Talk:Piano Sonata No. 1 (Beethoven)/Archive 1

Link Request
I tried to search for a free score of the 4th movement of this sonata, but was unsuccessful. May someone please add a link to this score? MusicalConnoisseur  Got Classical? 05:26, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Try here http://imslp.org/wiki/Piano_Sonata_No.1,_Op.2_No.1_%28Beethoven,_Ludwig_van%29 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.39.166.205 (talk) 10:47, 25 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Does it occur to you that music publishers have to eat? Don't be a despicable freeloader. March to your local music store (real, not virtual), and buy a copy of the piece. Thank you. TheScotch (talk) 23:48, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Comment
It's a wonderful idea that an analysis of these sonatas is being added to an encyclopedic entry; however, although identifying formal functions and structural boundaries is useful in one sense, it does nothing to illuminate the genius of Beethoven's work. Labeling a number of themes and identifying them throughout is meaningless unless one understands the basic compositional choices behind them. For example, the way in which the harmonic acceleration in the famous first eight bars functions along with the fragmentation of the main theme (or gesture) in order to create tension climaxing on the condensed version of the opening arpeggio (broken f minor chord in upper register). Also, the way Beethoven has carefully chosen a neighbouring harmony in the presentation of the theme (I-V65-I [stable]) and then continues with an ascending bass to increase tension [unstable] as the phrase comes to its climax. My personal opinion is that in an analysis of any type of music, one must strive to understand the composer's choices while abstaining from any abstract notions of form or harmonic analysis. When all are understood as an intricate whole (as the composer views them) the analysis is more accurate and more useful to someone who is trying to understand the true genius behind the work.

On another note, thank you for your contriubtions. --- I disagree. What less abstract notions do you prepose than harmonic analysis? If anything I would love to see a section of much more rigerous analysis. It is wonderful to read critically through a full analysis if only to see how the music functions in logical terms. And while any good piece of music is beautiful and wonderful to hear for reasons that do not require analysis, I find it very helpful as a composer to analyse the music and see how others analyse it. I really think that sort of contribution, along with historical information can really help you appreciate a piece. This is especially true for certain types of composers (by which I mean composers with a certain approach to composition, not a certain genre). Of course, rigerous analysis is most helpful in conjuction with learning to play the piece, or at least listening to it over and over again (I really cannot imagine what good it would do to analize music and not ever hear it played).

I think it would be great if Wikipedia became so universal a resourse, that for an entry for a piece of music like this, there would be a section up top with general information, like what is available now, and a thorough analysis with a formal diagram and sheet music below. I would strongly encourage music academians and composers with stuff like that to start contributing. If a collection of stuff like that for the music of Beethoven, Bach, Mozart, Schoenberg, etc. really got substantial, it would be an increadible resource!

65.92.26.97 03:55, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Posting original analyses and dissertations violates No Original Research policy. In fact, all that we're limited to in these articles are Structure and basic information, unless academic sources can be cited. ALTON   .ıl  04:14, 10 March

2007 (UTC)
 * We find difficult problems.The policy should be kept while strict and close music analysis is sometimes useful.In Japanese wikipedia,a mere trial has been done,and more numerous articles have been created.The Japanese have a little more reliable source,however even the pianists don't have the "suitable" views.The DQN,macbeth 07:14, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Are there 2 codettas at the end of the 1st movement? I think the first one is actually the third B theme... What do you think? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.111.87.203 (talk) 09:20, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

There are a few errors and misguided points in the analysis on this page. For instance, the second codetta in the first movement does not use mode mixture but rather a secondary leading-tone chord in the form of a diminished-7th chord. Furthermore, the analysis of the final movement notes the new theme in Ab major as though this is an anomaly; in actuality, the term "development" as it is applied to sonata form is anachronistic.

I only point these out to illustrate the need either to find a reliable source from which to draw information on this sonata or to delete the detailed analysis section. Any edits I would make would be original research.--68.84.28.255 (talk) 23:15, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

I think calling the "series of energetic descending scales in A-flat major" a Coda/Codetta is wrong. A Coda is a prolongation of the final tonic and only comes after the final V-I of a piece/section of a piece. The only Codetta in the exposition starts in measure 41 after the big V-I in measures 40-41. The V64 to I6 (mm. 32-33) is hardly a final cadence —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.78.175.232 (talk) 04:16, 20 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Re: "Are there 2 codettas at the end of the 1st movement? I think the first one is actually the third B theme... What do you think?":


 * I think what this contributor is calling the "second codetta" is what my Schirmer edition calls the "closing theme", and I think what this contributor is calling the "first codetta" is the culmination of the second theme. You can break up the second theme into three parts (the bit with the right hand Eb7b9 arpeggios, the bit with the fragments of three notes in the right hand, and the bit with the right descending scales), but I wouldn't call these parts "themes" in themselves; they're really just motives. Anyway, it's telling that we come to a full stop before the closing theme, which why it makes sense to call it "the closing theme", not "the second codetta". TheScotch (talk) 07:53, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Re: "in actuality, the term "development" as it is applied to sonata form is anachronistic.":

By "in actuality", it sounds to me as if you mean, "in your personal idiosyncratic" opinion. As far as I can make out, the most authoritative sources have been using the term "development section" in reference to sonata form all of my life and are using it thus still. TheScotch (talk) 07:58, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

"Macrobeats"?
Re: "If played at speed, where one quarter note equals 126 to 138 macrobeats per minute, this movement can be challenging to perfect.":

Since the movement in question (the first) is notated in 2/2, presumably a "beat" is worth a half-note (if anything), which would make a quarter-note last a fraction of a beat (the fraction in this case being 1/2, of course), which suggests that if we're to invent silly neologisms, the term microbeat, not macrobeat, is called for. My Schirmer edition suggests a tempo of half-note = 112, by the way. Although Beethoven supplied metronome markings to some of his pieces, I'm guessing this one was supplied by the editors (Hans von Bulow and Sigmund Lebert). TheScotch (talk) 23:45, 31 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Removed passage. TheScotch (talk) 07:39, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Link to Mozart
Its arguable which Mozart G minor symphony resembles the opening theme the most. The opening to the 4th movement of #40 is listed here, but the first movement theme of #25 (bar 5 after the syncopated opening) is just as similar... the turn following the rising arpeggio is even more similar. I guess its just a rising arpeggio which probably shows up a lot. Something to keep in mind as I've noticed that the occasional edit switches the link to #25.DavidRF (talk) 06:16, 5 February 2011 (UTC)