Talk:Ludwig van Beethoven

"German"

I'm reluctant to raise this issue, given what's happened at Copernicus, but in the interest of accuracy: Is it an oversimplicfication to call Beethoven a "German" composer, given that most of his productive life transpired in Austria? Further, given the stature universally accorded to him, is "German" too limiting? Isn't he in retrospect a citizen of the world?

Sca (talk) 20:50, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, we'd still call Socrates Greek and Shakespeare English, though one could argue that they're figures of international stature too. My best guess is that Beethoven would have self-identified as German, and that the Viennese probablly thought of him as German also, not as Austrian. (His accent would have marked him as non-Austrian, for one thing.) I think calling him German is fine. 65.213.77.129 (talk) 14:19, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't see any problem calling him "German" because he was a German-born citizen. It's like people calling Hitler "German". He was Austrian. --Andrewire (talk) 10:21, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

This seems like false uncertainty

It is known that his family and his teacher Johann Albrechtsberger celebrated his birthday on 16 December. Thus, while the evidence supports the probability that 16 December 1770 as Beethoven's date of birth, this cannot be stated with certainty.

Surely his parents are more authoritative about his birthday than any governmental record. If one does not consider this to be 'certain' then one must question the concept of certainty on epistemological grounds. A government record is not inherently authoritative merely by virtue of being legally official. Birth is not an act of law. It is an act of biology. --75.63.55.159 (talk) 08:49, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Just because his family celebrated his birthday on the 16. December doesn't mean that was his actual birthday. His birth might have been thought of as "the third Wednesday in December", for example. Or they might have used a day in the general area and called it his birthday. It's very hard to pick out individual dates in the 18th century with certainty afterall. Themfromspace (talk) 09:30, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

I am also troubled by this. Wikipedia must be the only reputable reference source that says he was born on 16 December. True, we do have a footnote "Beethoven was baptized on 17 December; his date of birth—usually given as 16 December—is not known with certainty", but that actually denies the certainty of 16 December. If it's not certain, we shouldn't be stating it as if it were, footnote or no. Many readers can't be bothered with footnotes; they'll just see "16 December", and go off and quote it as if it were fact, which it isn't. There has to be a better way than this. -- JackofOz (talk) 18:37, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Thayer spends several pages discussing the birth date. There is no birth record. However, the tradition was to baptize babies the day after birth, and there is a baptism record, so December 16 seems pretty certain.

kibi (talk) 15:12, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

• I agree with JackofOz I was going to cite his birthday December 16. Because I read this discussion I was aware of the inacuracy of the information. I just consulted the section for biographies of the Larousee Dictionary and they do not include a birthdate. I believe the birthday should not be excluded. --Juliaaltagracia (talk) 17:03, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

@ Kibiusa: There is also that fine old tradition: "Traditions are not always observed". Very likely, quite probable etc do not equal "known". There's also this waffly, weasely notion of "not known with certainty" - if we cannot put our collective hand on a Bible and swear that he was born on 16 December - and we can't - then his birthdate is not known at all. I've made an adjustment to the text, because it is inappropriate to virtually bury in a footnote the fact that such a major world figure's date of birth is not known. Yes, it's fine to discuss the theories in the body, but the very first thing we tell our readers should not be something that is unsupportable as a supposed fact, even if it is highly qualified or even contradicted in a footnote, because a lot of readers wouldn't think to click on it because it looks for all the world like it's merely indicating the source of "16 December", when in fact it's gainsaying it. -- JackofOz (talk) 22:07, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, you know, we go by the reliable sources here. If other such sources can come up with a different date, fine. But they haven't and 16th seems to fit in with a baptism on 17th, as well as the family celebration of his birthday. This isn't a WP:BLP issue, and a day or so variation seems to be unnecessarily detailed a point to argue. However, all the sources I've seen (although I've only cited the one I have closest to hand) say 16th. I don't think it's worth arguing, per Emerson. Rodhullandemu 22:31, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Good link removed

The link to http://www.ourdigest.com/gvideos.php?gid=1 has been removed, but it contains all 9 major works of Beethoven in good quality. I am not eligible of editing semi-protected pages, so someone else has to place the link. If you think it is a good idea.

