Talk:Symphony No. 9 (Beethoven)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Classical music / Compositions 
WikiProject icon Symphony No. 9 (Beethoven) 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.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by Compositions task force.
Wikipedia Version 1.0 Editorial Team / v0.7
WikiProject icon This article has been reviewed by the Version 1.0 Editorial Team.
Taskforce icon
This article has been selected for Version 0.7 and subsequent release versions of Wikipedia.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.


borrowing from mozart[edit]

The melody for "ode to joy" seems to be borrowed from mozart's Misericordias Domini K.222 in D minor (just like the key of the the 9'th symphony) —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 12:00, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Gunslinger Girl[edit]

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

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

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

Nope, not a symphony. Opus33 00:08, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Okay, I'll stand corrected. I was reading it as "instruments as used in a symphony" Rsduhamel 18:48, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Key of 4th Movement[edit]

The key of the 4th movement is not mentioned. Please put it in! Otherwise really excellent article!

The work is the longest of all classical symphonies[edit]

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 Oct 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 Mar 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 Oct 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 Oct 2004 (UTC)
(I later hopefully resolved this issue by revising to "one of the longest") Opus33 16:14, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)
The link to the OGG file does not work. Bring it to the page itself. Thank you

Explain revert[edit]

An anonymous editor is making rather major changes which remove information from the article, and also produce a rather weird overall organization (see table of contents), so I reverted. If this editor seriously wants to change the article so drastically, (s)he should explain the proposed changes on this talk page. Opus33 16:11, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

Last Symphony[edit]

If I am not mistaken, Sym 9 is the last completed symphony by Beethoven but not the last symphony he composed (the 10th is incomplete).

This is correct. A scherzo sketch of an incomplete symphony exists in a fully playable form for piano. I'm sure Beethoven would have altered a lot, as was his wont, before orchestrating it, but nevertheless he did flesh out an entire movement for keyboard testing. Also, enough material was sketched for a first movement that it has actually been orchestrated, in my opinion quite convincingly. Also I think a tiny bit of a slow movement was jotted down, a vague concept of a theme or something. So he did quite a bit of work on a 10th symphony; whether it deserves mention or not in the article, I hold no opinion. Smyslov 17:49, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Karajan POV[edit]

"Herbert von Karajan's 1963 Deutsche Grammophon recording (DG #429036-2) of the symphony is widely regarded as the best; however, some critics prefer his less agressive 1976 version that is more technically correct."

Does this strike anyone else as a bit too biased for an encyclopedia? I'm generally not fond of metioning a particular recording as widely regarded as the best (which I assume is hard to back up with facts). And in the case of a work of this magnitude, and one that has been recorded as many times as it has, it's even worse. Thoughts? EldKatt 16:50, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

Seems like it would be sufficient to say that "both versions are highly regarded by critics; the 1963 version is considered more dynamic; the 1976 version is considered more technically correct." That way everybody wins. Wahkeenah 13:26, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

Since my own view, and that of critics I have read, is that Wilhelm Furtwaengler's performance is the greatest, I have altered the recording section to include Furgwaengler and von Karajan and also put in a reference to a detailed critical comparison by Taruskin of many performances. I have also taken out the mention of a specific recording with its serial number, since CD's go out of print quite frequently, and the same performances also re-appear on other labels that have purchased the rights to them. They are also not always available in different countries. So I'm skeptical of the legitimacy in an encyclopedia of listing them by number. Jeremy J. Shapiro 13:52, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

I just looked at my own personal bible of recommended classical recordings, Jim Svejda's The Insider's Guide to Classical Recordings -- for those of you who are not familiar with him (, he broadcasts excellent classical music radio programs at KUSC in Los Angeles, reviews recordings on the air and in the abovementioned book, and is a thoughtful and experienced music critic -- the best single recording of the 9th is by Fritz Reiner and the Chicago Symphony and the best collective recordings of Beethoven symphonies are by Bernstein, Furtwaengler, Szell, and Gardiner, so I will add them to the article. Jeremy J. Shapiro 19:22, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

I would argue that this work is one where there is no consensus about which recording is the best. Karajan's 63 and 77 recordings and a few of Furtwangler's recordings are frequently cited, but this is one of the most frequently recorded works, and many many releases are out there, and it seems every music editor has their own favorite. Also, different conductors like to put their own spin on the ninth, and there is much variety of options. I would suspect that every fan might have a favorite, but also frequently listens to many different recordings. Alcuin 06:50, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Text translation: literal v. poetic[edit]

Recently an anonymous editor made a heap of changes to the translation of the text. Some of it appears to move away from the previously rather literal translation--in this case, I can't see why, since no attempts are made to make it more rhythmically accurate (the only reason I can imagine to avoid a completely literal translation).

Anyway, I feel we must make a decision here about whether to strive for a literal translation, or a more "poetic" one (and, I suppose, mention it in a comment in the source). If not, it'll just be pulled back and forth between the two sides and we won't get anywhere. Ultimately, I'd like to see proper Wikipedia guidelines on the translation of poetry--I haven't yet put any work into finding out how to do this, but I feel it's needed. One step on the way, I guess, is to discuss this particular issue here, though. What are your thoughts? EldKatt (Talk) 10:58, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

Being neither a poet nor a musician, I am in no position to say what the correct answer should be. As one who has some interest in the nature of language, though, I find a literal translation to be more useful than a poetic translation. I was rather ANON-plussed by the tinkering that character did for no apparent reason. But I could argue that maybe two sections are needed, a literal and a poetic translation. If the latter, it should arguably be singable. I wonder if a singable English version of The Ninth exists anywhere? Meanwhile, I am tempted to revert the changes, but not just now, as I have better things to argue about today.  :) Wahkeenah 13:31, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

After careful consideration, I'm reverting. Maybe one or two of the many changes make for better flow, but the vast majority of them simply makes the translation less accurate for no (to me) apparent reason. The issue still stands, though.
Incidentally, I'm fairly sure there is a singable English translation ("Joy, thou glorious spark of heaven", it begins, if I'm not mistaken), but googling didn't get me anywhere. I'm not sure how the copyright would be, but I guess it's likely to be old. Though I reckon a literal translation is more important. EldKatt (Talk) 20:07, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

Danke schön! Wahkeenah 20:16, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

There's also a Christian hymn put to the same music, though its different words, not a translation: "Joyful, joyful, we adore Thee / God of glory, God of love / etc." Wahkeenah 20:19, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

