Talk:Symphony No. 5 (Beethoven)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Former FA This article is a former featured article candidate. Please view its sub-page to see why the nomination failed. For older candidates, please check the archive.

Contents

[edit] The Struggle between Man and Fate

This symphony is widely known as the "Fate" symphony. While the the claim that the opening theme represents "Fate knocking at the door" is probably apocryphal, I'm sure there is a reason that the symphony (as a whole) is often said to represent the struggle between man and Fate (where the last movement depicts the triumph over Fate). Did the association of this symphony (as a whole) with Fate also follow from Anton Schindler (in which case it would be problematic), or did it follow from more legitimate sources? If the association of this symphony with Fate is problematic, then does this great symphony have any sort of "unifying" theme(s) at all? Spartan 76.166.97.147 05:03, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The "Fate" motif

I've tried to update the scholarship on Anton Schindler's claim that Beethoven told him that the opening theme represents "Fate knocking at the door". Schindler's evidentiary status has apparently dropped quite a bit since it was found that he fabricated entries in Beethoven's conversation books, so it seems not at all unlikely that the phrase comes entirely from Schindler. This site forthrightly calls Schindler's story a "concoction".

I did my best to translate the German, which I took from the German Wikipedia entry. If anyone can fix it I would be grateful.

Opus33 21:04, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] How do you spell "Schicksal"?

I've reverted the change Schiksal --> Schicksal back to Schiksal; here is the reasoning.

In contemporary German they do indeed spell their word for "fate" as Schicksal, but I believe Schindler probably wrote "Schiksal". At least, this is what I cribbed from the German Wikipedia, and Googling the spelling I find that it was used by major literary figures of Beethoven's day (Wieland, Goethe, Schiller). Unfortunately, I can't find a copy of Schindler in the original German, which would settle the issue.

In any event, assuming that Schindler wrote "Schiksal", and that this was not counted as a misspelling in Schindler's time, I would judge that we should quote Schindler literally and not try to change anything. Opus33 14:55, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Featured article preperations

I'm getting ready to nominate this article on wikipedia:Featured article candidates. I made some hefty changes tonight - I broke up the media section and put the ogg file for each movement with its associated paragraph; I pruned down and converted the popular cultural list into prose and pasted it back into here; I converted the list that was the composition into prose.

As someone who has done extensive work with featured articles, this article looks *good*. The biggest thing left to do is add inline references, and collect them in a references section. Raul654 04:02, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Fate knocking on the door in Warsaw, Prague or one of those cities

In one of my college music history classes, the story was told that the 1st movement of this symphony was played repeatedly on the radio during the Nazi invasion of either Warsaw, Prague or one of those eastern European cities. Does anyone have any evidence to corroborate the story or is it apochryphal? *Exeunt* Ganymead | Dialogue? 16:46, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Another pop-culture reference

I'm surprised the Peter Schickele "sportscast" version was missed! I gather he used to do this in concerts, and it's also recorded on his P.D.Q. Bach On the Air album. It's basically the first movement to the symphony, with commentators (Schickele and Robert Dennis on the LP/tape/CD, and other secondary announcers depending on locale when performed live) discussing the movement as if it were a contest between orchestra and conductor. It's quite a funny routine, at least in my opinion. :) I didn't want to drop it right into the article, I wasn't sure just where it would best fit in. --JohnDBuell 22:12, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] da da da DUM

I want to help get this article to featured status. One of the objections brought up at its nomination is that the lead doesn't identify the motif to people who can't read music. Most people will be able to recognize this motif after any reasonable approximation of it, but how can we get it across in text?

