 89 largest symphony orchestras in the US (how did they determine "largest"?). Their results show the Ninth as the second-most performed symphony, after Eroica. Given these vagaries, I think such a vague statement will always find supporting sources, both in statistics (it's just a matter of what is counted), and in opinion/judgement/assessment by reputable sources. Is it worth having it in the lead? It's been in the article since late 2012, and hasn't raised any concerns so far. I think many Wikipedia articles, especially in classical music, are being drained of expressive statements which might help those not overly familiar with the subject in forming a view about a work. Cheers, Michael Bednarek (talk) 15:36, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

First of all, I don't quite understand your last statement: "I think many Wikipedia articles, especially in classical music, are being drained of expressive statements which might help those not overly familiar with the subject in forming a view about a work." I'm not sure I get your point. Do you want unsupported statements that might be simple myths to stay, so that people can "form a view" about a work? In that case: 1) If their views on a subject should build on myths, that view doesn't seem to have much value. 2) In my opinion, views should be formed from actual facts and not just what others happen to believe is true. If they want to form an opinion, they should listen to the music and/or read actual facts about it.

Secondly, while I am well aware that the source I found is flawed, like any source is to varying degrees, the sources you found are at least as flawed. One of them only listed the US, which is very far from "the world" (it accounts for only 4 % of the world population and as such has close to no importance at all on a world scale). So, from what you said, the conclusion is that there really isn't any statistics we are aware of that say anything about how often played symphonies are in the world. Therefore, we cannot really say anything about it. And therefore, being Wikipedia, we shouldn't.

Thirdly, that the statement hasn't been challenged could be because nobody bothered to challenge it and just accepted it. Or that they simply didn't care. Or took at at face value. But that is not enough reason for Wikipedia to claim it is true. Personally, I believe it could simply be a myth that nobody ever bothered to actually look into. And myths don't belong on Wikipedia, unless we present them as such and that they are important for some reason. In this case: "Some people believe that it is one of the most performed symphonies in the world, but there is no statistics that can confirm that." But I'm not sure that the importance of this apparent myth really warrants a mention at all.

Should anything like the given statement be mentioned, it should be in the form of a verifiable fact, maybe limited to a specific country for which factual and complete information is actually available, or by stating a claim that is closer to a verifiable fact, such as "Ken Glickman and the Great Falls Symphony Association believe it to be one of the most performed symphonies in the world". --Jhertel (talk) 00:02, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

Bottom line: do you really think that "one of the most performed symphonies in the world" is not true? (And don't lawyer me with verifiability, not truth.) -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 15:03, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

(watching:) actually, I doubt that it's true, because you need soloists and a choir, and all sopranos have to be able to sing notes that Beethoven composed as bright, but couldn't hear himself where the border to shrill is ;) - I bet looking at sheer numbers, his Fifth is performed more often. Ninth is the chosen piece for high celebrations, - could we word something like that? Fall of the Wall. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:39, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

@Gerda Arendt: Thank you for your positive attempt at finding a solution. :-) I still believe that if we do state something that expresses a quantitative measurement (such as "one of the most played"), actual statistics should be behind such a statement. I wouldn't disagree that much, though, about a statement such as "The Ninth Symphony is often used for high celebrations" or something like that, although I would still feel some sources should back it up, and as a matter of principle I would still not like it. My suggestion is still to remove quantitative claims where statistics cannot be found, or limit them to "Some believe that …", with appropriate references to examples of those beliefs. --Jhertel (talk) 15:48, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

@Michael Bednarek: What I personally think is irrelevant and has nothing to do with what the article should state. That's the point. Using personal belief is how myths are created and sustained. But Wikipedia is about facts, not beliefs – unless we state them as beliefs. And facts and beliefs can very easily differ a lot; a simple example is how 1/4 of Americans believe the Sun revolves around the Earth. And remember, we are talking about the world here; how many really travel all over the world all of the time, knowing about all concerts played in China, India, the entire continent of Africa, etc., and last and least Europe and America (only 10% and 4% of the world population live there, respectively)? I am directly trying to challenge what to me looks like a myth with no statistics backing it up.

The other thing is, what does "one of the most performed symphonies in the world" actually mean? We should be more clear in our language, otherwise people will put many different interpretations into it. I already discussed that above.