FYI, this discussion has been used as an cause for reverting the same anonymously posted translation on Ode to Joy, the article about the poem. Obviously singability is not a concern there. A chief concern for both articles should be attribution and copyright. Translations are copyrighted. It'd be ideal if we could find a translation by a known person who either died long ago or contributed the translation to the GFDL. Cheers, -Willmcw 23:35, August 11, 2005 (UTC)

To me it doesn't make sense to aim for poetical translations of such texts, because 1) they are hard to do, 2) they almost always make compromises with the meaning, and 3) we get into the business of trying to compete with published translations by expert and experienced translators (many of which in fact have made compromises with meaning for the sake of singability or "poetry" -- I own recorded versions of the 9th Symphony that come with English translations containing all kinds of errors from the perspective of literal meaning). It seems to me that a person reading an article in an encyclopedia about pieces of music based on texts wants primarily to know what the texts mean and is not reading them in order to have a poetic experience. Similarly, a person reading an encyclopedia article about a choral piece is unlikely to be looking for a singable version, since for that purpose they would be buying sheet music. So I am strongly in favor of Wikipedia translations of such texts as that of the 9th Symphony sticking as closely as possible to a literal rendering of the meaning. That is why I also recently changed the translation of the "Ode to Joy" text to replace the "thy"'s with your. In English, "thy" is an archaic usage that sounds stilted in contemporary English. In German, "deine" is a straightforward "you", and since we don't in English distinguish between a singular and plural "you" or a familiar and unfamiliar you, it seems to me more accurate and more honest to render "Du" and "Dein" with "you" and "your" rather than "thou" and "thy". Jeremy J. Shapiro 14:09, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

I am inclined to agree with your assessment and your approach. I might have been the one who put the "thy's" in there, based on the assumed (possibly incorrectly) etymological connection with "deine" and such. It's not totally archaic usage in English, except that nowadays it's typically confined to Church usage when speaking to God... which squares with the underlying themes of the "Ode to Joy" and the Ninth Symphony. However, "thou" vs. "you" is a small point not worth my while to argue about. It is also hard to do a literal word-for-word translation in some cases, because, as you have implicitly noted through your editing, the word order can be different, and it sounds "funny" or stilted in English, like old-fashioned poetic style where the verb comes last, etc. Anyway, I'm thinking it looks pretty good now... but there is still a literal-translation discrepancy between the words on the Ninth page vs. the words on the "Ode to Joy" page. It would be ideal if they would at least match each other. Perhaps you could get onto that page also, and reconcile the two? Especially as it appears that your knowledge of German is way much better than mine.  :) Wahkeenah 17:43, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
I'm also wondering, given your knowledge of German and etymology, whether "while" is an appropriate translation of "weilt", and whether "stringent" is connected with "streng"? I like to use words that are etymologyically connected, even if they are a bit stilted. But the meaning is most important, I reckon.  :) Wahkeenah 17:45, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
I think that your points are very good (and also bring up complex issues). Like you, I favor using words that are eytomologically related, but not at the cost of unnatural or stilted usage in English. I'm also mindful of George Orwell's point, in "Politics and the English Language", that when given a choice it's good to favor Anglo-Saxon roots over Latin ones in English. I bet that ultimately "streng" and "stringent" are related, but, unfortunately, I don't have an eytomologically dictionary in German. My Webster's says that "stringent" comes from the Latin "stringere", meaning to draw tight or compress, and I bet that that's related to "streng" in German. In any case,Webster's says that "strict" also comes from "stringere", it's just from the participle "strictus", so since it's shorter and pithier, I favor it over "stringent". Your question about "while" made me discover, in Webster's, that in English one is not supposed to use "while" as an intransitive verb, only as a transitive one. I.e. one can say I "whiled away the afternoon", but not "I whiled for a few hours in the bus station", whereas in German one can just use "weilen" to mean linger, tarry (it explicitly says that "tarry" is poetical), be, spend time in or with. "Where your gentle wing tarries" or "lingers" doesn't sound that good to me in English. Probably a good translation in terms of the meaning would be "All people become brothers at the touch of your gentle wing", but I'm not sure the best way to say that using "where" (for German "wo"). Eureka, it just came to me while writing to you!! And the dictionary bears it out: "All people become brothers where your gentle wing alights." Indeed Webster's uses "a flying bird alights" on a tree, which of course relates to wings. I think I'll go change it to "alights" in the articles.
With regard to "thee" and "thy", I have two thoughts. The first is that while joy is personified in the poem and symphony, it is not identified with God, who is still discussed in the third person in poem whereas joy is addressed in the second person. The second is just that in general I think it's good to use locutions that make it possible for contemporary people to identify with things in a way that using more remote language makes it harder for them to do. I think that when people encounter more archaic usages, it's harder for them to identify with because it's not in the language that they use every day. I like to think of Wikipedia as something that a high-school student could consult, and I think that more high school students could think of themsaelves as saying "you" than "thee". I realize that this is a matter of taste, judgment, and preference rather than something there's an absolutely right or wrong answer to.
I certainly agree that the texts should be the same in the two articles, but feel that I'm not an experienced enough a Wikipedian to just go in and copy one to another without a greater sense of other's views about this. Jeremy J. Shapiro 19:22, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
Regarding the streng--stringent issue, I looked up the Swedish word sträng (which means pretty much the same thing as the German word, so I assume the etymologies are similar) in the the online version of Svenska Akademiens ordbok (a huge dictionary, still unfinished after well over a hundred years). It appears to be entirely Germanic in origin. If I would link it to an English word, it would probably be strong, rather than stringent or strict.
On a more relevant topic, I certainly favour "you". It should be stated that I don't speak German, but I believe the singular second person pronouns in German do not necessarily carry the formal connotations that the English counterparts inevitably do. Therefore, I believe translating these as "you" etc is in general more accurate. It can vary from case to case, of course. EldKatt (Talk) 20:12, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
By the way, "streng" in German also has the connotation of "stern" in English, which would be in some ways a nicer translation than either strict or stringent, i.e. what "custom custom sternly divides" (or "separates" -- or "cleaves", for that matter). Jeremy J. Shapiro 20:23, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
I have seen "streng" translated as both "stern" and "strict" in other sources. I kind of like "strong" as a translation, but I don't know that "streng" is the actual German word for "strong". It's funny you should characterize "thou", "thy", etc. as "formal". In fact, they are familiar, not formal. They are just seldom used anymore. "Thou" is Anglo-Saxon; "you" is Middle English from a different Anglo-Saxon word and was originally only used as an object pronoun, not a subject pronoun as it is now also. "Thou" (and its object form "thee" and possessive "thy") carry connotations of intimacy. But they have been superceded in most cases by "you" and its variants, except in church services, where they are still often used in praying, i.e. talking "intimately" with God. Wahkeenah 21:21, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
In German, "stark" is the work for "strong". One can also say "kraeftig", meaning "forceful". Yes, "formal" was perhaps the wrong word to use -- I think I used it because currently it is used, as you suggested, on special occasions (e.g. church, which I think of as formal compared to everyday). In other words, "thou" and "thy" aren't used in regular everyday language in current spoken English among the vast majority of the population. As you pointed out, in European languages where there is a distinction between a more familiar and more formal "you", the singular is used for the intimate, the plural for the formal. In certain ways it is regrettable that this distinction no longer exists in English.Jeremy J. Shapiro 22:09, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
"Thou" used to carry connotations of intimacy and familiarity. In the mind of the Modern English speaker, I daresay it doesn't (although it should be said that it's not my native language). "Formal" might not be the most correct word to use, but I do consider it accurate enough, considering that we don't speak Middle English.
I certainly agree that "strong" should not be used for German "streng"--my mention of it was just because they words themselves are historically very closely related--I do like "stern", though. Better than "strict", I might add. EldKatt (Talk) 11:09, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
I agree fully about "stern" and just went in and changed "strictly" to "sternly". Jeremy J. Shapiro 16:40, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