"Three short notes followed by a longer, lower note" would be accurate and would help to establish the short-short-short-long rhythmic motif as being important. But it's not really direct. My thought -- and this is going to come across as somewhat silly -- is that we need to work in an onomatopoetic version of the motif, like "da da da DUM", in the lead section. And that will be sufficient to get a lot of people to recognize what it is. It was enough for Douglas Adams. Thoughts? rspeer 00:39, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

But there's no "d" sound in the music. It could just as easily be "buh buh buh BUM". I agree with mentioning that rendering to make it clearer to most people which song this is, but it should be worded as "This motif is commonly rendered as 'da da da DUM'" or similar, with a cite provided, to illustrate how laypeople often understand and refer to the tune rather than to have Wikipedia make the claim that the song really sounds exactly like that. -Silence 00:43, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
Please, no. I'd say more than somewhat silly (onomatopeia only helps if you already know the motif). We could put in a link to an audio clip, though. Mark1 00:48, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
Another barrier to entry. Most people don't actually have an ogg player, and independently of that, most people are not going to click the link. Also, most people do already know the motif, but don't necessarily know that it's the motif of "Symphony No. 5 (Beethoven)". The point of "da da da DUM" is to give people a handle to recall it by. rspeer 01:12, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
Yes, but it's too damn dumb. Mark1 01:27, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
Mark, I find your style of argument both here and on the FAC page to be unhelpful. If someone doesn't understand musical terminology, you seem to be saying, it's because they're dumb. If you disagree with an addition to the page, it's because it's dumb. Could you make your criticism more constructive toward fixing this article, particularly the goal of making it accessible to a lay audience? rspeer 01:36, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
Perhaps I can clarify. People who don't understand musical terminology are not (necessarily) stupid, but they are ignorant. Encyclopedias are meant to dispel ignorance rather than pander to it, hence my lack of enthusiasm for your proposal. Mark1 01:54, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
Hmm. Shall we rename Wikipedia:Make technical articles accessible to Wikipedia:Pander to ignorance, then? Even "ignorant" readers (which is not the word I would use to describe people who are unfamiliar with the topic) are entitled to learn. rspeer 01:59, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
I think that this article is already extremely untechnical and perfectly accessible to the general reader. I think we just have different expectations of our readers. Mark1 02:09, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
You can believe what you want, but the FAC comments say that the article needs to be made more accessible. rspeer 02:15, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
Some people think it needs to be made more accessible, some don't. This is not a big surprise. Mark1 08:28, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
I think a sound file could be sufficient. If people don't have an ogg player, that's their problem. One might as well argue that the image is insufficient even for those who can read music, since not everyone has a browser that displays images. We have to restrict our helpfulness somehow. I am opposed to an onomatopoeic description of the motif (e.g. da-da-da-DUM) since it is non-standard (otherwise, please cite an encyclopedia that uses a similar notation). However, a description like "three short notes and one long" is far better, and probably the least controversial way of solving this problem. EldKatt (Talk) 11:24, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] The meaning of the German word "Akademie"

The current text uses the phrase "the Akademie", suggesting perhaps that "Akademie" designated some sort of building or institution. But in this context, it apparently should be translated simply as "concert" (or, perhaps, "benefit concert"; see below). The New Grove says:

"As in other countries, the word 'academy' was also often used in Germany and in Austria to mean a single concert (Mozart habitually used the term)."

(Quotation is from their article "Academy".) This site [1] says:

"Beethoven never missed an opportunity to complain about his treatment at the hands of the Viennese, but there is no doubt that they held this extraordinary and difficult man in the greatest esteem. He often appeared before the public, and in return for performing and conducting at charity concerts in the Theater an der Wien, he was granted use of the theatre to mount an Akademie (concert) of his own works.

What I'm not sure about is whether "Akademie" is best translated as "concert" or "benefit concert". You can get hints if you Google "beethoven akademie benefit concert", but of course this only gives you Web sources and not peer-reviewed scholarship. From my general reading, I recall fairly certainly that the concert at which the 5th Symphony was premiered was indeed a benefit for the composer.

Pending solid scholarly citations on this point (please help if you can), I'm just taking the two occurrences of "Akademie" out of the article. Otherwise, we're saying stuff that means:

"The Fifth Symphony was premiered on December 22, 1808 at the "concert", a mammoth concert at the Theater an der Wien in Vienna."

which of course is no help at all.

