Talk:Symphony No. 6 (Beethoven)

	Classical music portal This article 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.Classical musicWikipedia:WikiProject Classical musicTemplate:WikiProject Classical musicClassical music articles
	This article is supported by Compositions task force.

I'm removing all occurences of "attacca" in the tempo markings of movements. A Dover miniature score ([1]; looks rather reliable to me) doesn't have any attaccas anywhere, as far as I can see. Perhaps the editor of some edition of a more "edited" nature put them there, not considering the absence of pauses or fermatas clear enough, and a contributor used such an edition. (On a sidenote, by my reasoning, they wouldn't belong there anyway, since "attacca" describes how one movement--or part of one--follows after another, not the tempo of the movement itself. That's irrelevant, though, and perhaps more subjective.) EldKatt (Talk) 17:42, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I think Al Pacino put them there. ATTACCA! ATTACCA!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.105.218.29 (talk) 01:54, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The autograph score is I think available at that Bonn library that's digitized most Beethoven autographs and first editions (and has been uploaded at IMSLP)? We could look there? As a rule primary sources tend to be best I think... Schissel | Sound the Note! 22:05, 20 December 2019 (UTC) (edit: well, the holograph is full of crossouts, but.. the 4th movement connects to the 5th movement without a pause on the same page (p212 of the autograph full score PDF), which means an implied attacca or at least a -- should be put in to show that the movements are connected.)[reply]

Disambiguation needed

There are several other works bearing the term Pastoral/Pastorale - a disambiguation is needed. Bob aka Linuxlad 23:15, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Initial reception

The article says that the symphony was not well-received at the premiere, being overshadowed by the excitement caused by its more flamboyant counterpart (the 5th symphony); but the article for the 5th says that there was little critical response to the premiere performance. Worth sorting out this contradiction, if somebody has access to the references. --VinceBowdren 00:12, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fantasia

I think the article could mention the Symphony's appearence in the animated Disney Film. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Surten (talk • contribs) 05:30, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I couldn't agree more. Though mentioning a Disney film in an article about Beethoven may seem asinine, the excerpt from Fantasia really does deserve some recognition. Madd0817 (talk) 19:23, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed -- whilst it's 'only' a Disney film, Fantasia does seem to have a special and even important relationship with classical music, particularly as it will've been many people's introduction to symphonies such as this one. In terms of wiki style, should it be added within a section called Cultural References, or References in Popular Culture, etc? Would we then need to find and enumerate other uses of the symphony in film, etc? If anyone objects to this edit just say so! 94.174.162.214 (talk) 11:57, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Recording

The recordings offered on the page are completely wretched in innumerable ways. Please remove them. If anyone can see this web page, they can go to Youtube and hear them played far better. Skidmore is bad even by liberal arts college orchestra standards.

-Mad Maestro —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mad Maestro (talk • contribs) 07:47, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

yes, please, it would be very useful if the article pointed to outstanding recordings of this work, backed up with supporting reference from reliable reviews. I don't feel qualified to do this, but another editor like yourself might? sinarau (talk) 23:23, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There are some pretty high quality recordings available on IMSLP. They're available in CC-BY-NC-SA, which I believe is compatibe with Wikimedia's licence, isn't it? --Sauronjim (talk) 14:14, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

!!!

Can some1 write more about the program mucic of this symphony please —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.49.212.18 (talk) 15:14, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The program is listed. The descriptive names of the movements are included.DavidRF (talk) 16:46, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Movements

The German headlines for the symphony are so beautiful. I wonder about a good English translation. Stephan —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.131.238.28 (talk) 08:12, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Retitling proposal/s to accommodate the common name 'Pastoral'

In the context of a discussion about the new local guidelines for titling series of compositions, a Suggestion has been made here to retitle this article. Namely:

To accommodate the common name 'Pastoral' without affecting consistency (in the spirit of WP:MUSICSERIES), Suggest Symphony No. 6 'Pastoral' (Beethoven), or something similar.

To avoid duplicate discussions, I guess it would be appropriate to restrict comment on this talk page to issues specifically related to this particular symphony, and to discuss broader questions in this section of the music naming conventions talk page. MistyMorn (talk) 13:38, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No. Please just drop this. It is way over the line in disruptiveness. Someone else has already reverted, saving me the bother. See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Classical music#Yet More Beethoven Nickname Page Move Discussions. Milkunderwood (talk) 21:25, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest you check your your terminology. MistyMorn (talk) 21:31, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think most editors consider this to be a rehash of the whole Moonlight debate. A debate which went on for several screenfuls over a period of a few weeks and ended up at ANI. That's the main reason why people are having a hard time assuming good faith here. It just feels like your beating a dead horse, forum-shopping, etc, even if that's not your intent. I think this should just be dropped. You're going to have a hard time getting everyone back in here to make the same points they did just a few weeks ago. Wait a year to eighteen months.DavidRF (talk) 02:27, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I for one can't even fathom what is supposed to be meant by "test case" in the edit summary. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 03:12, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I really wish MistyMorn would accept consensus and stop wasting so much time on this issue. This is so tedious, and it goes on and on. We have better things to do with our editing time. Opus33 (talk) 03:36, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I am pointing out that the WP:MUSICSERIES local guideline is out of kilter with Wikipedia titling policy, including WP:COMMONNAME. I come from a world where one tries to get guidelines right so as to prevent future problems. It seems you prefer to break away from overall policy; I prefer not to be party to that. This was a test case for the exclusion by WP:MUSICSERIES of an exceptionally well recognised common name ("Pastoral") in order to try to improve these local guidelines. MistyMorn (talk) 10:33, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with Opus. And discussions like this should be centralised at CM. Eusebeus (talk) 11:06, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Moving an item to this page

I've clipped this older good-faith edit out of the article:

At one point in the movement Beethoven uses a melody that sounds vaguely like a quotation from the folk song "Zu Lauterbach".^[1]

This seems subjective/unencyclopedic to me and moreover has no cited reference source. If there is evidence that Beethoven knew the tune and was inspired by it in writing the Sixth Symphony, then it should go back in.

Incidentally, I checked the link to the tune; English speakers may be familiar with it under the name "Oh where, oh where has my little dog gone?". Evidently the intended match is to the opening of the trio section of Mvt. 3. Opus33 (talk) 16:12, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ "Zu Lauterbach hab' i mein Strumpf verlorn / In Lauterbach hab' i mein Strumpf verlorn free midi mp3 download Strand Hotel Sechelt bed breakfast". Ingeb.org. Retrieved 2012-03-13.

Unreferenced Notes on the Form

I've added a Secion OR tag to the 'Form' section, because the analysis does not cite any sources, and there are many online references available for this piece, which contain detailed structure analysis (mentioning, for example, the extensive use of triplets in the first movement, which this section omits). If no sources are cited soon in response to this, I'll change the text to something that can be sourced properly. Bubka42 (talk) 04:02, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"more the expression of feeling than painting"

is Sadie in Grove the best source for this? Please find a primary source! Schissel | Sound the Note! 22:02, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

[1] "Zu Lauterbach hab' i mein Strumpf verlorn / In Lauterbach hab' i mein Strumpf verlorn free midi mp3 download Strand Hotel Sechelt bed breakfast". Ingeb.org. Retrieved 2012-03-13.

[1]