Here's a technical issue: Is "streng" an adjective, or an adverb? Are you modifying "custom" or "separates"? Seems to me the German version is modifying "custom", thus is should read "stern custom" not "sternly separates". Wahkeenah 18:52, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

It also finally came to me how I would describe the use of "thou", "thee", "thy", etc. It's not "formal". It's "churchy". As with the English song put to this music, "Joyful, joyful, we adore Thee..." So the question is, does it make sense for the "Ode to Joy" to be "churchy"? The stanza that begins "Seid umschlungen..." is typically performed like a hymn, but that's just one stanza. Just more to think about in case you're not sufficiently confused.  :) Wahkeenah 18:56, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

No, it's an adverb modifying "geteilt" ("separates"). In German, for it to be an adjective, it would have to be "die strenge Mode", i.e. it would have to take an ending to agree with the noun, whereas as an adverb it doesn't agree with anything.
Yes, I agree that "churchy" is more accurate than "formal". However, this is one of those things where personal associations operate. For me it reminds me of 16th- and 17th-century plays and poems, i.e. of times when the "thee"/"you" distinction actually existed in English. So for me it's "archais" as much as "churchy". Jeremy J. Shapiro 19:04, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
No question that it's archaic. Regarding that one line, the original poem had something about a sword... "vas die mode schwert geteilt", or something like that. So would that translate as "what the custom-sword separates"? I guess Ludwig didn't like that mental picture too well, and softened it a bit. Or do they mean "schwert" to mean "strong" instead of "sword"? Anyway, I think the translation is getting close to looking good. I also think someone should reconcile this version and the one on the Ode to Joy page if they have not already done so. Wahkeenah 21:44, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

Not trying to reopen the debate here, but does anyone know the translation that begins "Praise to joy, thou God-descended / daughter of Elysium / ray of mirth and rapture blended / Goddess, to thy shrine we come. / By thy magic is united / what stern custom parted wide / all mankind are brothers plighted / where thy gentle wings abide."? I find it remarkably close to the original (my native language is German), while being poetic and rhythmically correct. Any thoughts? -- 02:12, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

I think a literal translation would be more appropriate. We could also include both versions. 23:43, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Length of Ninth[edit]

It is my understanding that Beethoven intended the ninth to last approx. 60 minutes. And for many years it was performed at this length. It is only a recent phenomenon that conductors such as Bernstein strung it along, pausing for dramatic effect, toward the 74 minute length that is common today. Perhaps we should mention this fact.

To my knowledge we don't really know anything about exactly how long Beethoven intended it to be (although I'd be delighted if you have some sources mentioning this). We can probably conclude, though, that there may quite possibly have been major differences. One clue that shouldn't be disregarded--although a lot of people want it to--is the metronome markings, which clearly point to major differences in performance practice between then and now. (Considering Beethoven's great enthusiasm over the metronome, I personally find it hard to believe that he didn't know how to use it, but that's a different topic.) And worth remembering is that that is what it's all about: changing performance practice. Not deliberate lengthening or stringing along. By the way, as far as I can see at the moment, I don't possess a single recording that comes close to 74 minutes (although, admittedly, I don't possess a great amount of recordings). EldKatt (Talk) 11:17, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
I have the famous 1963 Von Karajan version on CD. It's listed on the box as 67 minutes and 1 second and my CD player calls it 67 minutes and 3 seconds. It's hard to imagine how someone could drag it out another 7 minutes to the 74 minutes of CD mythology. And the various places in the final movement where it comes to a dead stop can't amount to more than 10 or 15 seconds in total. I don't know from metronomes, though. I live in Minneapolis, where we have a Metrodome, but that's a whole other arena. :) Wahkeenah 11:55, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
Ask Furtwängler how to do it — his 1951 recording is 74:24 on my CD. ASIN B00000GCA7 if you care. Derobert 06:22, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
The longest version I own (and many would claim it as the greatest version on disc) is Furtwängler's legendary 1942 account with the Berliner Philharmoniker. It runs to 73:12. The slow movement is certainly the slowest I've heard, but, of the 1500+ classical CDs in my collection, it must rank as one of the most sublime things I've ever heard. As the recording is out of copyright, it very cheap and there are several transfers available. Highly recommended.
I had mentioned the Beethoven's 9th determining the length of the CD format to a friend, who then informed me that she'd recently been on (Urban Legend Reference), and that that story was of indeterminate origin. If there is truth to the story, site it, but if it is just an urban legend that gets passed around, deep six the story.Phil 23:07, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

A great deal of Beethoven pieces have strange tempo markings, and as such a wide range of tempi, and thus lengths of works, are employed. For example, you can find recordings of the first movement of the Fifth from between 5 and 8 and a half minutes. While Furtwangler's spacious tempi may have influenced a great deal of listeners, I don't think we can claim that modern performance practice is ruining the composer's intention- we have no way of knowing what the tempo settings for the first 100 years of its performances were, never mind at the premiere. Anderfreude 04:11, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Re: "To my knowledge we don't really know anything about exactly how long Beethoven intended it to be....":
I don't follow you. If Beethoven provided tempo markings (bear in mind I haven't looked at the score in years, and my edition may not be authentic in this manner anyway), can't we just divide the number of beats (number of measure times beats per measure) by each marking then add? What's the actual problem here?
Re: "By the way, as far as I can see at the moment, I don't possess a single recording that comes close to 74 minutes (although, admittedly, I don't possess a great amount of recordings).":
It seems to me one recording should be enough to own, assuming it's a good one. In any case, I hope we've considered the possibility that certain conductors may not take all the repeats (if there are repeats; I haven't looked at the score in years).TheScotch (talk) 07:58, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