Opus33 20:09, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Yes, when adding references to this article, one or two sources called it a benefit concert. Raul654 23:15, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] 3rd movement repeat and Zinman

I was surprised to read that ABABA' performances on modern instruments have ... been recorded by the Zürich Tonhalle Orchestra under David Zinman and the edition by Jonathan Del Mar, published by Bärenreiter in 1999 restores the ABA' reading. The Zinman recording blurb gets very excited about the fact that it's the first version to follow the Del Mar score, so I suspect one of the statements in the article is incorrect. Mark1 16:11, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

There appear to be two Beethoven cycles by Zinman. A quite recent (late 2005) one (Arte Nova, #496950[2]) does indeed use the new Bärenreiter edition. However, there is also a recording from 1999 (also Arte Nova, but apparently out of print[3]) that does not. The statements in the article are correct, although somehow making it clearer which recording is referred to would help. EldKatt (Talk) 18:39, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

I have a cycle by him on Arte Nova (it says 1999 on the box, but it was recorded in 1997) which claims to be of the Bärenreiter edition. I haven't actually checked the form of the third movement, though. Mark1 19:18, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, Mark and EldKatt. I must admit that at present I am baffled, particularly by the 2003-4 Penguin Guide, which says that Zinman both used Bärenreiter and played the scherzo as ABABA'. Mark, if you would take a listen to your copy and report what you find I would appreciate it. For my part, I am going to find Bärenreiter in a library and check that it really is ABA'. Thanks, Opus33 19:35, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
Might it be talking about a previous Bärenreiter edition? If it was recorded in 1997, I doubt there's a possibility of it having used Del Mar's edition, and that probably wasn't the first Bärenreiter ever published. EldKatt (Talk) 12:05, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
Del Mar's sleevenote (see below) makes it clear that the 1997 recording was based on a Bärenreiter edition by him. Mark1 14:26, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, I've had a listen. I'm no musicologist, but I'm fairly sure that Zinman, in 1997, did play ABABA. I notice that this page refers to the Bärenreiter being published in 1999, while at the bottom it says:

Ludvig van Beethoven. Symphonies 1–9. Urtext. Edited by Jonathan Del Mar. Kassel: Bärenreiter, 1996–2000

Also, Del Mar wrote a sleevenote for the Zinman edition which does not mention the repeat question at all- the highlighted change for the 5th symphony is a tie in the bassoon part of the second movement! So perhaps Zinman was working from Del Mar's work in progress, before the latter decided that the repeat was wrong? Mark1 20:08, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Hello,
Well, I found the Del Mar edition. It was published 1999 and does indeed have ABA' for the scherzo. My current favorite two theories for explaining Mark's contradiction are: (a) that Zinman used a prepublication version of Del Mar which was ABABA', or (b) that Zinman used a prepublication version of Del Mar which was ABA', but chose not to follow Del Mar on this particular point. Perhaps one might learn more by contacting Del Mar or Zinman personally? At any rate, I don't think we've put any falsehoods into the Wikipedia on this point.
Opus33 22:05, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] A Clockwork Orange

This excerpt from the popular references section surprises me:

In addition to its appearances in other music, it has also been referenced in other media. In Anthony Burgess's novel A Clockwork Orange, Alex DeLarge, the main character, frequently listens to Beethoven. For Alex, the music is inexorably linked to his life of rape and murder; he places the Fifth Symphony above all other works. (In the Kubrick cinematic version, Alex prefers the Ninth.)

I recall the ninth playing an important role in the book, but not really the fifth. Can anyone provide a reference for this claim? EldKatt (Talk) 14:22, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Infobox

I am respectfully asking my fellow editors not to place "infoboxes" in classical music articles. I have three reasons:

  • Each work of classical music is its "own animal", as it were, and is not easily reduced to a few traits displayable in infoboxes. They're not like "Magic the Gathering" cards.
  • The box occupies space up top, and renders the far more crucial Table of Contents hard to find.
  • Lastly--and perhaps most importantly--there's an esthetic element. Many works of classical music are beloved by their listeners. They can be listened to hundreds of times over the listener's lifetime. Thus, some of our readers are likely to venerate the works in question and be sensitive to potential acts of desecration. An infobox looks a lot like a display ad and strikes me as a good candidate for being a desecration.