And lastly, if you refer to something I did that you did not like, then be more precise. What exactly did I say that you disagree with or find to be "lawyering"? I will not spend time trying to figure out what you meant. Be precise. --Jhertel (talk) 15:48, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Symphony No. 9 (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://web.archive.org/web/20120401012840/http://www.breitkopf.com/feature/download/3738/3667 to http://www.breitkopf.com/feature/download/3738/3667
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071023113830/http://www.britac.ac.uk/pubs/review/02-99b/24-delmar.html to http://www.britac.ac.uk/pubs/review/02-99b/24-delmar.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070628061833/http://bf.press.uiuc.edu/10.1/delmar.html to http://bf.press.uiuc.edu/10.1/delmar.html

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 18:43, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Symphony No. 9 (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://web.archive.org/web/20110810173653/http://216.129.110.22/files/imglnks/usimg/4/41/IMSLP21030-PMLP48692-Rimsky_Osnovy_Ch1.PDF to http://216.129.110.22/files/imglnks/usimg/4/41/IMSLP21030-PMLP48692-Rimsky_Osnovy_Ch1.PDF
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090202030718/http://marantzphilips.nl/The_cd_laser/ to http://www.marantzphilips.nl/The_cd_laser
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140812165755/http://conquest.imslp.info/files/imglnks/usimg/8/8b/IMSLP54751-PMLP46172-Bartok-Op12.Violin1.pdf to http://conquest.imslp.info/files/imglnks/usimg/8/8b/IMSLP54751-PMLP46172-Bartok-Op12.Violin1.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060525171802/http://edboyden.org/beet9.html to http://edboyden.org/beet9.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070923024056/http://wsu.edu/~brians/hum_303/beethoven.html to http://wsu.edu/~brians/hum_303/beethoven.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070515013052/http://www.kennedy-center.org/calendar/index.cfm?fuseaction=composition&composition_id=2761 to http://www.kennedy-center.org/calendar/index.cfm?fuseaction=composition&composition_id=2761

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 04:22, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Horn and trumpet alterations subsection removed

I've removed the "Horn and trumpet alterations" subsection from "Performance challenges". It was added on 2 January 2008 by the sadly short-lived editor Nymaestro. I don't think it's in any way appropriate for this article.

It's true that the big jumps for brass are sometimes a bit tricky in classical music written before we had valves. (Yeah, I'm not sure I can parse that sentence but, never mind, I know what I mean.) Sure, a ninth is more difficult than a second and a twelfth is harder than a fifth, choosing two entirely random examples. That's why we have insrumental lessons. But it's just not a big deal and really really really not worth mentioning here: players just sort it out. I could write more on this: I probably should not.

More to the point, it is the same issue (or non-issue) everywhere that it occurs, that is, in very many second horn and trumpet parts of the period. Why just talk about it here? What is so special about the brass leaps in Beethoven 9? (Answer: nuffink.) It's as if we had a section saying sometimes there are lots of semiquavers in the violin viola parts and this can be challenging in fast music, requiring the use of highly skilled players trained in advanced survival techniques by the SAS or whatever - it's all a bit yes, but, so what? We could add a note that in effect says gosh, some instruments have some things that are hard to play and these come up in some music to every article about music. If this stuff needs discussing at all then it is not on pages about pieces, but on pages about instruments and their techniques (or lack thereof.)

Finally, the sourcing is awful - the Rimsky treatise supports this section like strawberry yoghurt supports the Forth Bridge. Please feel free to check up on it and explain how that's a source for this; it just isn't. It's an attempt to cherrypick from a place – an orchard perhaps? – which is sadly short on cherries.

I don't want to be disrespectful to an editor who I am sure was acting in good faith but I feel that this section was not up to scratch and should not be here; it was making the article faintly ridiculous. It is reproduced below for those who would like to enjoy it.

COI declaration: I am a trumpet player. Well, I own some trumpets. It's nearly the same thing.

Best wishes to all, DBaK (talk) 09:28, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

Horn and trumpet alterations

Beethoven's writing for horns and trumpets throughout the symphony (mostly the 2nd horn and 2nd trumpet) is sometimes altered by performers to avoid large leaps (those of a 12th or more), as these are very difficult to perform on brass instruments and may be consistently and flawlessly executed only by highly proficient musicians.

