Talk:Piano Trios Nos. 5 - 6, Opus 70 (Beethoven)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Piano Trios Nos. 5 - 6, Opus 70 (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.

From VfD:

This should be on a grand list of Beethoven's list of works, rather than having it a separate entry --Allyunion 00:22, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)

• Merge/Redirect to a page with a name something like Beethoven (Chamber Music), as you suggest above. I notice that many of Beethoven's works have a separate page, such as Moonlight Sonata. I agree with you that the piano trios do not deserve a separate page. But as you suggest, we should move the text to a page with a name something like Beethoven (Chamber Music) leaving a redirect instead of deleting. ---Rednblu 01:33, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • It should be noted that a few works, such as Moonlight Sonata, if given enough detail to its history, etc, might be a notable entry, if it can be expanded as such. However, two Trios are not notable enough to warrant its own page. -- Allyunion 04:39, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)
• Merge/redirect to a list of Beethoven's chamber works. If they can be expanded in the same way as the articles on his symphonies, they can be broken out again. — Gwalla | Talk 01:42, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • On second thought, keep. User:Camembert's argument is persuasive. — Gwalla | Talk 22:46, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)
• Wait a sec. We seem to have quite a few articles on popular music albums by contemporary "artists" (...Baby One More Time, Oops!... I Did It Again, Britney, In The Zone, No Strings Attached, Celebrity, Raising Hell, Straight Outta Compton, Doggystyle, 2Pacalypse Now, Strictly 4 My N.I.G.G.A.Z, Thug Life: Thug Life Vol. 1, Me Against the World, All Eyez on Me, Makaveli: The Don Killuminati: 7 Day Theory, Tupac Resurrection, ZZ Top's Greatest Hits and many, many more) and even individual songs (Hey Jude, Strawberry Fields Forever, Penny Lane, Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band, Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds, Blowin' In The Wind, Space Oddity, Smoke on the Water, Grooveallegiance, Who Says a Funk Band Can't Play Rock?, Promentalshitbackwashpsychosis Enema Squad (The Doo-Doo Chasers), Into You, Girls Just Want To Have Fun, Smells Like Teen Spirit, Bridge Over Troubled Water (song), Rapper's Delight, and many many more), but one of Beethoven's best known works should be merged with all his other works?

Understand that a single Opus represents at least as much work as a contemporary album -- and much more work than most individual contemporary songs -- , and will be listened to with delight long after many of the albums (not all!) that we dignify with articles will be wholly forgotten.

• Keep. -- orthogonal 00:26, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)

<<[(Lots of popular music albums] and many many more), but one of Beethoven's best known works should be merged with all his other works?>>

Yes. That is right. That may be the price of admission to Wikipedia, Madison Avenue, the Age of Republicanism, the Twenty-first century, and beyond.  :)) ---Rednblu 05:31, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)

If lovin' Beethoven is wrong, I don't wanna be right. ;) -- orthogonal 07:22, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)

• Keep. Decumanus 02:07, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)
• Having studied music, and a little of the works of Beethoven, these trios aren't really notable in themselves, unlike articles such as Moonlight Sonata, Minute Waltz, Blue Danube Waltz, etc. which document well-known pieces which have gained notability in their own right. Merge into something more useful. All the article says right now is that they're in more-or-less standard trio form. The User Formerly Known As 82.6.10.139 05:16, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)

• Keep. I'm rather surprised that people are suggesting it isn't possible to write articles on these pieces - it's quite clear to me that it is possible. You can write about the history of their composition, the circumstances of their premiere, you can give a quick analysis of the structure, thematic material, an overview of recordings... besides which, we already have many articles on specific pieces (Piano Quintet (Brahms), Piano Quintet (Schumann), Piano Quintet (Shostakovich), to just mention a few piano quintets) and I see nothing wrong with that. Of course, at the moment the article isn't especially impressive, but we don't delete articles just because they are stubs. The problem with this particular article, if problem it is, is that it combines in one article two pieces which ought to each have an article of their own; as they were published together, however, there's bound to be a certain amount of common history, so I see no harm in having this article as well as ones on the individual pieces. --Camembert 13:11, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)

