Talk:Symphony No. 3 (Beethoven)

I've removed an assertion that this was "the first product of his [Beethoven's] struggle with deafness." As far as I remember, Beethoven began to go deaf in the late 18th or early 19th century, before he'd written his first symphony. (Actually, now I come to check, I see that our own Ludwig van Beethoven article says that "Beethoven began to lose his hearing at least by 1801".) --Camembert

"the scherzo, an 'indomitable uprising of creative energy' and the fourth an exuberant outpouring of creative energy."

I had a friend who attributed it all to lots of strong coffee. -- Viajero 18:11, 29 Jul 2003 (UTC)

On the Anecdote

The feeling that the horns' entrance being premature was more widely felt than just in Beethoven's student. Indeed, Berlioz, on first hearing it, believed it to be a copyist's mistake.

--SamWilson 19:53, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I find that interesting; one of the things I love about Beethoven, and it shines in the Eroica, is his layering. I'm not even sure I even know what part is being talked about. Is it the one slightly after the half-way mark? On a recording I have of Karajan conducting the Berlin Philharmonic, a solo horn comes in at about 7:56 (the total movement is 14:10, for comparison), right before everyone comes in with theme at the beginning. If this is the part, I can understand the confusion, but I have to say, it's one of my favorite parts of that movement. -Eleusinian 22:17, July 28, 2005 (UTC)

That horn part was thought to be a mistake and ommitted by most conductors until sometime in the 20th C. By stating the tonic and dominant together, Beethoven brings the build up of tonal dissonance to a head right at the very end of the development. He took the sonata principle to a whole new level.

--tommac1983

Yeah. Since sonata form is driven between by the conflict between tonic and dominant keys, the horn false entry slaps both together (horn in E flat, strings have a tremolo on dominant 7 pitches) and brings the conflict to a head. This is why I believe the coda was added - to resolve the conflict. --Milton 16:58, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

On the Other Anecdote

The story of Beethoven becoming furious with Napoleon is an exaggeration, according to Grout & Palisca (6e, p. 525):

...the title page of Beethoven's own score originally read "Sinfonia grande intitolata Bonaparte"...Beethoven conducted the symphony in Vienna in 1809 at a concert that Bonaparte was to have attended, and in 1810 he considered dedicating his Mass in C (Op. 86) to the emperor.

--Ed Baskerville, 3 July 2006

Finale

Stated as a variations and fugue on the theme of Beethoven's. This theme was one indeed one of Beethoven's favorites. It was initially Contradanse #7 from the set of 12 Contredanses (WoO 14), then it was used in the finale to the Creatures of Prometheus ballet. Then it was the basis for a set of piano variations (Op. 35) which are also known as the "Eroica Variations" for piano (Op. 35). In these variations, the bass line is stated first and several variations are made on the bass line before the main theme is introduced with variations on the main theme to follow. The 3rd symphony's finale is in some way a symphonic version of those piano variations also with the bass line introduced and varied before the main theme appears.

Analysis of the First Movement

This analysis (contibuted by Jjmontalbo), though well-meaning, is very problematic. First of all, is this level of detail appropriate for a Wikipedia article? (Not a rhetorical question.) Second, I personally think he's wrong in many particulars which are matters of opinion, but it feels wrong to just toss his into the trash when I can seldom "prove" he's incorrect. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.195.65.126 (talk • contribs) 03:21, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Just to be clear, I did not contribute the analysis text of the first movement; it was inserted by somebody else. I merely formatted and wikified some text on that particular section. I am also the one who put the "please wikify..." notice. I even thought of removing the section altogether but I do not know if it is worth removing. –Jjmontalbo 05:29, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

It was added by User:Tommac1983 on 00:05, 27 February 2006, according to the article's history. –Jjmontalbo 05:29, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Leave it in for now, it's enough of a goad that I'm working up a (concise) revision.

Aye. Could stand to be shorter, and I think an analysis for the second movement is just as deserved - the shadings and color of it and the background "plot" are dazzling. --Milton 17:00, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Whether or not it is appropriate for wikipedia, the analysis of the first movement was fun to read and made this article enjoyable rather than just dry facts. I wish there were similar analyses for the other movements, and for other pages on other compositions! Just saying. Pfly 08:44, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Personally, I found it wholly inappropriate. Quite an interesting interpretation for a paper on the subject, but well enough outside of mainstream interpretation to be quite inappropriate for an encyclopedia article. I've never seen anybody break up the movement like that, dividing the development section and all, and, what's more, I don't agree with it. That it stretches the proportions of a regular sonata form does not make it not-a-sonata-form.

Image Needed

Wikimedia Commons has an image of the title page of the Eroica. Should I use it?--Stratford15 04:08, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Why not? DavidRF 22:46, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Dedication and Premiere

I renamed the first section to be "Dedication and Premiere". I think its important to touch on this subject because its important to the title that was eventually given the work and the stories of the dedication are out there and widespread. Once I look at the sources I have they often back away from some of the colorful details of the anecdote. Here's what I can find citations for:

• "Beethoven originally dedicated it to Napoleon Bonaparte. Beethoven admired the ideals of the French Revolution, and Napoleon as their embodiment"
  • Grove, George. "Beethoven and His Nine Symphonies". p. 49-95. Dover, 1962.
  • Steinberg, Michael. "The Symphony: a listeners guide". p. 11-19. Oxford University Press, 1995.
• "Beethoven was so disgusted when Napoleon crowned himself Emperor of the French that he changed the dedication."
  • Grove, George. "Beethoven and His Nine Symphonies". p. 49-95. Dover, 1962.
  • Steinberg, Michael. "The Symphony: a listeners guide". p. 11-19. Oxford University Press, 1995.
• "before the work's publication in 1806, Beethoven inscribed the title Sinfonia eroica, composta per festeggiare il sovvenire d'un grand'uomo (Heroic symphony, composed to celebrate the memory of a great man)"
  • Grove, George. "Beethoven and His Nine Symphonies". p. 49-95. Dover, 1962.

What I can't find citations for:

• The "erasing Napoleon's name so violently as to tear a hole in the paper" anecdote.
  • Grove says that he "tore the title-page in half and threw it to the ground". Personally, I have heard stories of the tear-a-hole-in-the-page anecdote, but I don't have a citation for it.

That's only two sources I have at the moment, so that is all I can contribute. Perhaps others have more. DavidRF 23:03, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

That Grove quote about Beethoven tearing the title-page in half is from Ferdinand Ries' account, and it's also cited in Thayer's Life, pages 348-9 of the 1967 Forbes translation (I'm pretty inexperienced at this whole thing so I don't know how detailed a citation you were hoping for!). Be aware, though, that recent opinion (certainly according to Maynard Solomon, whose book 'Beethoven' I'm getting all this from) is that the whole process was rather more complicated than that. I'd fill more in myself, but I'm too busy at the mo I'm afraid - hopefully that citation will help a bit, and it's worth reading Solomon's discussion of it if you want more detail. I suspect that the anecdote about tearing a hole in the paper would also be in Thayer. Hutchies 12:43, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

The Other Three Movements

So much on the opening movement and nothing on the other three. I understand that the first movement analysis is pretty cool and we are hesitant to prune it at all, but there should at least be a sentence or two on each of the other three movements. There is a new article on the Eroica Variations that were a precursor to the symphony's finale, but I'm not sure where in this article it should go. DavidRF 22:19, 9 January 2007 (UTC)