Talk:Symphony No. 10 (Beethoven/Cooper)

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Symphony No. 10 (Beethoven/Cooper) article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Classical music: Compositions

	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.

Silly co-author[edit]

Kind of silly to elevate Barry Cooper to the level of co-author of this symphony, but, whatever. I guess they think Beethoven's Fifth was so great when Beethoven started to work on it. James470 (talk) 08:02, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Self-promotion[edit]

Excuse me for being very judgmental, but I have a feeling that the paragraph about Gerd Prengel, discussing his "completions," were added by Gerd Prengel himself, for sake of drawing more views to the YouTube video referenced. I hate deleting anything on Wikipedia, so I will not, but since the Prengel "completions" are quite inferior to what Beethoven did with coutless similar themes over his lifetime, not to mention inferior to the Barry Cooper completions of other movements, I find them unworthy of discussion in a site of such pretentions as this. That they were never performed (the recording is obviously MIDI), adds veracity to my claim. Wikipedia is not a place for advertising. If you don't agree, by all means don't delete the paragraph; I will not delete anything myself. 98.15.203.43 (talk) 19:51, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 29 October 2021[edit]

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: No consensus - Essentially there is not sufficient agreement about whether a move to Symphony No. 10 (Beethoven) would accurately reflect the authorship of the piece. No point relisting this again as there have been no further !votes. If further move proposals are intended, then perhaps a different name should be proposed that would fully address the concerns about accuracy. (non-admin closure) FOARP (talk) 09:12, 17 November 2021 (UTC) FOARP[reply]

Symphony No. 10 (Beethoven/Cooper) → Symphony No. 10 (Beethoven) – Beethoven's hypothetical tenth symphony based on fragmentary sketches for the first movement assembled by Barry Cooper in 1988. Recently, artificial intelligence reconstruct the third and fourth movements and arranged by organist Cameron Carpenter. 49.150.96.127 (talk) 02:56, 29 October 2021 (UTC) — Relisting. No such user (talk) 15:32, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Strong oppose and snow close not only does this proposal make no sense (this article is about Cooper's reconstruction, not an AI), there is absolutely no acceptance or evidence that the AI produced anything remotely close to Beethoven's original intent (which is what changing the title would imply). The nominator has provided no sourcing and a rather non-existent rationale. Honestly, it feels silly even taking the time to write my comment, I'm WP:AGF on this one. Aza24 (talk) 07:15, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support. No need to have a reference to Cooper in the title. (Beethoven) is sufficient as a disambiguator. Opinions as to how authentic this reconstruction is, if sourced, can be included in the article, but to choose a title based on them is POV and to be avoided. If other reconstructions gain coverage in reliable secondary sources, they should also be added to this article. Andrewa (talk) 09:25, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.