New changes in translation[edit]

I just looked at the translation again for the first time in a while, someone had made some constructive improvements, which I kept, and put in a bunch of outraged editorial comments, which I removed. I made a few other small corrections. However, one of the recent editor's comments is wrong. He changed "weeping" to "weepingly". But it's an adjective modifying "he", not an adverb modifying "stealing". The person isn't stealing away weapingly; rather he, weeping, is stealing away. Jeremy J. Shapiro 03:31, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

Please align columns[edit]

Would someone please re-align the German and English text columns? I have no idea how to do it. Jeremy J. Shapiro 03:31, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

Done. Michael 06:49, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

5th movement?[edit]

In a substantial number of recordings and performances, the 4th movement is broken into 2 parts, a 7 minute Presto which is then called the 4th movement and an 18 minute Allegro Assai containing all the vocal sections, which is then referred to as the 5th movement. Although not as Beethoven wrote it, is this practice common enough to deserve a mention in the main article to avoid confusion? Astaroth5 12:33 7th November 2005 (UTC).

CD's typically have a break between the instrumental prologue and the beginning of the choral portion, for whatever reason. But if you start talking about a "5th movement", I suspect it would create confusion. Wahkeenah 19:27, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

  • That has become the convention, I think, only so that listeners can easily skip ahead to the most famous part, and also because this movement is so long. Many Mahler recordings, for example, split longer movements into multiple tracks for the same reasons. I don't think anyone has ever thought of the Ninth as having 5 movements. Alcuin 06:39, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
    • With the possible exception of Astaroth5, ja? Wahkeenah 07:08, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
      • I think the fact that most recordings are splitting this fourth movement deserves a note on the main article. In special because I have had a hard time looking for the reason every recording I own is split in five parts while every reference to the Symphony explains it is composed by four movements. It was this Astaroth5 note which shed light on the issue for me ;) Thanks! 2006/05/05 Pablo —Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]])
        • This really shouldn't be causing confusion; it's not as if there is a new movement number on the fifth track. I've never heard the fifth track being considered a separate movement. It's simply a recording convention, one that has no basis in the symphony, itself. I think it should stay out as being unencyclopedic. —  MusicMaker 18:31, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
          • as one of the 'stories' go, the last part of the fourth movement was added soon before the premier and the orchestra didn't have a chance to practice, so merely played what they had practiced and let beethoven continue directing (with his eyes closed) until the performance ended. that sounds rather romanticized, but i'm willing to bet the last part of the fourth movement was written at a completely different time, if this is true, i'm sure there would be documentation of sometime to prove it. AlexOvShaolin 08:07, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
            • Calling it a fifth movement is not only wrong, but it shows a complete lack of understanding of the structure. If it was a different movement, it would have different themes/motifs and form. The fourth movement is remarkably complex in employing a number of forms -- a four-movement structure, theme and variations, fugue, etc. It is also a sonata-movement form, specifically a concerto form with the human voice as the solo instrument. Concertos typically have an orchestral exposition with no modulation, then a repeat with the solo instrument(s) and the modulation. So the CDs are merely separating the first (orchestral-only) exposition. 06:17, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Music in Leon the Professional[edit]

  • Copied from the Reference desk hoping someone knows something.

There is this really cool scene in leon the professional where the crazy police cheif guy breaks into the guy's apartment and kills his entire family to the music of beethoven. There is this quote - "I like these calm little moments before the storm; it reminds me of beethoven" Then he kicks down the door and murders the entire family with beethoven's music in the background. At the end he corners the guy that is holding out on him and says "you don't like beethoven - you don't know what you're missing" then he kills him.

I love this song as it is so powerfull and fits the scene so perfectly. However, it is not listed in the credits and I can not find it anywhere. Has anyone that has seen this movie recognize it?--God of War 07:15, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

If I recall correctly (it's been a while since I've seen it) it's Symphony No. 9. I remember thinking it was a reference to A Clockwork Orange (film), in which the same piece is used. Natgoo 11:26, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
Wasn't the police chief drinking milk in that scene? David Sneek 11:42, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
  • The Ninth symphony is very long. Do you know which movement the movie uses?--God of War 02:24, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Clockwork Orange[edit]

Does anyone have a reference for Karajan's being the recording used in A Clockwork Orange? I have always heard that it was Ferenc Fricsay's Deutsche Grammophon recording that was used in that movie. See this link

  • You might be right. You'd have to listen to them side-by-side to be sure. Have you done that? Wahkeenah 12:54, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
  • No -- has anyone? Grover cleveland 15:58, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
  • It's actually Wendy Carlos on the Moog. Sylvea

The acoustic recording of Beethoven's Ninth in the movie comes from Karajan's 1963 recording of the scherzo. Indeed that recording is on the tape that "Alex DeLarge" listens to on his home stereo.

Wendy (then Walter) Carlos of course created the synthesizer versions excerpting the scherzo and finale that appear in other contexts. In the original LP soundtrack album issued by CBS, Herbert von Karajan -- and not Ferenc Fricsay -- is given credit for the sound recording.

It's paradoxical that the Ode to Joy is used as the accompanying music in the scene in which Alex DeLarge is "rehabilitated" with images of "ultraviolence", the music (synthesized) accompanying the "ultraviolence" of the militarism, aggressive warfare, and cruelty of the Nazis. After that, Alex DeLarge can no longer tolerate the Ninth that he once loved.

Is it paradoxical that this music accompanies Nazi savagery? Not quite. The Nazis seemed to have loved Beethoven's Ninth (and other Beethoven symphonies, although the Allied appropriation of Beethoven's Fifth had to be an embarrassment to them) for its musical power, even if they ignored the Alle Menschen werden Brüder message, which, had they taken it seriously, might have recognized their victims as Brüder instead of vermin.

Speaking of which, I once saw a WWII documentary showing one of Hitler's henchmen, the Vienna Gauleiter Baldur von Schirach in which the compilers cut between the Vienna Philharmonic and chorus performing the last movement of the Ninth under Nazi rule -- and trains carrying Jews to death camps. Culture, even great culture, is vastly overrated as a humanizing influence upon people.