Thank you for your understanding.

Sincerely,
Opus33 17:18, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

I understand your reason, but then other pages with infoboxes (not just classical works) could fit under your reasons. --hello, i'm a member | talk to me! 03:11, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
Also see this and this. --hello, i'm a member | talk to me! 03:13, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
I agree entirely with Opus33. Writers and readers of classical music articles do tend to be a high-minded lot, and we don't want our articles to look like USA Today. I think the classical works infobox project is misguided. Mark1 12:17, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
I'd hate to think that high-mindedness were the only reason to avoid classical infoboxes—fortunately, there are practical difficulties along with the potential philosophical ones. If we would attempt to have a single universal "classical works" infobox, it quite simply wouldn't fit all its potential applications—fields would be left blank in many cases, and a lot of relevant information would be missing in others. Even creating a series of more specialized templates would be quite problematic. The general field of "classical music works" can't be divided up into a few neat subtypes with their own special traits. This time, we'll have to trust people to actually read the articles—trying to summarize it in an infobox wouldn't really help anyone here. EldKatt (Talk) 14:51, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
(Edit conflict) I concur with Opus33, Markalexander100 (and now EldKatt). I have the additional objection that in classical music the information the template asks for is rarely simple, often requiring research and explanation, and so the template is actually misleading because it implies otherwise. For instance, op. numbers are in no way a reliable guide to Beethoven's chronology, so the infobox should not imply it is. Composers often work on more than one composition at a time. What key is Nielsen's 3rd in? Mahler's 9th? Webern's Op. 10? Reich's Music for pieces of wood? Which revision of each Bruckner symphony will the infobox refer to? Which completion of Mozart's requiem? Are Chopin's waltzes Op. 64 to be treated as one work, or three? I do not think these examples are obscure rare exceptions to a rule. The album infobox on which it was based does not suffer from these problems since recording an album is usually a discrete process (the release date, album chronology, label, duration and genre are usually unproblematic). I feel there is so much classical music for Wikipedians to document that it's a waste of effort to set ourselves the impossible task of agreeing on a simple infobox that will satisfactorily summarise each one in the whole diversity of classical compositions. All the information the infobox could possibly contain could be much better outlined in the introductory paragraph for any article. --RobertG ♬ talk 15:49, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

I have taken the liberty of copying this discussion to Template talk:Classical work infobox. Would that be a more appropriate place for this discussion to continue? --RobertG ♬ talk 15:49, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] On the popular culture section

Hello,

I've made some changes to the material on popular culture and would like to justify the changes here.

The changes:

  • I've taken the popular culture material and made it into a separate article, just as it was as of last November.
  • This article is no longer an unorganized list, but is arranged into categories (Musical adaptations and Other references), much as Raul654 did here.
  • I've also arranged the material chronologically by decade, and put in notes encouraging future editors to do this.
  • The Fifth Symphony article now includes just a brief cross reference to the popular culture article.

So why do this?

  • First, I believe that if we are to cover this sort of material at all, we should cover it thoroughly--scholarly completeness is a good thing, and "the Wikipedia is not paper".
  • More important, who are we to judge which popular culture items are the important ones, worthy of inclusion? In fact, to the extent that we are picking out what we think are the most important ones, and deleting all new entries, then we are actually doing a form of original research, which is verboten.
  • Lastly, the symphony article is over the official length limit, and we need to be moving material into satellite articles (see for instance Beethoven and C minor). The pop culture material is a good candidate for moving, since it's only very indirectly about the symphony.

Yours sincerely,
Opus33 16:10, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Scoring

When I see the word "scoring", I think of a list of instruments used in the score. I think it would be nice to have this information (maybe I'll dig it up myself at some point).

