Talk:Violin Sonata No. 9 (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.

Old discussion[edit]

Link to 3rd movement doesn't work. —Preceding unsigned comment added by FWadel (talk • contribs) 09:33, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

One of Beethoven's very greatest works, no doubt! Second movement one of my favorite Beethoven movements ever! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.40.20.130 (talk) 18:03, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

By far my favourite Beethoven Violin Sonata. The first movement is so emotionally charged it makes you want to cry - especially when you recount that as Beethoven wrote it he was most likely considering ending his own life due to his depression over hearing loss amongst other things The first movement recording here doesn't play the repeat so hence it only goes for about 10 mins Incidentally I believe the 3rd movement was actually originally the final movement to his 6th sonata but he switched them around because he was running out of time to finish sonata No. 9. He then proceeded to re-write the final movement of the 6th when he had more time. I'd put this in the article but I can't confirm it :-) 130.194.13.105 06:00, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Revision by 75.157.201.62[edit]

I fail to see why the fact that Bridgetower was "negroid" is relevant. Skiasaurus (talk) 06:40, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Without objection, I suggest that the information about Bridgetower's race be removed.

Anyone who needs this information can go to Bridgetower's own article, as it is included in the article's lead--in fact, in its first sentence.
It is not immediately relevant to Beethoven's dedication or rededication of the sonata--or, if it is, no attempt has been made to explain it or to support it with sources.

Skiasaurus (talk) 17:58, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Should mention the well known "Keuzer Sonata" novel by the Russion master Tolstoy. 212.235.31.168 (talk) 15:11, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 11 August 2015[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. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: no consensus. Votes split, reasonable arguments from both sides. Jenks24 (talk) 16:43, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Violin Sonata No. 9 (Beethoven) → Kreutzer Sonata – Clear advantages regarding three out of five WP:CRITERIA (Recognizability, Naturalness and Conciseness); Regarding the two other criteria: for #3 Precision I see no relevant disadvantage while Beethoven's sonata is the primary topic, and the other topics are cleanly disambiguated by plain disambiguation techniques that offer no difficulty whatsoever; for #5 Consistency I don't think WP:MUSICSERIES carries enough weight here to tip the balance. --Francis Schonken (talk) 08:44, 11 August 2015 (UTC) Relisted. Jenks24 (talk) 14:12, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Survey[edit]

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's policy on article titles.

Support. See this ngram. The article title should be a name, not a catalog number. Gulangyu (talk) 19:35, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - as far as I can see there is no precedent on Wikipedia for naming a Beethoven work after its dedicatee (or a Mozart work, or a Haydn work, for that matter). If we are to change this then we need to change the Opus 53 to the Waldstein Sonata, among other changes. Gramophone, an authoritative reference if ever there was one, calls this sonata "Sonata for Violin and Piano No. 9, 'Kreutzer'": http://www.gramophone.co.uk/review/beethoven-complete-violin-sonatas-2. We ought to follow suit. And in this case there is the additional problem of a conflict with the Tolstoy novel - another reason to avoid the dedicatee's name. Syek88 (talk) 08:46, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Here are some examples of dedicatee names used in article titles:
  - Für Elise, not Bagatelle No. 25 (Beethoven)
  - Haydn Quartets (Mozart), not String Quartets, Op. 10 (Mozart)
The nature of the origin of a common name seems imho of little consequence in a Wikipedia naming deliberation. --Francis Schonken (talk) 10:17, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- For my objections against the current page title String Quartets Nos. 7–9, Op. 59 – Rasumovsky (Beethoven), see Talk:String Quartets Nos. 7–9, Op. 59 – Rasumovsky (Beethoven)#Requested move 13 August 2015 --Francis Schonken (talk) 11:02, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. The advantage of the current title is that it is consistent with those of the articles on the other Beethoven violin sonatas (including No. 5; and the symphonies, come to that), and leaves no room for argument about (1) whether a nickname is sufficiently well-known to be an article's title, or (2) which article should be the primary one, as is arguably the case here.