Unlike the nightmarish treatment by Carlos, the performance by the Vienna Philharmonic was quite stirring and would have been unqualified in its appeal had it not been for the juxtaposition of Beethoven's magnificent Ninth with Nazi cruelty. --Paul from Michigan 03:33, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Not the death symphony in Read or Die[edit]

While there is a "Suicide Symphony" in the Read-or-Die OVA, and it is written by a superpowered clone of Beethoven, it is not the 9th Symphony. They do play a hideous jazzed-up version while launching the spaceship, though.

It is correct that this is not the "Suicide Symphony" in R.O.D. Symphony No. 9 is actually not on the OVA at all. The song during the launching of the spaceship is "Beethoven Virus" a (I agree) hideous techno-jazz version of Beethoven's Piano Sonata 8 "Pathetique" Mvt. 3. --DrinkyKrow1 (talk) 06:29, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Performing the Symphony[edit]

The article contains an altered version of a legend somewhat debunked by straight dope: That account sounds more plausible and I think it should be the one in the article.-- 16:59, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Vienna Circle in Beethoven's Times?[edit]

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?

OGG ugg....[edit]

Reading the article, I thought to myself, "I haven't listened to the 9th in awhile. I'm not doing anything, lemme give the ogg a play." The metaphor of expecting the Mona Lisa and getting that ubiquitous smiley face springs to mind, not to mention the inclusion of a decidedly un-Beethoven-y resolution. It's a nice reminder of the hymn that's sung in church, but Beethoven it is most assuredly not. There's gotta be a recording out there somewhere that's entered public domain, or that we can finagle in some way. The theme of the fourth movement is arguably the most recognizable 24 measures on the planet, but this file is downright laughable. I'm thinking about using my copy of the full score to generate a MIDI file, but I'm afraid that my MIDI talents will come up short. MusicMaker5376 07:17, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

I just did a cusory search and the earliest recording I was able to locate was from 1925. I'm not terribly conversant with all the copyright mumbo-jumbo, but I think it's cutting it close. Furthermore, I don't know if one'd even be able to locate a copy at this point. MIDI files of the choral section, too, are hard to find as the chorus will sound kind of stupid ahhhing for 20 minutes. MusicMaker5376 07:23, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
A really really old recording is probably not the ideal candidate for use in this article. The sound quality might of course be terrible, but it's also quite likely that it's far from representative of the way the symphony is usually performed today. Our best hope is probably to get something like the recording on Symphony No. 5 (Beethoven), a modern recording distributed under some sort of open license.
I'd like to see the current ogg removed from the article, though, if nobody minds. It's both ugly and misleading. EldKatt (Talk) 19:13, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
I agree, that ogg is appropriate for Ode to Joy, but not here. It's a shame there's no obvious place to find copyright free recordings of music written 2 centuries ago. ...Curse the music industry! Alcuin 02:33, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
I've been looking pretty hard for a recording and can't find anything anywhere. I'm working on a MIDI (of the choral section, at least), and I'm about 1/20th of the way through. It's not going to be great, but it will, I think, serve the purpose a little better than what we currently have. I'll post it when I'm done: if it's universally hated, feel free to get rid of it, but we should still be searching for a live recording. MusicMaker5376 04:31, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
Things that are beyond me: 1) MIDIing a Beethoven symphony. I just don't think I'll get this done anytime soon. It's a lot of work. -- MusicMaker5376 19:41, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Acclaimed CD Recordings of the Ninth Symphony[edit]

Acclaimed by whom? Calling these recordings "acclaimed" definitely requires some sort of citation. I also find it interesting the the von Karajan (or even the Bernstein) is not listed among them, and more or less all of them have been recorded within the last five years. This editor has several other edits along the same vein: it doesn't look like advertizing since they're all under different labels (tho they may be owned by the same parent company; I don't know enough to comment on that.). I think we need some sort of reference to let this stay much longer. -- MusicMaker5376 19:39, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

I was thinking the same, so I added Karajan and zapped all but Furtwangler, Norrington and Wand. I'm not sure which Bernstein is acclaimed (I never cared for his Beethoven) so I left him out. I feel like there's probably still a few missing (Toscanini, maybe Klemperer or Gardiner), but I think it's at least better now. Alcuin 02:26, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
No sweat about the MIDI, you're quite brave even to attempt that... Alcuin 02:26, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
But I still have problems with the word "acclaimed". That's the very definition of POV. I agree that the article should have some section on those recordings which are considered the greatest, but, without a citation, it comes across as some random editor's opinion. Furthermore, it invites people to add whatever recording they picked up for $3 at their local music store to the list. It's true, over half of Wikipedia goes uncited, but this is fundamentally an opinion. It might be a widely-held opinion, but it's based entirely on something subjective. (For example, I HATE the von Karajan as there are two GLARING recording glitches in the Choral section alone and I'm still pissed I wasted my money on it.) I'm sure it wouldn't be hard to find some sort of a citation, and, imho, this section certainly needs it.
Thanks for the pat on the back regarding the MIDI. I'm still hanging my head in shame about it. I'll work on it here and there -- it's kind of interesting to break it all down -- but I'll be surprised if I get it done by May.
Of 2008....
-- MusicMaker5376 03:19, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
You're right, it is totally POV, but wikipedia seems to acquire stupid lists like these on popular pages no matter how many times they're zapped. I fully expect the list to be long again in 2 months. Anyway, I think it's stupid to pick a 'best' recording of any work, especially this one. I much prefer hearing a bad recording for the first time than a great one for the 100th time. As for citations, searching 'beethoven 9th' in amazon yields Karajan and Furtwangler, Arkiv recommends Wand-NDR, and I thought there should be a period instrument recording, so I left Norrington. Allmusic, Gramophone, Rough Guide or [[1]] might be useful. Still, any recommendation list, even with citations, will only be pure opinion, even if it is professional opinion. Maybe the best thing would be a 'history of performances/recordings' section (ie prose instead of a list).Alcuin 04:20, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
Agreed. This article needs this section, and we'll never find a consensus of sources to cite it properly. I was thinking that if we could note the common lauds and critiques of each recording, it might work, but, as you know, these are the things audiophiles will debate for centuries. I think I'm going to change the word "acclaimed" to "notable": that might make me feel a little better. -- MusicMaker5376 05:36, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Ode to Joy[edit]

I'm currently in the process of reworking the page for Schiller's Ode to Joy and can use some help. It was generally redundant of many of the things on this page, and I would like to get it more to reflect the history of Schiller's poem, the context, etc. However, I can't seem to find much information about it that doesn't have to do with Beethoven. If anyone has a particularly informative CD insert or any other source that you can point me toward, I'd greatly appreciate it. -- MusicMaker5376 06:36, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

// 1) I find the translation lacking in precision and expressive quality - see my comments on the Ode to Joy discussion page.

