Talk:Piano Sonata No. 28 (Beethoven)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	Piano Sonata No. 28 (Beethoven) is within the scope of WikiProject Classical music, which aims to improve, expand, cleanup, and maintain all articles related to classical music, that aren't 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.
	This article is supported by the Compositions task force.

[edit] Unfinished article

I'm not actually familiar with this piece, but it's clear that the "First movement" section needs to be edited down drastically and the reaining movements added in. Scolaire 11:41, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

hello. i wrote the first movement summary and i wouldnt edit it down at all because it is a thorough bar by bar analysis. i intend to do more on the others, but the floor is open for anyone who wants to add to it...its obvious the rest needs added in. that is not the way i intended to leave it..

John (145.229.156.40) 14:29, 14 September 2007

I'm not convinced that a bar by bar analysis is appropriate for an encyclopedia. In fact I think it comes under the heading of original research, which is not allowed on Wikipedia. The sections should summarise the analysis of the music by reliable sources, i.e. books or articles by reputable music writers, which should be cited. Scolaire 11:03, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

well do what you feel.. i dont object to people who want to change it. John

[edit] C or K?

I own an urtext edition of this sonata, and the heading clearly states "Für das Hammerklavier," but this article states that the German word for "piano" is "hammerclavier." Which is the correct term?

On another subject: Personally, I am against the No-original-research-policy. As long as the general public sees the opinions to be acceptable, I don't see why this is inappropriate (in the case of musical analyses). However, I do agree that the section on the first movement is a little long for its own good; nonetheless, I must say that it is a highly-well written analysis and am reluctant to truncate it in any way. ~~MusicalConnoisseur~~ Got Classical? 05:55, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Alas, it makes no difference if you're against the No-original-research-policy – it's policy! I don't know whether there are wikis for musical appreciation or musical critique, but this is an encyclopedia. It's purpose is to provide informative articles based on reliable sources so that a non-connoisseur can learn about the subject without being swamped by information of a specialist nature. Also, without citations, the reader has no way of knowing if there is any truth in the article at all, or if it is all just made up. This edit is a case in point: the fact that "klavier" is mis-spelled throughout casts doubt over the veracity of the whole thing, and in any case an encyclopedia article is no place for reproducing the full text of a series of letters. I intend to tag that section and delete it in full if it is not edited. The section on the first movement needs to be drastically shortened, and I would rather it was done by a musical connoisseur than a ham-fisted Wikipedian like myself. Scolaire (talk) 08:05, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

True, true, but let's not heartlessly delete the entire thing. I agree that a terser summary is desperately needed, so let's start building a well-rounded summary when we can...But deletion is a tad too extreme for me. ~~MusicalConnoisseur~~ Got Classical? 20:12, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't intent to heartlessly do anything. Somebody with the requisite knowledge and the requisite sources needs to edit the Composition & Publication section so that it is encyclopaedic. If it is left to me, I don't have the requisite knowledge so I will have to reluctantly delete the entire thing. Scolaire (talk) 00:47, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Aye, did I sound too offensive? I only meant that phrase in passing...Nonetheless, I will try my best. My apologies, also, to anonymous John, as I must delete much of his painstaking original research. ~~MusicalConnoisseur~~ Got Classical? 05:15, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Wow! That was probably even more drastic than what I would have done. But seriously, good edit! The article is much better balanced now. All it needs is a few words on the fourth movement. Scolaire (talk) 07:54, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

John here. i am little grieved at the merciless truncation, but see your point that it's not entirely appropriate for wikipedia.The late piano sonatas of beethoven are my favourite music so in the end am glad that attention has been drawn here and that good summaries of them have a presence —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.130.170.93 (talk • contribs)