# Talk:Cello Sonata No. 3 (Beethoven)

Would it not rather be a written out Cello part (not piano)? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.237.148.238 (talk) 12:47, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Cello Sonata No. 3 (Beethoven)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Aza24 (talk · contribs) 21:28, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
Will begin in the next few days. Aza24 (talk) 21:28, 12 December 2020 (UTC)


### Prose
The information in the first sentence seems a bit crammed, perhaps put completed in 1808, during his productive middle period. into its own sentence; if you decide to do so you could add to this new sentence where he was when he wrote the work "The work was completed in 1808, during his productive middle period, while he was in____" BTW I changed it to "composed in 1807–08 for the moment, as that may give more information"
sentence split - I think "1807–08" gives a better idea than "completed" which would leave open if after years or weeks of work. --GA
Do feel free to change it back, not a huge difference between either; I only changed it originally to match the infobox
In my head "third of five cellos sonatas" sounds better than "third cello sonata of five" but either is fine
changed to your melody --GA
Would recommend changing the It was published the same year... to "Published by Breitkopf & Härtel the same year, the work was dedicated..." to avoid two sentences in a row that begin with "it"
done - you are welcome to make such changes when reading --GA
consider linking Freiherr, as most will be unfamiliar with the title (I see you link it in the text anyways, just not the lead)
I only expanded this article. It was Baron (without a link, and seemed common enough) in the text, and no mention in the lead. I added the name to the lead that way. When I found out Freiherr, I changed without thinking about a link. Now that I do, I am still not sure, because it creates a sea-of-blue, and those unfamiliar can be sure to find it in his article (I hope). --GA
Fair enough
Beethoven, as a pianist, marked the cello sonatas as for piano and cello. this is a rather odd line, since I'm not aware of any major cello sonatas that aren't for piano and cello (or perhaps harpsichord?) or really any clarinet, flute, violin, viola etc sonatas that aren't coupled with piano. I think my suggestion below could fix a need for this sentence
Please help. Later cello sonatas were named "for cello and piano", but at the time, and explained in the text, in this breakthrough-work for the emancipation of the cello, he still used the older "for piano and cello" (well, with the more complex names for the instruments, but that order), as Mozart's violin sonatas were also labelled "for piano and violin)", and - until this sonata - the string instrument barely used for anything but supporting melodies. --GA
Now we have the Artaria title in the lead, and dropped that Beethoven was a pianist, which readers may know, and may not even be the reason, as just explained. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:23, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
The third sonata has been described as the first cello sonata in history to give the two instruments equal importance – I would drop the "in history" as redundant to "the first". It's also not clear to the reader which instrument was originally more important that Beethoven's innovations changed – if that makes sense. With Isserlis's quote later this is also unclear
that is probably easier to handle once we - hoping for you! - found a simple way to point out that the piano was prime until then --GA
Ah I didn't realize you were referring to the order of instruments; what about Beethoven, as a pianist, marked the cello sonatas as for "piano and cello" (rather than "cello and piano"). However, the third sonata has been described as the first of its genre to give the cello equal prominence to the piano – or something, alternatively you could drop the first sentence here since I'm not sure if the order ("piano and cello" vs "cello and piano") means much to the average reader, or in general, considering Beethoven did the former but still emphasized the cello). Aza24 (talk) 04:42, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
I see what you mean, and don't know enough to judge. All later cello sonatas that I know have the cello mentioned first, same violin sonatas, while Mozart named his Violin sonatas "for piano and violin". Perhaps we quote the original scoring, and the educated reader can see the order at a glance, and the uneducated will not care, and we don't try to educate at that point? --GA
Why talk about the sketches, go to the premiere and back to the sketches? Would think it'd be best to keep information on the sketches together
moved "sketches" together --GA
Beethoven's sketches show that he altered and experimented again and again, and further altered also the first autograph manuscript, while the finished composition sounds like the result of spontaneous inspiration. this sentence would benefit from some copy editing I think. something like "In both his sketches and autograph manuscript, Beethoven continuously experimented, despite the finished composition sounding like spontaneous inspiration" would suffice
Well, it's rather: it sounds like spontaneous but the sketches reveal hard labour, which continued even in the manuscript. --GA
I see – what about "Beethoven's sketches show that he continuously revised passages, and further altered his first autograph manuscript, while..." – the main issues I'm finding are the redundant "altered and experimented" and "and... also"
thank you --GA
link annuity
done but not convinced the article actually helps beyong "annual income" which even I grasped --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:49, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
but had instead to give that to is rather jammed... lol – I see what you're trying to say, perhaps play around with different phrasing (also "Rudolph" would suffice in this sentence
tried, please check --GA
Looks good!
