Talk:Große Fuge

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Classical music / Compositions 
WikiProject icon Große Fuge 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.


Yahoo pulls down their articles after about a month. Just check your link in a month. I would use a link like this. [1]

I might be off, but I am fairly sure that the theme is related to that of Opus 130, not 132 (it was certainly concieved simultaneously with the theme of 130, and resembles it much more closely). I don't think there would be any objections to a somewhat extreme expansion of this article when I have some more time? 04:43, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

i have to agree with the article that the fugue is clearly connected to op. 132. just compare the openings of each; the overture of the fugue is just four variations of the same idea as the opening of 132. i don't know with which movement of 130 you're suggesting a connection. --Jeffcovey
I'm not positive but I think (some things in, not all of) almost all the late quartets have some connection to the motif that opens opus 132 in any case... Schissel | Sound the Note! 01:55, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Hard to believe that there is an edit war over this topic[edit]

As one who contributes occasionally to articles related to the Middle East, I have been a spectator of numerous edit wars. But who would have dreamed that there would be an edit war over a topic so abstruse, so remote from the eye of this world's petty but vicious political mayhem? Well, it just shows you how right was Henry Kissinger, who said, "The reason academic arguments are so virulent is that there is so little at stake."

To the matter at hand: I will summarize events for readers of this talk page who will drop by years after this edit war is ancient history: There was (perhaps will be again) a section of this article called "Grosse Fuge in popular culture", which listed a number of fundamentally trivial references to this piece in movies, plays and stuff like that. The section was deleted in a massive strike against sections like this in several hundred articles, by a user named Burntsauce. Mr. Burntsauce's talk page expresses a deep contempt for trivia and popular culture sections in articles of all types. This massive deletion was discussed with some bitterness on Mr. Burntsauce's talk page, and the discussion continued on WP:ANI#Removing pop trivia. Even before that discussion reached a conclusion, User:Equazcion restored the deletion, and User:Antandrus deleted it again.


Now the real question is, what do I think about all this? The section "Grosse Fuge in popular culture" had three problems:

  • It had no references. Adding references would not be a big deal, but whoever wrote the section didn't bother to do so.
  • Three of the six items cited (the novel Fifty Degrees Below, and the two movie references) are trivial and (perhaps) not worthy of inclusion in the encyclopedia.
  • The title of the section is misleading. A string quartet by Schnittke, a poem, and even a composition by PDQ Bach, cannot be called "popular culture."

So what do I think we should do? I think we should restore the section, rename it (References to GF in other works?), mark it as unreferenced, and wait for someone to edit it so it is pertinent and pompous enough to be "encyclopedic."

I think Antandrus should edit it, as penance for his hasty and ill-considered redeletion.

I will wait a couple of days, and if no one adds to this post, I will restore it and do the editing myself (sigh!)

--Ravpapa 19:34, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Focus on content rather than behavior, please. "Hasty and ill-considered" -- you just might want to have a look at our assume good faith policy. It's an important one. Nor is your characterisation of my single edit as an "edit war" particularly helpful.
My deletion was consistent with our mission to produce a quality encyclopedia, with verifiable content. "X in popular culture" sections are weed-patches, where passersby add their memories, more or less reliable, of having seen or heard X on TV shows, T-shirts, coffee-mugs, video-game levels, or whatever.
I do not believe that lists of trivial items such as formerly existed in this section belong in an encyclopedia article. Others are free to disagree; it's a wiki, and such disagreements are in the nature of this editing environment. I see a couple of items that could sensibly be worked into a paragraph named, perhaps, "Influence"; the Schnittke is the most significant of these. I'm willing to write it myself, but I assure you doing so would not be a "penance", for there is nothing in deleting useless and unencyclopedic sections about which to be penitent. Such sections are little better than graffiti, in my opinion, and are generally added by people who know nothing at all about the topic to which they are affixing them, and thus are not qualified to assess their significance. Thank you, Antandrus (talk) 01:12, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
What you believe isn't a great argument because Wikipedia is rather divided on the subject of trivia, so it behooves us all to find a happy medium. See WP:TRIVIA -- As of now, we're supposed to keep these sections in for possible integration.
Equazcionargue/improves01:25, 10/10/2007

Antandrus, I am sorry if you took umbrage at my characterization of your undocumented redeletion of the section as "edit warring" and as "hasty and ill-considered". I was apparently wrong about the edit warring part - I thought that three reversions of a section constituted an edit war, and yours, I thought, was the third. And it is clear from your comment that your act was the result of considerable thought, though you chose not to share those thoughts on the article's talk page.