I'm told this symphony was the first symphony (first symphonic work?) to use trombones. I'm thinking of putting that in, but can't decide if that's important enough to include in this article about what is already a very important work. Rschmertz 06:26, Feb 21, 2005 (UTC)

I agree, the scoring in that sense needs mentioning. I'll add it at some point unless somebody beats me to it. Indiana University has full scores of all the symphonies (as well as a lot of other things) at this location. I'm not sure how reliable they really are, though; the edition of Beethoven's piano sonatas at the same site suffered from a great amount of editorial additions. The symphonies look better though.
One thing is for sure, though: there are no trombones. [See below!] As far as I know (and assume) none of Beethoven's symphonies have them. --EldKatt 28 June 2005 17:07 (UTC)
I don't know what possessed me to look only at the first movement, but there are definitely trombones used (in the final movement). Some googling seems to (more or less) confirm that this was indeed also the first symphonic use of trombones (as well as piccolo, which, I guess, also deserves to be mentioned if the trombones are).

--EldKatt 30 June 2005 09:57 (UTC)

EDIT - I have corrected the article while leaving the original, incorrect information intact. Joachim Eggert, just as one now fairly well-known example, wrote a symphony that uses trombones (in all four movements). As far as the statement on the piccolo, that one is a statement I had not before encountered. As a collector of late 18th century music, I have in my own collection multiple symphonies that include a piccolo in the original score, that were composed prior to Beethoven`s 5th symphony, or even prior to Beethoven`s birth.

--Smyslov 27 April 2007 00:05 (UTC)

Regarding the trombones, you appear to be right. As far as piccolo goes, though: if I'm not mistaken, "flauto piccolo" and similar names, in 18th century music, often refer to some sort of recorder rather than a piccolo in the modern sense. This might complicate matters somewhat. EldKatt (Talk) 18:04, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Hello Smyslov,

I appreciate your correcting the old error about scoring. However, it's generally not permitted to edit the Wikipedia solely on the basis of your own knowledge, no matter how good your knowledge may be. (For the official policy, please see Wikipedia:Verifiability). Therefore, would you kindly amplify your contribution by citing reference sources? Ideally, these should be in peer-reviewed outlets, such as the New Grove. Thank you very much.

Yours sincerely, Opus33 16:34, 30 April 2006 (UTC)


This is such common knowledge among music scholars that to me it is similar to asking for sources as to whether or not World War II happened. I mean no offence, but I didn`t know anyone serious about music history still believed in this absurd legend. It is based purely around Beethoven`s extreme fame, and nothing more; famous composers often get credit for things for which they do not deserve. Another example, is that Brahms` 'Variations on a Theme of Haydn' are based on a theme not even by Haydn. Most everyone knows this now. But can I cite a source proving it? Not off the top of my head, no. It is simply so well-known that I can`t even think of one. In any case, try:

The Symphony, 1720-1840, edited by Barry Brook, Series F Volume III

The Symphony in Sweden, part 2, edited by Bertil van Boer, Garland (New York 1983)

Lennart Hedwall, Svensk Musikhistoria ["Swedish Music History"], Edition Reimers (1996), pgs 61-63

Or simply contact Dr. Alan Badley of Artaria in New Zealand, or Dr. Bertil van Boer, or Avishai Kallai (possibly the biggest expert on Joachim Eggert in the world). Or contact the Stockholm Music History Museum, which still holds an original manuscript of Eggert`s Symphony in E-Flat Major, that predates Beethoven`s Symphony #5.

I would like to comment that even if I were completely unable to cite sources, it is better to say nothing about "first symphony to use ..." at all, rather than have false information in an article.

--Smyslov 30 April 2006 02:09 (UTC)

Aside from Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:Cite sources, please see Wikipedia:Common knowledge. If something really is common knowledge, it should be possible to find sources (and, well, there are plenty of sources to back up the existence of World War II, aren't there?). If you cannot find sources to back up what you consider to be common knowledge, then perhaps you should reconsider. In this case, you have already cited sources, so I completely fail to see the problem. The system works. I would still like a source regarding the piccolo, though. EldKatt (Talk) 11:26, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
Could I add a bit more? Smyslov seems to have misinterpreted my intention. I wasn't trying to challenge the claim he made, but to persuade him to include citations in the article. This is what the New Grove does, it's what the Encyclopedia Brittanica does, and it's what we should do.
In principle, I could try to find Smyslov's reference books in my local library, read them, and add the citations myself. But surely it would be more efficient for Smyslov to do it himself, since presumably he has read them already.
Yours truly, Opus33 17:31, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Major to Minor Key Shift

