Talk:Symphony No. 4 (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[edit]

I don't quite see the point of the Musical jokes section. Most of the things mentioned are hardly jokes by my definition, and some of them are hardly worth mentioning at all. For example, I don't consider it very strange or novel to begin a fast movement with a slow introduction; it's been done before, and above all it's not a joke. I currently don't feel bold enough to rewrite it, but please have a look for yourself. EldKatt 7 July 2005 13:42 (UTC)

What the hell is a musical joke? I'm taking it out. 66.41.59.162 01:40, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

To answer your rhetorical question, there are certainly things that could be described as musical jokes: a reasonable example is the very end of Haydn's string quartet Op. 33 no 2. Common compositional techniques, though, aren't jokes, and that goes for everything in the section--who finds a slow introduction to a fast movement funny? Or delaying the recapitulation of a sonata movement? On a more relevant subject, it's still a large bit of text; we might want to make sure there's nothing worth putting in elsewhere. EldKatt (Talk) 19:08, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

POV Dispute[edit]

Something about this article seems POV. Does anyone agree?--Stratford15 02:16, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely. There are plenty of examples of the kind of descriptions discouraged in Wikipedia:WikiProject Writing about music. A rewrite is needed. EldKatt (Talk) 10:53, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

State of the article[edit]

I was absolutely appalled when I first looked at this article. It badly needs a complete rewrite. I haven't the time to devote to that chore but I hope that adding the tag will alert others who do. Thanks! --Wspencer11 (talk to me...) 03:41, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. I am new to wikipedia editing and I attempted to copy-edit the article but it was rife with opinion and unsupported claims. This needs more then just copy-editing. Alexbarrow 15:33, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Feeling the same way, I wielded a scalpel (meat cleaver?) on the article. I think we can eventually have a description of musical content and critical opinion, but it ought to come from well-known critics and be attributed to them with footnotes. Opus33 16:38, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

An outdated opinion piece[edit]

This article promotes a long-standing but rather outdated point of view according to which the 4th is "overshadowed" by the "predecessor and following" 3rd and 5th. The "overshadowed" part is a matter of taste and has fallen out of fashion in recent decades as more conductors, notably Carlos Kleiber and Herbert von Karajan, have given the 4th the treatment it deserved; and referring to the 5th as "following" the 4th overlooks the fact that while the 5th was completed after the 4th, it only is because it took so long to complete, and work on the 4th was only started after work on the 5th, and one could arguably that this is reflected in the higher and more uniform maturity of style throughout the 4th. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2620:0:1035:7:A49E:164C:925E:1B70 (talk) 18:27, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Needs a deeper analysis[edit]

Very superficial article. Needs more discussion of the content of the work--the orchestration, short and compact development section, unusual lead up to the recapitulation, etc., and that's just the first movement! This is a thumbnail of an article at best. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:643:8104:730:48C7:19E3:6DB3:87C1 (talk) 07:57, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Monetary values[edit]

Does anyone know of a website (or other resource) where we could get a reasonably close equivalent in present-day Euros of the gulden and florins mentioned in the article? I usually turn to this site for such things, but it can't manage 1807-vintage florins and gulden in modern terms. Tim riley talk 15:41, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]