To the point: you yourself acknowledge that at least one fact in that section was worthy of inclusion in the article (the Schnittke quartet). By wholesale deletion of the offending section, you would have made that fact go away forever, and a good-intentioned editor would then have been unable to rewrite the section, to weed the unweeded garden (to continue your conceit).

In any case, I have rewritten the section, preserving the information I felt contributed substantively to the article. I would appreciate your adding citations for the two quotes that I believe you inserted oh, so long ago. Also, the citation I have for Stravinsky's comment isn't a very good one - do you know where he said this originally?

Thanks, and I hope that, in spite of gently scratched egos, we have come up with an article we all can be proud of. (And so, ending this comment with a preposition, I am, sincerely,) --Ravpapa 07:16, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Why is this article classed as a stub?[edit]

It doesn't seem a stub to me. --Ravpapa (talk) 07:50, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

I saw this too. But there is no "why". Unfortunately the Wikipedia community now actively encourages often incorrect and generally meaningless edits related to "assessment", whether they're done by humans or bots. This one was done by a bot, which I assume looks for a stub template on an article -- yet there is no stub template on this article. (There is the word "stub"born, but please don't tell me the bot is programmed that poorly!) You should bring this up with the editor who runs the bot.
What's ironic is that in August I participated in a discussion at the classical music wikiproject in which I discouraged 'members' from bothering with this assessment crap. Nobody bothers with discussion or consensus when it comes to this stuff anymore, so somebody has now fired up a bot to look for the combination of "classical music template" and "stub tag", and then put "stub" in the "classical music template". They figure it's somehow beneficial to wikipedia to mass-tag thousands of articles in a manner that represents a "rating", without stopping to wonder what it means to "rate" without actually engaging in the article at all. If you question them, they tell you it doesn't actually mean anything, so don't be offended. This is rampant, and one of the reasons I've stopped editing -- the ratio of pointless edits to thoughtful editors has gone through the roof.
Anyway, I've removed the "stub" from the template, and if you participated in making this article, thank you. (That's really all anyone wants from wikipedia -- an occasional recognition -- but now we have passive "reviewers", if they're even human, who say nothing but slap a rating into a template, a rating which, if you look it up, has the general effect of denigrating the article, if you make the mistake of assigning a meaning to it.) What a coincidence that I was here to answer your question at such length! :) Whiskeydog (talk) 08:17, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
In general I agree with you, Whiskeydog; these "assessments" are one of the most poorly-considered aspects of the project. Probably the solution is for people who know the most about the subject matter to assess articles pre-emptively, before the bots and teams of assessors, having contests for speed and number, get there. As of them not "meaning" anything -- if there is any release of Wikipedia as a stable version, the assessments are used to choose what goes on the DVD. So unfortunately, yes. Another singular utility of these assessments is to infuriate good editors who spend a lot of time and trouble researching and writing, only to discover a "stub" "start" or (somehow more insulting) "C" stamped on the talk page by someone who has never before visited the article.
For this article, I think B is fair, and is the highest class that would not require intervention from one of the assessment processes. Thanks all, Antandrus (talk) 13:48, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the polite message. It was so kind I feel like going ito a deep, thoughtful answer about the assessment. If you would have assessed the class like a somewhat decent editor, my bot wouldn't of had to have done it. You have to get your small mind around the fact that automated processes aren't perfect. HAVE A JOYOUS LIFE! §hep¡Talk to me! 21:51, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
Stepshep, your bot doesn't have to do anything. Article assessment by bot is one of the most absurd, and indeed destructive, actions I have seen on this project: how can a bot possibly know anything about a topic? Only someone who understands a topic can possibly leave a sensible assessment. You do understand this, yes?
I see it doesn't make personal attacks, either: only its owner seems to do that. Antandrus (talk) 21:57, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
And just making sure that there is no misunderstanding here (most conflict arises from misunderstanding): I have no objection to bot-assessment as "stub" when there is a stub tag in the article; the worst thing that can happen then is we remove it when we make a correct assessment (often stub tags get left in articles inadvertently). My objection is automated assessment at levels above "stub", since a bot cannot make meaningful distinctions between classes. Thanks, Antandrus (talk) 22:20, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
Stepshep: yes, I am criticizing what you do. If you want to call me impolite, fine. I disagree with your activity and consider it a detriment to wikipedia. I am in the minority, however—but I've noticed that many editors who I consider especially valuable contributors to wikipedia have related concerns (Antandrus is a good example!). I don't come by the position randomly; in another life (account) I created the "assessment javascript" which unfortunately made drive-by assessment all the easier. Out of concern for Wikipedia I asked an admin to delete that script a few weeks ago. A rash end to put some rash behavior to rest.
I consider most of the editing that occurs under the rubric of the assessment system to be thoughtless editing. Never mind that the system itself troubles me; but its application is a real problem. It used to be that "wikignome" type tasks (which I have frequently participated in) were productive tasks that, if carried out in a thought experiment to every single article, would be awesome for Wikipedia. This includes categorizing articles, improving layout, correcting spelling, etc. But there is a new "wikignome" job description, and I don't think it's good for the encyclopedia. A thought experiment involving the new wikignome work would see a template at the top of every article and article talk page, left without any discussion. The templates would say "this article is missing something", quoting a guideline or policy that we already know applies to every Wikipedia article—and every Wikipedia article is a work in progress. They don't need templates and voiceless reviews, they need work. We don't say that something is wrong; we fix it. That's how a wiki works. Where did this new, counterproductive wikignome "work" come from? It's been created so that it can be done by someone, as far as I can tell, and I will not pretend that it is a beneficial effort just to not hurt someone's feelings. I believe that human resources are being lost to the project because of the new, passive-aggressive "wikignome" work, and that that loss is much greater than any gain produced by huge categories full of "stubs" and "starts" that may or may not be "stubs" and "starts".
I'm posting once more in case I can convince one more person (anyone). Last message from me. Whiskeydog (talk) 23:11, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Apologies for the mistake. I explained the bot run here: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Classical_music#Automatic_stub_classification. The stub class marking was within the agreed project system. Please post on the project if you have concerns.