Staccato marks in 2nd movement

The theme quoted for the 2nd movement has staccato marks over bars 2,3,4 but not 5-8. This agrees with the Breitkopf (1863) edition of the score, and with a couple of later editions available on IMSLP: Litolff (c.1880) and CCARH (2008). [The Eulenberg (1938) edition is puzzling; it marks staccato only in bars 2, 3 of the theme at its first appearance, but in bars 2-4 elsewhere.] But Beethoven's autograph has staccato marks in bars 2-6 of the theme, and the 1st edition (Schott 1826) has them in bars 2-7. Does anyone know what's correct here? I don't have access to the recent Barenreiter edition; maybe this is discussed in the critical commentary to that edition?JBritnell (talk) 14:36, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

References

Notable performances

I appreciate that the list of great conductors who have performed this work would be unmanageably long so some criterion needs to be set to determine who is mentioned and who is not.

But what criterion has been adopted to give Leonard Bernstein such predominance whilst not mentioning Toscanini, Klemperer, Walter, Karajan, Bohm, Kleiber, Harnoncourt, Cluytens etc? Bernstein's performances although good are not particularly "notable" - the exception perhaps being the performance after the fall of the Berlin wall which does have some historical notability.

I would suggest removing most of the Bernstein references, and the Solti (for which there seems no justification at all) and listing performances that were truly "notable" e.g. first recording, first performance or recording as part of a complete cycle, first recording or performance by a non western orchestra, first digital recording, first videoed performance, best selling recording etc. Prustage (talk) 22:35, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

Yes, I think the performances you note can be deleted. There needs to be some stated reason that made the performance notable (not just that it was made by a very well-known conductor). Squandermania (talk) 12:25, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

"removing ... Solti" – apparently one of Solti's won a Grammy, which is a justification. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 13:12, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

First substantial example of a major composer using the human voice on a par with instruments in a symphony.

Does not Beethoven's Fantasia for Piano, Chorus and Orchestra qualify here instead? Rsduhamel 23:45, 11 October 2004 (UTC)

Nope, not a symphony. Opus33 00:08, 12 October 2004 (UTC)

• Okay, I'll stand corrected. I was reading it as "instruments as used in a symphony" Rsduhamel 18:48, 13 October 2004 (UTC)

The work is the longest of all classical symphonies

Is this classical as in classical music or as in classical era (and is not the 9th more romantic than classical)? If classical means classical music then Mahler's 3rd symphony, at 95 minutes, would qualify as the longest. Rsduhamel 23:45, 11 October 2004 (UTC)

If we're talking classical = the totality of "serious" art music, then Havergal Brian's 1st symphony qualifies as both longest and largest! The 9th certainly is the largest if we confine the discussion to the classical era, though I personally view it as a transitional work, classical in form but romantic in broad outlook. Phi1ip 06:55, 1 March 2005 (UTC)

Fixed, for me at least, by changing "classical" to Classical. If, however, everybody thinks this is a Romantic work, then we need a more serious repair.

Debates among Wikipedia editors over what is "classical" vs. what is "Romantic" have proven remarkably unedifying, and I don't want to start one here! Maybe the whole sentence should just go...

(However, my own opinion, for what it's worth, is that 9th is utterly Classical--Beethoven's belated reply to The Creation. It's universes apart from Chopin and Wagner.)

Cheers, Opus33 00:08, 12 October 2004 (UTC)

• Wouldn't want to start an arguement over what is classical or romantic, I was just going by some of the arguements I've heard. Rsduhamel 18:59, 13 October 2004 (UTC)

(I later hopefully resolved this issue by revising to "one of the longest") Opus33 16:14, 25 October 2004 (UTC)

The link to the OGG file does not work. Bring it to the page itself. Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.41.143.126 (talk) 20:03, 16 February 2005 (UTC)

Vienna Circle in Beethoven's Times?

Discussing the premier of the piece, we find:

"Beethoven was eager to get his work played in Vienna as fast as possible when he finished writing. He was equivocal, however, thinking also that the musical taste in Vienna was stricken by Italian composers such as Rossini. When his friends and financiers heard this they urged him to premiere the symphony in Vienna. (In Vienna, there was an learning group called the Vienna circle.)"

