Talk:Piano Sonata No. 30 (Beethoven)

opus or opera?

Piano Sonata No.30 in E Major, Op.109 is the first of his late piano sonatas (Opus 109-111).

now i wonder whether it should be "Opus 109-111"(singular) or "Opera 109-111"(plural). Or simply "opp. 109-111"?

see opus

Frigoris 07:22, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

not opus number? or maybe the link has changed in the ensuing 11 months. Oh- also, the article fails to mention quite a few basics while mentioning quite a few details- for instance, when written? Schissel | Sound the Note! 07:45, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Various details

Explain how counterpoint is used in the second and third movements, please. Mathpianist93 (talk) 02:06, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Whole books have been written about the interaction of harmony and counterpoint in the common practice period, but not addressing this particular sonata, unfortunately. So an attempt to do that would constitute original research. But see if the following helps:

First, the Wikipedia article on Counterpoint is quite good in explaining the relationship between harmony and counterpoint, and that explanation works well here.

When you study the compositional technique of movements like these, it's good to begin by identifying what the harmony is. Then consider how each note within the span of one harmony plays against that harmony. Apart from arpeggiation, you can find any or all of the devices discussed in counterpoint texts: passing tones, neighbour tones, suspensions, etc. You are quite unlikely to find anything radically different, but...

... sometimes things are a bit hidden in keyboard music. The contrapuntal concept of voices is only a metaphor when applied to the keyboard. "Voices" appear and disappear quite dynamically, as in measures 3-4 and 7-8 of the second movement, and sometimes they also branch and merge (the C major prelude in Book 2 of the WTC is a wonderful example if this). And sometimes the baton is passed between the voices; for example, the E in the middle voice in measure 7 of movement 2 is well analysed as a suspension from the E in the previous measure, even though it is discontinuous from it and appears to be in a different voice (on the surface, but is it really?). (You can also analyse it as the 7th in a ii⁷ chord, and that's fine, but I think the contrapuntal explanation brings out the coherence of the music better).

The article's comparison of movement 2 with a 3-part invention is somewhat eccentric. In some places there are 4 voices anyway. Better just to note the appearance, disappearance and forking of "voices" as you find it.

There's a lot more that could be said, but so as not to go too deep, I'll stop here. If you wany more, you might find Schenkerian analysis interesting. --Stfg (talk) 20:06, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

In the second variation, many performers increase their tempo as to make a stark contrast (I think a couple of notches on the metronome is acceptable), thereby breaking the unity of this cycle. Mathpianist93 (talk) 02:12, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

I share your opinion about the speed, but it's only an opinion. After all, quite soon after this Beethoven directs some radical changes of tempo. In variation form, the unity is unity-in-variety, isn't it? ;) --Stfg (talk) 20:06, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Future of this article

This article is unreferenced and appears to be original research. It has factual errors and subjective statements of enthusiasm. I would like to replace all of it except perhaps the external links with a translation of the article about the same sonata in the German Wikipedia, which is a Good Article ("lesenswert"). Would that be OK? --Stfg (talk) 20:18, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

I personally don't have a problem with this (the German WP article is indeed worth reading). I am afraid though that some migh consider it a problem that the vast majority of the references are to German-language publications, and require these to be replaced with references to English-language publications. Regards. Francesco Malipiero (talk) 20:42, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for raising this. A few of the references are in English and it will be possible to convert a few more (for example www.raptusassociation.org has both English and German versions, so I can just convert the links). But I imagine I would be unable to satisfy such demands in most cases. I'm not convinced we should shackle ourselves like that anyway. The authors of the German article have made use of what to them are foreign-language references, and it's still rated Good Article. --Stfg (talk) 10:54, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Well, I've done that now. The translation is partial. In particular, I've omitted sections of the analyses that are uncited and especially part of the analysis of movement 1 which cites a source only to refute it without citations. That is POV. (Also, the refutation is on spurious grounds: (a) it is quite normal to have lots of sequencing in a developemnt section; (b) there is a clear recapitulation beginning in the middle of bar 48). I haven't carried across a few .PNG files because I don't know how to do it (they aren't in Commons). Also, I'm unsure of the copyright status of the two in this section. If anyone can help with this, then thanks.

Thanks to Dr. Nicholas Marston for advising me on a question about the genesis of the variations. --Stfg (talk) 13:35, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Piano Sonata No. 1 (Beethoven) which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RM bot 13:16, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Note the date of the foregoing notice. The discussion, now long closed, concerned whether to move the sonata articles to new titles incorporating opus numbers. The conclusion was not to do so. Drhoehl (talk) 23:57, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Immortal beloved

I've removed all the speculation (translated from the German WP article) as to whether Maximiliane Brentano was the immortal beloved, or otherwise who else. Maximiliane almost certainly isn't a leading contender, but anyway nobody really knows. The German WP article doesn't identify which of Solomon's writings is its source, but his book appears not to mention Maximiliane. This doesn't really affect our understanding of the sonata, so it seems pointless to speculate about it. --Stfg (talk) 16:39, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Some thoughts

"Then the third movement is – most unusually for a sonata – a theme and variations." Not unusual at all; examples from Mozart, Haydn, and Beethoven himself abound. Also, it may be worth mentioning that Beethoven had originally promised his publisher "an opus of three sonatas," suggesting that he saw his final trio appearing as numbered sonatas under a single opus number, like his Op. 31. What an opus number that would have been! They seem, to me, to belong together, but that certainly is not subject to any kind of proof or verification. Opus131 (talk) 03:59, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

I expect it should not be hard to find statements along those lines; we can hardly be the first to have felt that opp. 109, 110, and 111 form a set, just like op. 2, op. 10, or op. 31. I agree that a variations-movement is not unusual. A variations-finale, like op. 109 and op. 111 have, is more unusual, but even there examples are not hard to find (off the top of my head: Haydn's String Quartet op. 54 no. 2, Mozart's Piano Concerti KV 453 and 491 and String Quartet KV 421; Beethoven's Third Symphony). It is also worth noting that Beethoven was soon going to come up with the grandest variations-finale anyone had ever came up with in the finale of the Ninth Symphony, which is simultaneously a four-movement work, a set of variations, and a concerto sonata form with double exposition. Double sharp (talk) 05:32, 12 February 2018 (UTC)