I arranged the bot run with Stepshep. He had to write a special script because of the proliferation of stub types (49 at the last count) for this project, see Wikipedia:WikiProject Classical music/Stubs. If we just had one or two stub types for this project we wouldn't have had this problem. Best regards. --Kleinzach 00:37, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

You do notice that there was an auto=yes parameter yes? The idea is that eventually an editor from whatever project will get to the article and double-check the work. So far only one complaint of 2 articles out of over 2,000 assessed seems good enough to me. I have no need for an argument so this will be my last comment on the matter. Thanks. §hep¡Talk to me! 01:26, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
It was I who pointed Shep to this article on his talk page, and I was might snappy about it, I admit. But, truth be told, Shep does have a point. By automatically labeling the article as a stub, he forced us to do a real assessment, which was a good thing. In a second case, String_Quartet_No._2_(Mendelssohn), the offensive assessment even inspired me to make improvements in the article. So, I suppose, all was for the good, even if feathers were ruffled. --Ravpapa (talk) 10:02, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
A moment later: But I now see that all the B assessments have disappeared from the articles, this one included. The template says { {Classical|class=B} } but it displays as ??? This article has not yet been rated on the assessment scale. This problem is universal, not just on this article. Please fix. --Ravpapa (talk) 10:10, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Maybe that "stubbot" should be programmed to put his output to an internal list of stubs aso., which could then be presented to possible editors maybe as a "suspected stub list". That list could then be worked down by human beings to the point that a co-worker looks at the article and makes a decision wether a stup template be placed or not. That list could also roughly be sorted into content areas like "classic music" "modern art", "history", "astronomy" or something similar.
That might ease up human work on articles but not turn a lot of articles into "almost rubbish" in common readers view. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 21:52, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Literary influence section[edit]

