Talk:String Quartet No. 11 (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.

References, and the Scherzo[edit]

First- the references section needs updating, but someone who knows the books, knows what editions were used (first? third?... edition of the Kerman? etc....) would need to do that...

Will have to add mention of some interesting features of the quartet. Noticeably lacking even in the sketchy description of the inner movements: any mention at all of the transition between the second and third movement, which gives the opening of the latter movement its characteristic opening chord progression. (And such chord progressions and motives, not just key relationships, help make this piece "go", as they do many others.)

Also: the keys of the trios in the scherzo-like movement, the second of them in G♭ major, for instance.

The movement may well be a scherzo; it shares a form with that of many Beethoven scherzos - those of symphonies 4 and 7, string quartets 10, 12 and 14, etc. - generally something like A - B - A (or A') - B' - A'' - coda, coda often beginning the same as B.

And there is something rondo-ish about that, though not exactly. As to whether or not it's a march and trio- whether to call the main section a march isn't a matter of form but of rhythm, character and other qualities. (Hrm. Well, Liszt's Scherzo and March are two pieces in a row, not the same in one, to my knowledge.) Schissel | Sound the Note! 13:13, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Schoenberg essay - I had misplaced this - in which he points out the (possibly unconscious) connective use of one or another form of D♭-C-D-natural throughout the first movement is Brahms the Progressive (possibly the best-known of the essays in Style and Idea?), specifically pages 423-4 of the 1984 first paperback edition. (Originally published by Faber and Faber limited in 1975, and in the US by St. Martin's Press in the same year.)

Schoenberg, Arnold ed. (by) Stein, Leonard: Style and Idea. University of California Press: 1984 (first paperback edition, revised). ISBN 0-520-05294-3 (pbk). Schissel | Sound the Note! 14:22, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

More re reference: It might be best, by which I mean most useful and helpful to readers, if either original author or editors simply read carefully, stole from, and referred to the Michael Steinberg essay on the piece in the UC-Berkeley Beethoven Quartet Companion (ISBN 0-520-08211-7). 72.93.248.186 (talk) 23:13, 11 April 2015 (UTC)David Moran[reply]

The nickname[edit]

Regarding the tempo marking, it says that Beethoven "invented" a word, while serioso is an actual italian word, meaning approximately "serious" (often in a mocking or ironic way). http://forum.wordreference.com/showthread.php?t=92886 I don't know what's the source of the author of the article, though, so I'll wait for someone to enlighten me. Thanks. 22:30, 10 January 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.53.144.19 (talk)

parts to be either improved or removed.[edit]

interesting use of silences, What does "interesting use" mean? This is a useless phrase. One needs to be more specific.

seemingly unrelated outbursts Define "outburst." Are they supposed to be related? I'm not sure that this tells us anything of value. This is almost a useless phrase for being so unspecific.

The historical picture of this time period helps to put the piece in context This part is totally conjecture. Unless there's evidence to support some "extra-musical" meaning in a piece of music, let's be careful about the psycho-interpretation. This paragraph has no credibility and no value. It ought to be deleted, but, except in the case of a clear falsehood, i'm reluctant to be the one to delete what others have added. PJinBoston (talk) 04:44, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Vienna was not occupied by Napoleon in 1810 but in 1809 - Austria accepted the Treaty of Schonbrunn in the autumn of 1809 and dropped out of the war. Look it up in Wikipedia. Doesn't rule out "emotion recollected in tranquility" of course. But Beethoven wasn't Shostakovich, surely, and a work specifically for private performance isn't a statement on a public themeDelahays (talk) 00:05, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]