Kreutzer Sonata currently redirects here. This seems wrong. Under WP:DABNAME, it should be the redirect destination of Kreutzer Sonata (disambiguation). Narky Blert (talk) 11:34, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In other words, "Do it my way or there will be a lot of argument." The redirect issue is covered at WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT. This title is out of step with the common name concept outlined at WP:TITLE and followed in the rest of Wikipedia. The first and foremost purpose of a title is to tell the reader what the subject is called in the real world. This type of consistency is like designating a city by its postal code. Beethoven-Haus Bonn gives the full name of this piece as "Sonate für Klavier und Violine (A-Dur) op. 47," or in English as “The ‘Kreutzer’ Sonata for Piano and Violin op. 47.” My point is, they don't give the sonata number anywhere. It’s no where near as important as this title makes it seem. Gulangyu (talk) 12:43, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes but most of the examples you are citing, are giving the key and the opus number, both of these are less well understood by non-musicians.Pincrete (talk) 20:51, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. "The advantage of the current title is that it is consistent with those of the articles on the other Beethoven violin sonatas (including No. 5; and the symphonies etc.". There seem to be potential problems and no advantages to deviating from the 'formal' name. A redirect should point to this article, with DAB coping with minor uses.Pincrete (talk) 19:51, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- So we are so much more "formal" around here than Gramophone, Beethoven Haus or New Grove? Beethoven certainly didn't use this name. (The article includes an image of the original title page). The authoritative sources I've seen all include either "Kreutzer" or the opus number as part of the full name. The current title is motived by a desire to shoehorn all of classical music into a single format, something no one else seems to feel the need to do. Gulangyu (talk) 01:47, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What is the advantage of de-'shoehorning'? Formal classifications were invented to fulfil a need on the part of musicians and scholars so of course we won't find Beethoven, Haydn etc using these formal names or numbers, but neither do they necessarily use the informal. Redirects and opening sentences cover the aka names. Pincrete (talk) 14:55, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is an interesting use of the word “formal.” The opus number is the title proper, the name the piece was originally published under. I’ve already shown that the current title isn’t the name used by the most authoritative sources. The sonata number is a catalog number, analogous to a postal code for a city. The purpose of a title is to tell the reader the name of the subject, what it is called in the real world. He should be able to look up at the top of the article and say either, “Yup, I’m at the right page!” or “No, this is not what I want.” A reader who is familiar with this piece from the Tolstoy story, or from the movie based on it, is likely to be quite WP:ASTONISHED to see the title the form it is given here. Gulangyu (talk) 22:45, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but opus numbers are completely uninformative, except to the seriously initiated, opus numbers are the 'postal codes'. 'Formal' here means 'more formal'. I find a bit implausible the picture of a reader who is sufficiently literate to be enquiring about a Tolstoy novella, but who is nonetheless astonished to find that the title is also a piece of music. However this notional reader is still going to end up looking at the same page, forced to negotiate the same dab/hat, except the title will be different, instead of the opening line of text, which s/he will still need to read, to understand the error. Pincrete (talk) 20:44, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support per nom. Consistency is the least important of the criteria at WP:AT. The proposed title, as the nom states, is much more natural and recognizable for our readers. Other serious, reliable sources use it. We could do with more reader-friendliness, not less. Dohn joe (talk) 19:29, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion[edit]

Any additional comments:

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Tolstoy[edit]

In Tolstoy's "Kreutzer sonata", it opens by the piano (played by the woman) quietly answered by the violin (played by the lover); in the original score a solo violin preludes to it all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.226.217.129 (talk) 11:26, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Orchestrations[edit]

I have discovered that in the 1840s Composer/Teacher Eduard Marxsen orchestrated the sonata and it was performed in a concert in Berlin conducted by Felix Mendelssohn. I believe that this would be a good area to study/research. Was this only time the work was orchestrated, did Marxsen treat the work as a concertante piece with a violin soloist or was it a purely orchestral work. Was it performed more than one time and if so where? Graham1973 (talk) 10:14, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:FORUMSHOP, please keep this discussion in one place, i.e. Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Classical music#Area for research - Orchestrations of Beethoven Sonatas, where the discussion was opened before here. (BTW, "in the 1840s" is definitely wrong, but that follows from my reply at the other place). --Francis Schonken (talk) 14:18, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A minor, not major[edit]

I would argue that designating the overall key as A minor makes more sense. It's classified as A major because it begins and ends in that key, but the first movement is only in major for the intro, after which it switches to minor. Beethoven's Symphony No. 4 is considered to be in B-flat major despite beginning in minor because the minor is only for the intro, and his Symphony No. 5 is considered to be in C minor because it's the key of the first movement (but not the finale). Putting these two precedents together, it would suggest that this sonata should be considered to be in A minor. --ForeverStamp (talk) 04:27, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]