Does anybody else feel this should be removed? I fail to see what light a character in a sci-fi book's plauing the Grosse Fugue and the Hammerklavier sheds on this work. Does Mr. Vernor have any real background in music, or did he simply pick the archetypal examples of late Beethoven conterpoint for his scene? Additionally, how does this exemplify "abstruse, difficult character of the piece?" Music criticism this isn't. If this was an iconic scene recognized the world over, then it might be significant on its own, but alas it simply is not. NeverWorker (Drop me a line) 06:39, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

I am a little surprised that you chose to this particular reference as insignificant, and not the use of the fugue as background music for a Charles Bronson film. You are right that this is not particularly significant, but there are many, far less significant squidgets of information in the Wikipedia. There is a separate article on Bissli, an Israeli snack food.
My own feeling is that, the piece being what it is, any reference to it in works for popular consumption (as opposed to highbrow stuff, like Doty's exquisite poem), has some significance. I would leave it. --Ravpapa (talk) 12:08, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
You're right, the background music note is also insignificant, and it should also be removed. This one simply happens to be a double offender in that it also makes silly claims about what this use shows about the Fugue (while the supposed meaning of the Fugue in the film may need a citation, at least it's not ridiculous). As far as the existence of other sillier things is concerned, I simply don't see the relevance. Let's fix things one at a time. On a side note, Bissli is probably a bad example of something insignificant. Having spent several years over there, I can tell you that to Israelis, that's the iconoclastic snack food (though recently i get the impression it's been losing market share, but that's purely anecdotal). NeverWorker (Drop me a line) 07:24, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Große Fuge Orchestral Version[edit]

Firstly I would like to say that this article is very well done. It is informative and well written. I particularly like the use of the quotes, very amusing !!

Concerning the article, could someone with knowledge of this subject add something about the orchestral version of string quartet Op. 130/Op.133. How did it come about? How was it adapted from the string quartet?

I have a recording by Otto Klemperer which is extraordinary but do wonder how it was accomplished.

Thank You Nmollo (talk) 18:37, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Great work, I suggest some reorganization[edit]

Pfly, great additions to this article. Thank you.

I think that a lot of the material that you have added to the lead belongs in the body of the article. How would you feel about this: Let's add a section History of composition. Let's take the third paragraph of the lead ("Beethoven originally composed... " and put half of it in this new section and half (the part that deals with analysis and comparison to the Ode to Joy) in the Analysis section.

Awaiting your ideas, --Ravpapa (talk) 07:08, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

I agree. The article's overall structure could be much improved. I saw that when I made my edits, but didn't have the time or energy to deal with it. Please feel free to improve it as best you can! I'll try to find time to do more. I've been pondering adding notation graphics of the main subjects, but as always it may take me a long while. Pfly (talk) 12:44, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

This makes no sense[edit]

"There have been numerous orchestral arrangements of the fugue, including by conductor Wilhelm Furtwängler, and a full orchestral arrangement by Felix Weingartner."

That's like saying, "There have been numerous car models manufactured in blue, and a model manufactured in blue." — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 17:50, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

I believe both these arrangements are for string orchestra. The only full orchestral arrangement I know of is by Manuel Hidalgo, which is available on CD. Probably not worth mentioning in the Wiki entry (though it's fun!) Opus131 (talk) 02:25, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Four-hand arrangement[edit]

The section on Op. 134 opens, "When Beethoven detached the movement from the quartet, he still wanted the music to be as accessible as possible." Cooper reconstructs the timeline quite differently. The publisher Artaria asked Beethoven to make a four-hand arrangement well before the fugue's separation from the Op. 130 quartet was ever proposed. There was evidently a demand for a more accessible score, even though the quartet version wasn't found very palatable. If there's no comment, I'll rewrite this paragraph, but I'll need to use an in-line reference because I don't know how to do it the right way! Opus131 (talk) 02:00, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Went ahead and did it. I even figured out how to handle a footnote! Opus131 (talk) 03:29, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Ted Hughes[edit]