Drwolffenstein (talk) 15:44, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

First, please put new messages at the bottom of the talk page.

Second, the external link policy notes that sites requiring registration to access their content are discouraged (Wikipedia:EL#Sites_requiring_registration). The site you mention requires registration; this is part of why it was removed.

Third, your site is not generally about Beethoven, or some specific aspect of Beethoven. Even if I thought the site was worth disregarding policy on, it does not have sufficient content to merit inclusion on a composer bio page. (We could just as well put a link to Youtube and a dozen other video sites; I can probably find plenty of other video of Beethoven's music being performed.) Links to the individual symphony videos, if they were accessible without registration, would probably be welcome on the pages of the respective symphonies.

Fourth, I note that this is about to be the third time links to this material are removed after you added it. This should give you some indication of what other editors think of it.

-- Magic♪piano 20:30, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Funeral

"Unlike Mozart, who was buried in a common grave (as was the custom at the time)" This reference to Mozart's funeral seems irrelevant, this is Beethoven's article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.44.142.92 (talk) 22:55, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

"indecipherable, uncorrected horrors,"

That sounds like something Spor might have said of Grosse Fugue, but of the late quartets in general? Not convincing. A reliable source would be nice. 78.27.89.8 (talk) 19:14, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

I think this might have a reference to it. Can someone with access check? Any how, a quick google search for "indecipherable, uncorrected horrors" indicates that Spohr is quoted on this elsewhere too, so I doubt someone just made it up. Asmeurer (talk ♬ contribs) 03:02, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

I may be the one responsible for the addition (if so, it was a long time ago, before we were rigorously citing sources). I am familiar with the quotation and copied it from a hard-copy source. Unfortunately, a couple days ago (after 78's initial post) I dug through all my usual books and was unable to find it again; I thought maybe it was quoted in Kerman's book on the Beethoven Quartets, but on thumbing through it haven't located it. I'm pretty sure originally it's from Spohr's Selbstbiographie (1861), in German, which by the way is jammed with other quotables about the awfulness of Beethoven's late works: if necessary we could replace it with another. "Ich gestehe frei dass ich den letzten Arbeiten Beethovens nie habe Geschmack abgewinnen können..." und so weiter, in copious detail. Antandrus (talk) 03:26, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

"...and the Ninth Symphony, perhaps Beethoven's best known work."

Of course, it is a very well known piece of music, but then again so are several other works from Beethoven's canon. There's the first movement of the fifth, the pastoral sixth, the fourteenth 'moonlight' piano sonata and so on. As so many works of Beethoven have become so highly recognised within european culture and beyond, I feel that this may be a little unnecessary? Paulzon (talk) 04:04, 24 March 2009 (UTC

. . . not to mention "Fur Elise" and other candidates for "best known." Seems a bit POV, or at least unsourced speculation. No one is arguing with you, so I'm taking it out.

kibi (talk) 15:28, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

"Order of the Illuminati"

..this links to a 2003 Speed Metal album by American group Agent Steel, and not the Illuminati as it presumably should.86.134.27.67 (talk) 17:45, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for pointing that out. I have changed it. Tempo rubato (talk) 17:52, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

That's what I get for not checking all of the links before I commit. Thanks. Magic♪piano 18:26, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Deafness

A long time ago in the UK, a TV advert for a series of classical recordings stated that B had the legs sawn off his piano so that he could 'hear' its reverberations through the floorboards. Although I remember it well, I have not seen a reference to it since. Is it a myth? Myrvin (talk) 20:47, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Death

The first sentence reads: "After Beethoven lost custody of his nephew, he went into a decline that led to his death on Monday 26 March 1827 during a heavy hailstorm which was later confirmed by Gerhard von Breuning".

Did GvB confirm the death, the hailstorm, or the death during a hailstorm? The article Death of Beethoven says he wasn't in the room. Also, the sentence suggests some connection between the custody problem and his death. Reference 42 doesn't lead anywhere either. It needs rewriting. Myrvin (talk) 12:30, 11 June 2009 (UTC)