2) Plenty of background information, incl. concerning the poem and context, is on the Beethoven afficionados' page .

Regards, Sophophilos 14:34, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Beethoven's friend, Anton Schindler, later said ...

Um ... the page linked to Schindler's name suggests Anton was rather less than a 'friend', perhaps more of an opportunist, yet, if he was just an 'associate' as that second page suggests, then how is it he came to be in possession of the conversation books so as to alter them? I think this issue needs some clarification, on both pages. Teledyn 14:20, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Manuscript of Beethoven's Ninth Symphony in UNESCO's Memory of the World Register[edit] Perhaps this decision by the UNESCO regarding the Ninth Symphony is something important to add on this page. - Spartan

Longgg Recording[edit]

Hey! I noticed you pointed out on the symphony's entry, that Böhm's recording of the 9th is not the longest recording in duration. Which is the longest? And how long is it? Is it any good (supposing you've heard it)? Atavi 21:12, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

This one is supposed to be twice as slow as any other version! I'm happy to say that I've not heard it. Grover cleveland 21:32, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
Yes, that recording you are talking about is the longest version released. However, I truly think that the tempos are to slow. The fast parts seem to drag a little bit to much, and the slow parts just are awful. The performance is very well executed by the orchestra, which plays almost flawlessly, but it is quite annoying when the tempos are that slow and the recording takes so long to listen to, almost 2 hours. This performance is probably not what Beethoven intended when he wrote this piece. 02:25, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
I'm dumbfounded. I really wonder if what the conductor's theories (for want of a better word) have any standing. Perhaps we could copy this link to the article's talk page (I doubt it belongs to the main article) Atavi 14:18, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
Justification of slow tempi

Atavi 13:40, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Beethoven may have been an inept metronome user[edit]

Why should this possibility "not be excluded"? Why is it mentioned? Metronomes were notoriously unreliable when Maelzel invented them. A composer (whose name I unfortunately cannot remember) said "Almost all composers who have provided metronome markings have sooner or later excluded them", or words to that effect. DJMitch

I think it should be mentioned if and only if we can attribute the suggestion to somebody whose opinion matters. I'd say it's a rather speculative and flimsy argument, but that doesn't matter. If we have a good source, it belongs anyway, compelling or not, and if we don't, we can't have it here. EldKatt (Talk) 19:05, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Curse of the ninth[edit]

Is a See also link to Curse of the ninth appropriate? Schissel | Sound the Note! 16:32, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Good idea; but I've incorporated it under influence rather than tacked on as a "see also" link. --RobertGtalk 16:55, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure that the ghost of Beethoven killed Mahler/Bruckner etc. after their ninth symphony. I think that is worth a mention, but the influence section needs to play up its influence on Romantic composers, which is grossly understated in the article. Its influence on Brahms, for example, was incalcuable and prevented him from writing a symphony until he was over 40. Similarly, composers from Mendelssohn to Vaughan Williams harkened back to this symphony as THE great musical work. Thus, I throw it out there for someone to post. (And if I can figure out how to do it, I'll contribute it myself).Anderfreude 04:16, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

European Union Flag[edit]

I feel like having the picture of the European Union's flag right there is kind of silly, especially since its use of the fourth movement as an anthem is only briefly mentioned. I feel like if one is to include a picture up right by the top of the article, it should be of more prominence to the topic.

Modern Uses[edit]

The Ode to Joy portion of the 9th, is used ans an anthem by the Frente Sandinista para la Liberacion Nacional (FSLN) political party in Nicaragua. 17:56, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Additions to section "Performing the symphony"[edit]

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.

Mahler's Symphony No. 2 in Cm[edit]

Obvious allusions to Beethoven's Ninth are to be found in Gustav Mahler's Second "Resurrection" Symphony, the first symphony after Beethoven's Ninth in the symphonic repertory (Felix Mendelssohn's Lobgesang is rarely performed) to have a choral ending. It is similar in length, it is choral only in the final movement (although it has a female solo in the slow movement), and its finale has structural similarities to the fourth movement of Beethoven's Ninth. The final movement has references to earlier movements (as does the Finale of Beethoven's Ninth) and a brashly ominous introduction and becomes a sort of symphony in itself. The scherzo-like triplet figuration clearly suggests the scherzo of Beethoven's Ninth and its re-emergence in the final movement.

To be sure, Mahler's treatment of the Klopstock Ode Auferstehen is far darker than Schiller's An die Freude. --Paul from Michigan 03:53, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. Both symphonies have thier dark and bright moments. On the contrary, Mahler uses less minor mode than Beethoven does. Granted, Mahler uses a darker key, but this is an insignifigant change. I think that Beethoven's 9th is a bit brighter simply because his musical style is somewhat more joyful than Mahler. Justin Tokke 01:46, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
Less minor mode? Minor modes do not imply sadness (think of the first movement of Beethoven's Fifth Symphony). Conflict, perhaps... but heck, funeral marches are usually in major modes, and they would be macabre in minor modes.--Paul from Michigan 06:05, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
If you have a source, by all means add it to the article. However, if it's something you noticed, then please don't. —  MusicMaker5376 09:03, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
Paul, I'm sure any scholarly writing on Mahler's Second will mention the allusions to the Ninth. But MusicMaker is right, it's got to be cited from some source or other. maestro 22:21, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

The comparison between these two composers and these two pieces is a personal fascination of mine... I'll see if Floros has anything to say about it, but it'll be a while before I get a chance to read it thorougly. Floros' book is excellent, so here's the bibliography if anybody wants to check it out themselves -- Floros, Constantin. Gustav Mahler: The Symphonies. Trans. Vernon and Jutta Wicker; Ed. Pauly, Reinhard G. Amadeus Press: Portland, OR, 1993. -- The Realms of Gold 17:19, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Influence on the Romantic tradition[edit]

I've just edited the article in two places, the heading and the renamed "Influence" (used to read "Influence on Other Composers") section, to highlight the massive impact this piece had on the Romantic tradition. That can't be understated, and I think the article could use some fleshing out on that topic -- I just added a couple of things off the top of my head, because I'm really not supposed to be editing Wikipedia right now :-p Just so future editors are aware, however, I'm not making the direct claim that the Symphony is entirely Romantic and entirely not Classical, because that's preposterous. But it really is one of the most important works of the Romantic repertoire anyway, and a little detail on this topic could help, especially mentioning Wagner and Mahler and so on. I'll check out what Dubal, Morgan and Levy have to say on it, and Wagner's essay "Beethoven" would be a great primary source, even if it is a little obsessive. I also added a link to a supposed article on Bildung, the Romantic ideal of self-introspection and personal humanism; it automatically redirects to Education, which is really lame, but I can't fix that now. -- The Realms of Gold 21:46, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Beethoven was NEVER completely deaf[edit]

Whoever wrote that in the introduction should research Beethoven's hearing loss more carefully. I'm deleting the paragraph, but I'd like to replace it with something more accurate. Willow1729 03:10, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Do we really need to mention what some Sotherby's official said in the introduction?[edit]

This symphony is one of the greatest work of classical music. Period. No classical lover would contest it. After all, the introduction is supposed to distill the most useful information about the subject, and I don't think whatever a certain auction management official said is that important. Perhaps it would merit a brief mention somewhere in the "original manuscript" section, but not more.