User:Fydlerp has added a sentence that the fugue is the subject of a poem in Ted Hughes's volume of poetry "Moortown" (or maybe "Moortown Diary"). I don't have the book, but looked at the table of contents and found no poem with the title "Grosse Fuge". Perhaps Fydlerp could quote a line from the poem, or give a page reference, so someone can check? Thanks, Ravpapa (talk) 04:41, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Edits by[edit]

Toccata has reverted a number of additions to the Reception section of the article (here), including quotes from Hanslick and Schindler which I found very interesting. The quotes were undocumented, but the anonymous editor who added them promised to provide references. I think we should restore it, edit it so it is a little less editorial, and give this anon a chance to do his thing. The bit about Schuppanzigh seems a bit problematic: was he talking about the fugue or the 9th symphony? If it was the symphony, it is really a bit over the top. Ravpapa (talk) 07:26, 4 November 2013 (UTC)


[2] Igor Stravinsky deemed the Grosse Fuge of the second to last quartet the greatest piece of music ever written. this should be added if correct.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 06:54, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

I would not invest a lot of faith in that particular source - it is pretty off the wall to me. I have never seen a quote of Stravinsky's claiming such a thing, but if you find a reliable source for it, by all means add it.--Ravpapa (talk) 14:49, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Attributed to Louis van Beethoven[edit]

User:Pigsonthewing is insisting on including in the caption to the picture in the lead the words "attributed to ". The addition suggests to most readers that the publication is attributing the work to some other Beethoven, not to Ludwig van Beethoven. That is certainly misleading. Ludwig in French is Louis. It was quite common in the period to publish works with title pages in French rather than German. In light of this, Pigson, is there some compelling reason that you think we need this? --Ravpapa (talk) 15:08, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

No, including that wording does not "suggest to most readers that the publication is attributing the work to some other Beethoven", any more than having a picture of a score with those words of attribution on the front of it does. But it does explain what is written on the front page of the document. By all means add further clarification, if you think others might make that mistake. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:57, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
Similarly, on the title page of the famous sonata quasi una fantasia, he is named Luigi, and the dedicatee also with an Italian version of her name, Giulietta, - this is relevant information about the style of the time, I would think. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:20, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
Well, if you ask me, it doesn't exactly explain what is written on the first page, it just repeats it. You'd think that people could read it for themselves. But if you think it is important, then that's fine. Didn't mean to be picky. --Ravpapa (talk) 23:37, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
The problem is that when we say some work is or has been "attributed" to some creator, that means either (a) we're not sure it really was by that person, or (b) we're sure it was NOT by that composer, but we're just letting readers know what the historical attribution was. For example, "Albinoni's Adagio" was for a long time said to have been written by Albinoni; all the reference works said so. Now, we know it was 99.9% the work of Remo Giazotto, who based it on a scrap of melody he claimed was by Albinoni. So, we now say it was written by Giazotto and was formerly attributed to Albinoni. Similarly for "Haydn's Serenade". which we now know was really by Hofmeister or Hofstetter or someone. Nothing remotely like that situation obtains in the case of the Grosse Fuge. It was by Beethoven; nobody has ever questioned that fact. But when we introduce the word "attributed", that already raises questions in the minds of readers; when we compound the error by having that word in close proximity to "Louis van Beethoven", a less well-read reader could reasonably conclude we're saying the piece was really written by some Beethoven relative named Louis, who was a different person from the famous Ludwig van. That is not an outcome that anyone wants, is it? Really? Just because the title page of a publication spells the composer's name in a way that is different from the standard way, that is not a case of the work being "attributed" to the person named on the front. Some Polish publications spell Chopin's surname as "Szopen", but that has nothing to do with attribution. It is solely a matter of orthography. -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 00:03, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
(ec)I agree with Ravpapa that the wording "credited to 'Louis van Beethoven'" might be confusing. At first glance, it might suggest an author other than Ludwig or hint at the publisher's perceived inaccuracy at writing his name. As Gerda points out, using Italian or French forms was very common and totally unremarkable at the time. The caption doesn't explain any of this, so I suggest the article would be better off without it. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 00:07, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
You appear to have missed my comment "By all means add further clarification". Perhaps "Published under the French spelling of Beethoven's name, 'Louis van Beethoven'" would satisfy? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:36, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
Andy, you asked for an explanation of why your addition was deleted. I explained. Can you explain why your addition is necessary? We all seem to think that it adds nothing but confusion. Obviously you think otherwise. Maybe if you explain why it is a useful addition, we will understand. --Ravpapa (talk) 15:35, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
To explain what is written on the front of the document. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:17, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
With all due respect, you have not explained anything. You have only pointed out that the name on the title page is "Louis van Beethoven"; and you have done so in a way that, to all of us here, confuses rather than clarifies. Here is a guess: you want to point out that, even though the score was published in Vienna, the title page is in French. If that is so, perhaps you would like "Title page of the first edition of the Grande Fugue, published in Vienna (with French title page) by Matthias Artaria in 1827". What do you think? --Ravpapa (talk) 00:43, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
And again: "By all means add further clarification". Your suggestion removes the word "Louis". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:13, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
Note that the title and initial post in this section are misleading, the wording used is "credited to 'Louis van Beethoven'", not "attributed to 'Louis van Beethoven'". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:13, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
You added that phrase; consensus here is that it is unnecessary and confusing. You counter that it won't be confusing if a further explanation is provided, but you don't provide it. When consensus is enacted, you revert and introduce further errors to the article. What gives? Unkind people might call that disruptive editing; those of a sunnier disposition might call it only stubborn. No one would call it collegial collaboration. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 12:55, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
Your claim of consensus is bogus, and your claim of "further [sic] errors" (which I have now fixed; you did not) is irrelevant to the issue at hand. I suggested above, in reply to you "Perhaps "Published under the French spelling of Beethoven's name, 'Louis van Beethoven'" would satisfy?", but you have ignored that (so much for "collegial collaboration"!); your claim that I have not provided further explanation is also thus bogus. For the fourth time: "By all means add further clarification". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:09, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Can we hit the reset button on this discussion? Nobody is trying to attack anyone and no one need feel threatened. We all want the same thing - to have the best article possible.