---

In my opinion, there is too little information on the Piano Quintet (Brahms), Piano Quintet (Schumann), and Piano Quintet (Shostakovich) pages that you cited; separate pages with so little information misses the real opportunities here. Such little sprinklings of information about many pieces would make sense if covering several pieces on one page, if organized, such as chronologically, around several concerns in the composer's life, and if covering some span of the composer's scrutiny of life, creativity, and the void. Hence, with only that little sprinkling of information about each piece, it would be better to merge that little sprinkling of information on those pages into something like the following three pages--that would grow as Wikipedia contributors find sufficient information to fill out the details.

+++Chamber music (Brahms) describing briefly also the Brahms piano quartets [pnm://rm.content.loudeye.com/~a-600111/0676330_0104_07_0002.ra] (at least as much fun as the thicker Piano Quintet (Brahms)), together with the Piano Trios, Violin Sonata, and even the piano duets

+++Chamber music (Schumann) describing briefly also Schumann's piano quartet [pnm://rm.content.loudeye.com/~aa-600111/0082247_0105_07_0002.ra] which is more fun to play than the quintet, songs with incredibly richer piano accompaniments and more fascinating accompanying stories than the quintet, and solo piano works that have much more interesting things to note about them than the kind of description that is on the Piano Quintet (Schumann) page

+++Chamber music (Shostakovich) describing briefly also Shostakovich's piano trios and wonderful solo piano music [pnm://rm.content.loudeye.com/~a-600111/0689736_0101_07_0002.ra] often in the background of which you can hear the absent string accompaniment which Shostakovich never got around to putting onto paper.

I suggest the real question here is the following: Are you satisfied with the amount of information on the Piano Quintet (Brahms), Piano Quintet (Schumann), and Piano Quintet (Shostakovich) pages? If you are not, then the information on those three pages and many similar sparse pages should be merged into something like the three above "Chamber Music" pages. For all of the above reasons, I conclude that this Beethoven Piano Trio page should be Merged into a Chamber music (Beethoven) page what would contain a little sprinkling of information about each of Beethoven's string trios, woodwind quintet and octet, [pnm://rm.content.loudeye.com/~bb-600111/0152391_0101_07_0002.ra] piano quartets, songs, and delightful musical jokes! Beethoven's piano sonatas and string quartets should get their own pages Piano sonatas (Beethoven) and String quartets (Beethoven) respectively. Furthermore, if you look at the String_Quartet_No._13_(Beethoven) page, you will see that the most beautiful seven minutes of music ever written is buried in a Wikipedia page of misinformation and clutter that misses the dramatic story that could emerge from even the little sprinklings of information about many pieces in the context of a String quartets (Beethoven) page. We have to start sometime to organize this wonderful information to be useful to readers. And I say that merging this Beethoven Trio little sprinkling of information to a useful page is a good place to start doing the right thing in Merging the little sprinklings of information about many pieces into appropriate pages to be useful to the Wikipedia readers. (Until the Wikipedia server-side process is fixed, please copy and paste the URL: addresses that do not work above into the address window of your browser; thank you.) With all due respect, very truly yours, ---Rednblu 16:55, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)

---

• Keep. Have a look at List of works by Beethoven and you'll see that Wikipedia's little group of classical music editors is slowly filling in the gaps. Antandrus 02:58, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)
• Keep. I'm fascinated. The fact that they were written by Beethoven is plenty of justification for regarding them as encyclopedic. The fact that they are referred to by a single opus number is plenty of reason to combine them into one article (although it would be OK to have two articles, too). Oh, and I've replaced the stub notice, I can't see any reason it was ever removed. Either. Andrewa 13:42, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)
• Keep decent stub. Beethoven is sufficiently notable that articles on individual works are reasonable to have, and it is reasonable to hope that such stubs will grow. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 14:44, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)
• Keep, it's important and old could be expanded maybe rhyax 06:04, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)

end moved discussion