I think we should rather mention in the Sotherby article that "Further testament to the prominence of Sotherby's is that it once sold none other than the original manuscript of Beethoven's ninth!" We've got it backwards, folks. (Yeah, I'm half joking, but you know what I'm trying to say...) Yongjik 09:50, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Wrong third movement media file[edit]

The media file containing the third movement seems to be faulty or containing some other piece of music. (It should be 19 min 19 sec long, but it is in fact 1 hour (!) 17 min 16 sec long. And it does not sound like the third movement...) Ktm810 13:05, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, MPorciusCato uploaded a wrong file and that file is NOT the third movement. In fact, it's Beethoven's Symphony No. 1 in C Major (Op. 21) according to the source. Could someone (as I'm quite busy now .. ) help us to convert and upload the correct file ? Microphone 06:43, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

MPorciusCato says he will do it. Ktm810 13:23, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

New recording[edit]

I have a question.... If this was recorded in 1951, how is it PD? —  MusicMaker5376 15:53, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

After of hearing the 4th movement of the symphony I can only conclude that this is the Furtwängler recording from 22-24 March 1942 with the Berliner Philharmoniker. I can came to this conclusion because I have a copy of this particular recording on CD. It is not the 1951 recording from Bayreut with Furtwängler, as indicated, which I also have a copy of. Victor b04 20:08, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
I fail to see how that makes it any less of a copyvio. —  MusicMaker5376 22:03, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Jonathan Del Mar's Bärenreiter edition[edit]

There is little mention of Jonathan Del Mar's edition of the symphony. In fact, only in the notable recordings is it referred to. I could be the one to fix this, but surely someone more knowledgeable could do a better job. --Atavi 14:16, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

English Translation[edit]

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)

3rd Movement Sound Clip is wrong[edit]

That sound clip is bad. Its 77 minutes long by itself. The page for the clip claims its Furtwangler's 19 minute performance, but this file is 77 minutes long by itself. I commented out the link to the sound clip until the file is fixed. 22:39, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

To explain - I thought that they were referring to the specifics in the taxt not the sound file. The notice to change it belongs here on the talk page and not on the article page if it is bad then the link should be removed until a good one can be found. MarnetteD | Talk 22:46, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
Ah, I see that you have hidden it that works just as well. MarnetteD | Talk 22:49, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
No worries. That was the wrong place for the anon to complain. I just double-checked the file and indeed it is bad. Anyone know how to alert the people in the commons about an improperly labeled sound file? The tags are all different over there. DavidRF (talk) 23:41, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Sorry--that was me. First time editing--I didn't see this page. Furtwangler is slow, but not that slow. I think the link was just playing it on 1/4 speed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 01:58, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Problems playing this file? See media help.

Predecessor to the theme in the 4th movement[edit]

I'm no expert by any means, but I was just listening to Op. 73 (Concerto No. 5 "Emperor", Brendel - Haitnik, London Philharmonic) and I noticed that the theme/melody in the Adagio ma non troppo - Marcia assai vivace, repeated in the Allegro ma non troppo (Quasi andante con motto) - Presto is very similar to that of the 4th movement in the 9th Symphony.

Op. 73 was completed on or before 1810, preceding the 9th (1824).

Perhaps someone with a more scholarly bent can confirm this. It would appear that Beethoven did a variation of the 5th Piano Concerto's theme in the 9th.

Ghostlightning (talk) 07:01, 29 February 2008 (UTC)ghostlightning

Your tempo markings don't line up with the Emperor Concerto. Could you post CD track numbers and times in the two recordings? DavidRF (talk) 18:58, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Emperor Concerto: It starts from 10:25 (time left on the track)up at least untile 7:28 left, though it seems to continue faintly. Forgive me but I'm not conversant in music theory. I'm listening to the Time Life Beethoven collection. It's track No. 5 on the CD.

9th Symphony: I got my copy from a friend's Nodame Cantaibile Best 100 compilation, so I'm afraid I can't give you a CD track number, but it's apparently a Leonard Bernstein recording (Adele Adison as one of the soloists). I apologize that this is all the information I can get out of my iPod now and iTunes isn't installed on the PC I'm using.

21:53 left on the track, and it would repeat several times throughout and is the melody of the solos and choral sections. I hope this is more helpful. —Preceding Ghostlightning comment added by Ghostlightning (talkcontribs) 07:59, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Ode to Joy revisited[edit]

There are at least two threads devoted to this topic; it is an issue that has never been resolved. Do we need an RFC on a good source? Wikisource[2] and Wikiquote[3] both have pages on the subject, but no sources are given for the translation. Any recommendations? Viriditas (talk) 06:30, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Alterations in orchestration[edit]

This section sounds as if it were written only for musicians. The average person, or even the average impassioned classical music listener, would find it too technical. It should be simplified, not really dumbed down, but at least made intelligible to non-musicians. AlbertSM (talk) 19:05, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Second bassoon doubles basses on the counterpoint to the main theme in the fourth movement[edit]

Re "2nd bassoon doubling basses in the finale" in the current version of the article. I read measures 115 to 163 in the Breitkopf & Härtel score (page 183) and second bassoon part (page 10): The full score shows the second bassoon at rest throughout and there is no annotation indicating that the second bassoon doubles the basses; however, the second bassoon part cues (i.e., the notes are printed in reduced size) the bass part for these 49 measures, and is marked with the footnote ‘Bleistiftbemerkung Beethovens: „2. Fag. col Basso“’. The current version of the article indicates the opposite (that the score is annotated and the part is not), and cites Del Mar (albeit incorrectly as the author of Orchestral Variations is Norman Del Mar, not Jonathan Del Mar). Can someone who has access to a copy of Del Mar's book verify that page 43 is consistent with Breitkopf? Ydw (talk) 16:03, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Choral Fantasy as precursor to the Ninth?[edit]

