Talk:Piano Trio, Op. 97 (Beethoven)

Untitled
Is it worth including its mention in the book "Kafka On The Shore" by Haruki Murakami? A character who could be seen as the Chorus (in a Greek tragedy sense) of this book is opened up by this piece of music, which is introduced to him by the owner of a coffee shop. The book includes discussions by different real world trios, among them the Czech Suk Trio and the Million Dollar Trio Rubinstein, Heifetz and Feuermann.

I think it's worth noting given the prominence of the Archduke Trio as a thematic element in the novel. -W

A worthy inclusion indeed. Just one of many examples of characters in Murakami's novels who see classical music as a means of reflection upon their own lives, approaching it from an emotional or aesthetic standpoint rather than from a technical one. This often happens as a particular piece resonates with a character in a specific way, creating a series of associations or invoking a powerful, Proust-like rush of memories. In modern society, too many listeners shy away from classical music on the grounds that a lack of technical understanding renders appreciation or pleasure inaccessible. These characters of Murakami's, however, oppose this common misconception by reacting to pieces of music from purely emotional, visceral standpoints. This appreciation casts his characters not as somehow more sophisticated that their peers, but rather as simply listening with open ears.

&mdash; S. J. O.

from Japan
We have created another page in Japanese-wiki.However,Haruki Murakami,our famous literature,is not included.Please check it and have the sense in Japanese-culture.--Naotyan 6 June 2007 (Wed)

Title
I'm not wedded to the move to Piano Trio Op. 97 "Archduke Trio" (Beethoven). Almost nobody in the world would choose that exact sequence of letters and numbers to search for it. They'd likely be including "in B-flat" somewhere in the search criteria. Or including a comma after Trio.

But even more likely than that, they'd be going straight for the jugular, Archduke Trio, as it was named until April 2008. We have Minute Waltz and Moonlight Sonata and Mass in B minor, so why not Archduke Trio? It means, and can only mean, one thing. --  Jack of Oz   [your turn]  09:03, 4 October 2011 (UTC)


 * As much as I disliked Piano Trio Op. 97 "Archduke Trio" (Beethoven), I positively despise what we have now: Piano Trio, Op. 97 (Beethoven). How many people looking for information about the Archduke Trio are going to look for it by its opus number, of all things?  Very few, I would suggest.


 * In order of the things about this work that people would generally know, are:
 * Piano Trio
 * Beethoven
 * "Archduke"
 * B-flat
 * Op. 97.


 * That order should guide us in our quest for the best name. An opus number should almost never be used in a title, imo; only if a composer wrote two works with identical titles, and the only thing we have to split them is the opus or catalogue number.


 * I'll be making a formal Requested Move to Archduke Trio unless some kindly admin moves it. --   Jack of Oz   [your turn]  09:42, 7 October 2011 (UTC)


 * That's fine with me, Jack - I was just frustrated with the original titles giving only the haphazard trio numbering which is not standardized and is misleading. I had "Archduke" in the title at one point, and rec'd an objection to that, so I took it back out. Just go ahead and move it as you think best - I certainly trust your judgment. Be sure to also look at the List of Compositions also, which again I'm not very happy with my changes. This still leaves all the other trios with screwed-up numbering, without nicknames (except "Ghost" - I'm finding that "Gassenhauer" is very infrequently used). (Another problem is that the key isn't that helpful with the piano trios - Beethoven used B-b and E-b a lot.) I think you should start with the whole list, figure out a consistent approach, and then just move them. Then if somebody hollers, at that point you can discuss & justify, or change. All I know is that trying to give consistent numbering to them just doesn't work. I was being bold, but knew I was treading on thin ice with this whole series of trios. Milkunderwood (talk) 10:30, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Never any need to justify being bold, mate. Bold is good.  Alongside that, though, is the fact that it's not possible to please all of the people (that's ever, let alone all of the time).  I'm aware there's a general discussion about consistency of titles going on somewhere, and I should check it out before I do anything.  --   Jack of Oz   [your turn]  11:42, 7 October 2011 (UTC)