Someone has made the claim that Beethoven's fifth contains the first example of a minor to major key shift used in a symphony, which I find very difficult to believe. Can anyone verify this? If true, it would be a good point to add to the article.-Jefu 02:52, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

No, it's not true. Symphony No. 45 (Haydn), Symphony No. 95 (Haydn). Opus33 17:31, 7 May 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Portrait Problems

The portrait at the top of the article was painted years after Beethoven died. Should we use another one?--Stratford15 01:13, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Should we use one at all? If people want to see what Beethoven looked like, I reckon they can go to Ludwig van Beethoven. I've replaced the portrait with the image of the original edition coversheet (previously in the "Premiere" section) which I consider far more relevant to and illustrative of the subject of the article. EldKatt (Talk) 11:08, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
I'm quite glad to see that bogus Jaeger portrait go. But perhaps it wouldn't hurt to install the 1804 Maehler portrait, somewhere lower down on the page? 1804 was the year Beethoven began work on the symphony. You can view the portrait on the Wikimedia Commons at http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Beethoven_3.jpg. I find it an intuitively good fit with the symphony, and will put it up in a few days if no one objects. Cheers, Opus33 16:59, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image of the opening notes

Hello--

I don't object to substituting svg (I guess that's vector graphics?) for png, however, in this particular case there are two problems:

1) The groups of three eighth notes have to be connected with a single bar; in ordinary music notation you can't group them as 1 + 2.

2) Sizing the image at 550 will cause it to be displayed below the cover page picture on smaller monitors; it looks really bad. So the original size should be retained.

For now, I've fixed these problems by reverting to the original png image.

Yours truly,
Opus33 17:05, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

P.S. If there is some actually advantage to using svg, I'd be curious to know what it is.

This should also use a more conventional engraving font than the one used for the svg (this looks like a Jazz handwritten-style typesets; not really appropriate for Beethoven). Also, the grouping should follow the notation in the original score. The three eighth notes should be beamed. (We should possibly even have the ff written in.) Also, the svg one we had here briefly wastes screen space with its wide spacing. - Rainwarrior 23:11, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Never mind about the font, it just looks a little weird when the SVG is scaled down (the flats seem to get bold, for some reason). But still, having a properly beamed PNG is much more desirable than having an inaccurate SVG. (And if possible, it would be good to fix the spacing.) Is there even really a need to switch to SVG if no improvement of accuracy can be made? The image is currently perfectly legible. SVGs can be resized, but what is the advantage of that in this case? Why would it need to be resized? - Rainwarrior 07:23, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
I don't object to the use of svg in principle. But I agree with Rainwarrior that whatever we post should look as perfect and as professional on the screen as possible. I'm also a bit perturbed that Wereon keeps uploading his/her image without participating in the discussion, and I am ready (presumably, so is Rainwarrior) to revert uploads that don't address the issues that have been raised. Opus33 22:35, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
I have made a new png at Media:Beethoven symphony 5 opening new.png. See Image_talk:Beethoven symphony 5 opening new.png for the lilypond code should anyone wish to upload it as an svg. Jobrahms 15:09, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Second Subject of Exposition

In the "Reassigning Bassoon notes to the horns" section, the article refers to the quoted passage as the "second subject of the exposition" - incorrectly, I believe, as the second subject is a completely different, conjunct and lyrical, theme in E flat major. The quoted passage is just an extension of the first motif with changed intervals. I haven't corrected it in the article because I am not entirely certain that I am right - and I wouldn't know what to change it to - but there it is. 211.30.115.48 11:37, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

I've attempted to clarify it somewhat. EldKatt (Talk) 14:50, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../s/y/m/Talk%7ESymphony_No._5_%28Beethoven%29_e77a.html"