The line about the Vienna Circle troubles me. First, it seems irrelevant to the premier. And second, the Vienna Circle, the philosophical study group that famously rejected metaphysics, didn't exist in Beethoven's times -- that came in the early 20th century. What Vienna Circle is being referred to here? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.12.172.219 (talk) 19:44, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Manuscript of Beethoven's Ninth Symphony in UNESCO's Memory of the World Register

http://portal.unesco.org/ci/en/ev.php-URL_ID=7073&URL_DO=DO_TOPIC&URL_SECTION=201.html Perhaps this decision by the UNESCO regarding the Ninth Symphony is something important to add on this page. - — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.110.180.119 (talk) 07:42, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Additions to section "Performing the symphony"

Have any of you thought about updating this section? It leaves out the scholarship undertaken by Jonathan del Mar on the presumed misinterpretation of Beethoven's metronome markings. Apparently, Beethoven's nephew Karl entered the metronome value of the Trio in the Scherzo and the Turkish march section in the finale in slower note values. This correction can be observed on the Mackerras, Zinman, JEG and Abbado renditions of the work. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yip1982 (talk • contribs) 11:51, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Key of 4th Movement

The key of the 4th movement is not mentioned. Please put it in! Otherwise really excellent article! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.50.104.76 (talk) 00:42, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

ENGVAR?

Is this article meant to be in BrE or AmE? I can't see a tag and presumably WP:ENGVAR applies, or should. I just rv'd someone changing 4x "measure" to bar but maybe they were right – it is currently 5:4 bar:measure in the article. I don't personally mind what happens as long as it is sensible and stable, but is it clear which way we should jump? Cheers DBaK (talk) 11:07, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

I too think they may have been right by changing those 4 measures to bars – it was consistent after that. Am/Br? Unlike crotchets/quarter notes, I don't think there's a any bafflement when either side of the pond encounters either of these terms. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 12:43, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

I agree that there is no bafflement. I just wondered if I had failed to see other signs that the article was already on one or the other side of the Am/Br divide. If they don't exist, or if it's clearly in AmE already, then I'd be quite happy to see the bars all become measures. Cheers DBaK (talk) 16:12, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

Which is pretty confusing, what I writed. Here is me trying to orient[ate] myself correctly with regard to the Atlantic Ocean, and try again:

I agree that there is no bafflement. I just wondered if I had failed to see other signs that the article was already on one or the other side of the Am/Br divide. If they don't exist, or if it's clearly in BrE already, then I'd be quite happy to see the measures all become bars. Cheers DBaK (talk) 18:19, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

I've pushed it back Eastwards as discussed and made a couple of small changes related thereto. Do please discuss further here if we need to do more. Or indeed less. DBaK (talk) 18:36, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

Primarily Premiered

At the start of History/Premiere we have this: Although his major works had primarily been premiered in Vienna, and I am not sure if I am having a stroke or senior moment or something but I experienced a sudden moment of near-incomprehension. What does it actually mean? Surely a premiere only can be primary, and subsequent performances (that "difficult second premiere!?") are more, ah, secondary in nature. Or tertiary. Or anything else. Do we mean that most of the premieres were in Vienna? Or perhaps nearly all or something? Anything would be better than what we currently have, which as well as being mega-unclear actually reads horribly, like a tongue-twister: "primarily been premiered, primarily been premiered, Peter Piper picked a peck of primarily premiered" etc etc. Can we please fix this? Thanks DBaK (talk) 00:05, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

I think "most" is the simplest answer, "almost all" the most complicated. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 02:37, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

Thanks: fixed and detagged. DBaK (talk) 05:42, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

Text Translation

15 years ago, as shown in the talk archives, there was a brief discussion between two persons about whether the translation of the lyrics of the piece should be literal or poetic. Ultimately one person decided it should be poetic to some degree. I have changed on line because it was not correct by any German translation (changed “Durch des Himmels prächt’gen Plan” to “Through the heaven’s glorious plane” where it had incorrectly read “Through the glorious universe”). My change was appropriately based on the translation by the Schiller Institute, Schiller being the author of the lyrics and the Institute being recognized as expert on the subject of Schiller. I propose the translation be further based on the Institute’s translation. https://archive.schillerinstitute.com/transl/schiller_poem/ode_to_joy.pdf — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:88:8100:38B0:804E:431E:B85E:5067 (talk) 00:41, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