Now my question is: why is it necessary to have the word "Louis" in the caption? What is it you are trying to clarify? If we can understand that, maybe we can find wording that is clear to everyone. (Ravpapa, and I cant seem to find the tilde on my new tablet)

Andy, are you planning on continuing this discussion? Or are you done? --Ravpapa (talk) 17:26, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

As noted on my user page, I'm currently at Wikimania, so my time editing is limited this week. We present to our readers a picture with a name which is not "Ludwig van Beethoven". We should explain what and why that is, because we are building an encyclopedia. I'm done, unless Someone removes the caption, or replaces it with something less helpful. AS I said above: "By all means add further clarification". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:29, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
Thank you, I now understand why you have insisted on including Beethoven's French name in the caption. I have edited the caption in a way that I think clarifies what you are concerned about. --Ravpapa (talk) 15:32, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

New edits by S Husarik[edit]

Dear Husarik,

I am glad you have written a new article. I do think, though, that you should not insert quotes from it randomly in paragraphs where they are non sequiturs. In the first instance, you deleted a quote (from yourself) which concluded, quite nicely, the thesis of the paragraph - that structural analyses of the Grosse Fuge somehow leave listeners unsatisfied. Instead of that, you inserted a quote (again, from yourself) about humor in the Grosse Fuge, and about Christ's Passion - none of which has anything to do with the paragraph.

In the second case, you removed a nice, punchy quote (from yourself) about humor in the piece, and replaced it with a different quote, much less focused on the subject, that discusses "a resolution of the rhythmic, melodic and harmonic irregularities presented by its cantus firmus" - which, again, has nothing to do with the subject of the paragraph.

I don't rule out the possibility that your new article has something of value to contribute to a full discussion of the Grosse Fuge, but the way that you have introduced it makes it seem frivolous and irrelevant. I suggest that you send me a copy of your new article via wikimail, and I will read it and try to add material in a way that actually makes sense.


--Ravpapa (talk) 18:23, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

I agree with Ravpapa that the new quotations are much less poignant, or even distracting ("Christ's Passion" ?). -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 03:30, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

In light of the comments here, I have restored the original Husarik quotes to the article. I will look for Husarik's article, and see if there is some other appropriate way to include it. I also removed the reference to Speck's book in the Books section of the bibliography, but left the reference to Husarik's article in the Journals section. No need to include two citations to the same book.