Does anyone object to my mentioning that Beethoven's 1808 Choral Fantasy is a previous substantial work for orchestra and chorus (and piano) and its theme is not dissimilar to the 'Ode to Joy' theme? This is noted in the article on the Choral Fantasy (Beethoven). PhilUK (talk) 20:44, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

No objection here. I'm surprised its not mentioned yet. Its mentioned quite a bit in program notes, so it shouldn't be too hard to find citations for it. DavidRF (talk) 20:48, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
I went several years back in the edit history and fished out a paragraph I wrote about this which later got deleted for some reason. I also added a source for it. Opus33 (talk) 17:51, 9 May 2009 (UTC)


I'm no voice expert, but on the score, the solo introducing the voices in the fourth movement is marked 'Baritone.' I'm not sure, because when I saw this performed, there was no separate baritone soloist, I think it was just the tenor, but I think the baritone should be mentioned somewhere. Daruqe (talk) 19:46, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Bug in Notes Section[edit]

--Bngoal (talk) 23:30, 11 November 2009 (UTC)Note number 6, which links out to Breitkopf, is a dead link.

Thanks. I added a deadlink tag. Maybe someone familiar with their website can see if the link just moved.DavidRF (talk) 23:45, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

full libretto on German wikisource[edit]

it would be nice to find a place in the article to link to it--T1980 (talk) 04:11, 6 February 2010 (UTC)


In the 'Anthem' section, the text:

In 1972, the musical backing (without the words) was adopted as the Anthem of Europe by the Council of Europe and subsequently by the European Communities (now the European Union) in 1985. In 1985, the European Union chose Beethoven's music as the EU anthem.

is confusing and repetitive. What should it say? Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 20:24, 23 April 2010 (UTC)


Interesting claim, but where's the citation?

Beethoven's sketchbooks show that bits of musical material that ultimately appeared in the symphony were written in 1811, and 1817.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Michaeljg107 (talkcontribs) 23:44, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

European Anthem[edit]

I think it's vital information that this symphony is used as the Anthem of Europe, and I am of the opinion that this should be stated in the introduction, and have made a change accordingly. -- CY —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 21:33, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Doniago, what do you mean by "provid[e] sourcing to prove that spin-offs are spin-offs"?[edit]

Can you please explain why you deleted my edit? What kind of "sourcing" do you want? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bfeylia (talkcontribs) 15:57, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Actually, it wasn't because of sourcing that your edit was deleted. Joyful, Joyful We Adore Thee already has its own article and its referred to in the "Influence" section of this article. We are not going to list every artist that has recorded it. Cheers.DavidRF (talk) 17:11, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
That being said, in general you would need to include a citation proving that a "spin-off" actually is intended to refer to this work. It isn't appropriate to say "A is a spin-off of B" unless you can cite, for instance, the creator of A saying that A is indeed a spin-off. Please see WP:VERIFY for more information. Doniago (talk) 18:07, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

"Words written by Beethoven (not Schiller) are shown in italics."[edit]

Can anybody provide a reference that substantiates that they were Beethoven's addition? From what I understand there is academic disagreement over this point. Thanks, AKD157 (talk) 21:19, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

My Friedrich Schiller *Sämtliche Gedichte* says that the lines *was die Mode streng geteilt* and *Alle Menschen werden Brüder* (instead of the 1785 lines *was der Mode Schwert geteilt* and "Bettler werden Fürstenbrüder*) appear in Schiller's edition's from 1805 ("2. Teil"). I remember that also from other editions. Barring a personal check in an actual original of that 1805, edition, I am confident that there is no doubt that Beethoven, whose ninth came out decades later, had nothing to do with the creation of these lines. As for the lines in the recit (*O Freunde ... freudenvollere*), they appear nowhere in Schiller's works; if Beethoven did not write those, I wonder who did, and why Beethoven would have wished or needed someone else to write three lines of such simple prose. The *Zweite Beethoveniana* (Gustav Nottebohm, Leipzg 1887, p. 90) actually shows tentative words for the *orchestral* recitative which Beethoven was in the process of creating in one of his sketchbooks from, N. claims, "no earlier than the end of 1823". (Maesena, July 5th, 2013)

Where's the original score?[edit]

Can anyone add the history of the autograph (ie, original) score and where it is today? This would be a great thing to do for all the great symphonies... —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 21:20, 6 September 2010 (UTC) Hello my friend. You can find a pdf scan of what is purported to be the original manuscript for this symphony here -,_Ludwig_van

from the Berlin State Library. This page I posted will bring up a glossary of all his works, you'll have to scroll down to find his 9th Symphony. is also a great site in general for finding scores you love. (talk) 17:42, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Greatest music piece ever written?[edit]

I wonder if it should be included, a blurb from a book about the symphony doesn't seem like a best source. Theon144 (talk) 19:02, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

An anon (Special:Contributions/ strengthened the wording on that with several edits on January 14th of this year... presumably without consulting the source. It was worded strongly enough before that in my opinion. I'd revert at least that sentence back to that.DavidRF (talk) 01:35, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Early use of the Ode theme in op.18,2[edit]

I think I can hear the Ode an die Freude theme as a kind of early „core version“ in the Allegro movement (1st) of his string quartet in G (2nd, op. 18,2). I am not a musical expert so I would prefer somebody else putting this in, if deemed correct. (talk) 11:47, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Beethoven's previous use of the Freude theme is mentioned in the composition section. "However, both the words and notes of the symphony have sources dating from earlier in Beethoven's career" and others. However it is true that the the Ode an die Freude theme had incubated for quite some time throughout Beethoven's earlier work. The Ninth can be thought of as a culmination of earlier strands an ideas in Beethoven's music, and might a good idea to expand the composition section of the article, for those who are serious at musicology. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cadmus Amadeus (talkcontribs) 21:33, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Illegible Illustration[edit]

The illustration of the page from the score is so small, and the resolution so poor, that nothing meaningful can be seen in it. Seems rather pointless to have it there. Can someone find a better image that can at least be enlarged when viewed? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 19:43, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Misplaced commas?[edit]

I see 3 instances of the text string '," '. Is this intended?

Aisteco (talk) 02:39, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

I searched the article, and found no such thing. Where do you see it? Toccata quarta (talk) 03:06, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
"Misericordias Domini," "Alla marcia," "Beethoven: the Ninth Symphony,"
Aisteco (talk) 20:02, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
Fixed, per MOS:LQ. Thanks for pointing it out. Toccata quarta (talk) 20:17, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Recordings on page (joke or vandalism??)[edit]

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)