Where did you see a translation of "des Himmels prächt’gen Plan" as "the heaven’s glorious plane" outside the LaRouche movement's dubious Schiller Institute? I agree that "universe" is sub-optimal, and "plan" is possible, but "plane" needs a substantial explanation why it would be a suitable translation of Schiller's "Plan". -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 05:15, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

"The Choral"

User:Pearsejward insists that this symphony is known as "The Choral". I checked, and most search results for that term referred to LvB's Choral Fantasy, so I reverted. Pearsejward then reverted me (disregarding WP:BRD) with the edit summary, "Op 125 is commonly known as the Choral or Choral Symphony. It's even in the simple talk version of the Wikipedia article (https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Symphony_No._9_%22Choral%22_(Beethoven)). A search online of 'Beethoven Choral' will pull up Beethoven's 9th". That edit summary fails to address the issue. First, we shouldn't take advice on naming conventions from other Wikipedias, let alone simple:. Second, the edit said, "also known as The Choral", which not even simple:Symphony No. 9 "Choral" (Beethoven) asserts. (Also: displaying the term in bold indicates that there is a REDIRECT from that term to this article, which there isn't.) Thirdly, there's no doubt that a search for "Beethoven Choral" will give results for the Ninth, but not in the first few places. Anyway, Google search results are not a reliable source. I suggest to remove the whole phrase ", also known as …" because "The Choral" is plain wrong, and "Beethoven's 9th" is trivial and banal – such a term can be applied to any symphony by any composer, e.g. "Segerstam's 337th". -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 02:42, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

I agree, and hope I fixed it. This is the first time I read the lead - sorry about that - and I believe it's not good. I'd mention Ode to Joy and the soloists and chorus much sooner, before all these superlatives. I miss the character of the music, and I guess the derived works, up to the Europe Hymn, deserve a sentence also. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:33, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Hi all. I found some examples of where it refers to the 9th being known as the "Choral" Symphony.

• https://www.britannica.com/topic/Symphony-No-9-in-D-Minor (Encyclopedia Brittanica)
• https://www.theguardian.com/music/tomserviceblog/2014/sep/09/symphony-guide-beethoven-ninth-choral-tom-service (The Guradian. In the title of the piece. Great article by the way.)
• https://www.wdl.org/en/item/15063/ (World digital library)
• https://www.allmusic.com/composition/symphony-no-9-in-d-minor-choral-op-125-mc0002366840 (AllMusic. In the title of the article)
• https://www.udiscovermusic.com/classical-features/beethoven-choral-symphony-no-9/ (uDiscover Music)
• https://www.google.com/search?q=site:imslp.org+choral+beethoven (IMSLP. If you search IMSLP for "Choral" and "Beethoven" you get the 9th. What's funny though is if you switch the search terms you get the Choral Fantasy.
• https://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5487727&t=1588159824700 (NPR. In the side bar)
• https://www.discogs.com/search/?q=beethoven+choral&type=all (DiscOgs. Albums released containing the words Beethoven and Choral)

Anyway keep up the good work.

-- pearsejward (talk) 12:53, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

pearsejward, thank you for explaining, but in none of the first links (... no time nor patience for more ...) could I see someone say The Choral instead of saying that it's the Ninth Symphony with the attribute ('Choral') added. Do you see the difference? Can you live with the present solution? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:27, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Hi Gerda, that's no problem. Yes I can live with it. Again thanks for the effort. Pearsejward (talk) 13:40, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Period/Era

I attempted to remove mention of this symphony being part of the Classical period, but it was reverted due to an excuse that it came less than 10 years after the era allegedly ended. Who the hell arbitrarily mandated that there should be 10 years wiggle room for after the end of a period? Also, Beethoven did not remain a Classical period composer throughout his life, as he did transition a great deal into a Romantic style of composition. I'm going to revert the revert of my edit, since the period of the symphony is really a matter of dispute, anyway. Classicalfan626 (talk) 18:11, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Who the hell mandated that the Classical period absolutely ended in a given year? As you're changing stable text, per WP:BRD, please wait until there is a consensus supporting your change. Thank you. DonIago (talk) 19:17, 3 July 2020 (UTC)