Naturally, if Husarik responds here, we can consider other options. Ravpapa (talk) 14:17, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

Once again, Husarik, you have made an addition to the article that makes no sense to me. "William Caplan has shown that it was arrived at in just two steps." What was arrived at in just two steps? The Bach fugue? Beethoven's subject? What does this mean and why is it relevant here?

If you explain it, maybe we can rewrite it so people will understand what you are talking about. Thanks, Ravpapa (talk) 03:07, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

paradoxical notation[edit]

"Paradoxical" is the wrong word, I think. "Unusual" or "strange" works better, as does the "peculiar" we now also have. We all know that two tied eighth notes make a quarter note; what causes the problem in most people's minds is that then we start wondering why Beethoven didn't just write a quarter note, which seems to mean the same thing. (Of course, if you remember the convention, active till about the 1820s, of shortening the last note before a rest, it starts to make sense.) Double sharp (talk) 08:22, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

Quite right, and thank you for your critical reading. --Ravpapa (talk) 15:03, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

score of second/third variation of the first fugue[edit]

Hi all, writing here as I am not sure so I am not doing the edit straight away. The "Analysis" section, under the "First Fugue" subsection presents the score of "Third variation of the fugue". However, looking at the text of the section and at the score itself it seems to me the Second variation. Is it correct? Thanks

une musque de Biscaye (talk) 09:38, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

How right you are! Corrected. --Ravpapa (talk) 05:10, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

Note to Husarik[edit]

Dear Professor Husarik,

Once again you are editing the article, adding references to your own research, in places where they are non sequiturs. I have looked for Barry Cooper's suggestion that the Grosse Fuge is in a "comic envelope" and could not find it anywhere. If you want to cite Cooper, please do so directly with a reference so others can verify it, and not via your own interpretation of his research. Also, if you want to strengthen your contention that the Fugue is comic, please do so in the paragraph where that contention appears - specifically in the third paragraph of the section "Understanding the Grosse Fuge" and not in other places where it is irrelevant.

It is always best, when making edits that might be disputed, to discuss these edits first on the talk page. You have heretofore eschewed the talk page. If you wish to make a positive contribution to the article and to the Wikipedia, and not merely promote your own opinions about this piece, I strongly suggest that you discuss first.

Thank you,

--Ravpapa (talk) 05:07, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

+1 – The unwillingness of User:Shusarik to engage in any discussion makes these edits disruptive. They should be reverted on sight until Ravpapa's suggestion is followed. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 05:54, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

Reference to Schoenberg's 'atonalism'[edit]

I edited this to reflect the correct terminology. Schoenberg's 12 tone system is not 'atonal'. His music bridging his early romanticism to his 12 tone composition was a free atonality, but 12 tone composition reflects structure based upon the chosen tone row. It is not 'atonal' and Schoenberg himself rejected the label.

Someone here (Michael something-or-other) reverted the edit; someone who clearly has no idea about how 12 tone music works. I ask that it be left alone, especially by those with no-to-limited knowledge of the matter under discussion.Vanderloo (talk) 19:18, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

If you read my edit summary and inspect my edit, you will find that I didn't revert your change. I replaced your (unlinked) term "12 tone system" with "twelve-tone system". I ask that editors who lack the competence to read revision histories and edit summaries to refrain from uncivil remarks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Michael Bednarek (talkcontribs) 02:59, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

That's unusual because the notification I received clearly stated that the edit had been reverted. The edit had been reverted so I changed it back. It's true that I didn't check (or even notice) the link, but really I'm only interested in correcting errors of fact. Vanderloo (talk) 20:08, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

Deep breath. Count to 10. And thank you both for your substantive and important - albeit small - contributions to this article. --Ravpapa (talk) 17:14, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

Husarik is at it again[edit]

Professor Husarik, as we have asked on numerous occasions previously, please discuss your changes on the talk page prior to making them. You add information which is irrelevant to the material being discussed, and, while it may occasionally merit inclusion in the article, your editing often makes no sense. Thank you, Ravpapa (talk) 13:50, 9 January 2018 (UTC)