as part of a benefit concert for cellist it's not clear that these are the performers, maybe something like "...part of a benefit for the performers, cellist..."?
it was in the article, and mentions only the cellist as benefitted, and sorry, I can't see the source --GA
It looks like the Triple Concerto was written earlier than that
good catch, thank you, I had noticed but not changed consistently --GA
what about "Kraft, known for his "technical mastery" and a "clear, rich tone", was the cellist for whom..."?
yes --GA
"The pianist noted metronome markings" – this can be taken as "he pointed out metronome markings" or "he wrote in..." – which one are we referring to here?
sorry, I was not there, "wrote in" I believe, - how do I word that? English finesse --GA
I think "noted his own metronome markings" would make it clear they were Czerny's and not Beethoven's – or just "wrote in"
will take "wrote in", because I don't know whose they were, or if they perhaps even talked (same city, same time) --GA
I'm not sure if "formally the most expansive" will have a clear meaning to non-musical readers
link to Form (music)? --GA
Yeah, good idea
Any performer credits when can give to the audio? :)
I didn't listen yet. Was there before I came, I removed them accidentally and didn't miss them, an observant friend brought them back --GA
The sonata is a classical work – not sure if this will mean anything to a non-musical reader either, maybe link to classical period (music)? I would think that something like "The sonata is a typical representative of the Classical period, ..." may be clearer
I think what the source means is rather that it is of classical (architecture) proportions, not limiting it to music --GA
Ah I see, perhaps "a typical classical work" then? – I don't know, the current phrasing just seems to vague
not happy about "typical" while we point that it was a singular "first" thing, - perhaps "the architecture of the sonata"? --GA
How is this: I linked sonata, for those who are not familiar with the concept. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:02, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
link to Bridge (music)
yes - and next such thing just do, faster than you typing and I typing --GA
"by running triplet" doesn't make sense, should be running triplets or by a running triplet ("on" the piano may be more appropriate here as well)
triplets --GA
"is introduced by a slow introduction" sounds weird with the double "intro..."
right --GA
why no link for the Waldstein? :(
forgot, thank you --GA
I'm not a fan of the "has been described" – you include names for other quotes, so why not these? Probably fine for the lead, but I would suggest the other three be tweaked
will think about that one, going outside as long as it's sunshine Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:49, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
Well, I make a difference between a cellist with an article, and a "no-name" reviewer. Both are quoted twice. I don't want to repeat the cellist's name the second time because it would look as it was just one person's view (while several said the same thing in other words). I quote these people because they word things better than I could. What can we do? ... rephrase rather than quote? ... use a different verb at times? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:23, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
more in a little bit
Thank you, great to wake up to. I'll work on the article according to your thoughts - learning, learning - after the rest of the watch list, and then comment here, to avoid edit conflicts. Therefore, better don't change the above for the moment. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:44, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
Left some initial response; I'll leave the rest and finish the review later today. Have carved out some time for it Aza24 (talk) 00:23, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
The recording section looks good; the only thing I would wonder is what recording of the work (if know) is the earliest? Aza24 (talk) 07:19, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
Also... would be nice if half of the history paragraphs didn't start with "The sonata"; and two of them in a row start with "Beethoven"...!
tried both --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:23, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
Thank you for more good ideas, - need a short break, the I'll be back for the last 3 q. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:04, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
Aza24, please look again --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:23, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
It's looking far better. I hate to harp on this point but the second paragraph is still rather confusing. I don't think the reader will be able to tell which instrument was originally dominant before this sonata; and most likely, the may assume this was the first sonata to give the piano equal standing, since the genre is called a "cello sonata". I don't know how much the german description helps, are we sure the sources are saying there's any significance between listing as "piano and cello" vs "cello and piano"? Aza24 (talk) 04:01, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
Do you mean the second of the lead? The body says of the early sonatas "were highly virtuoso concert pieces showing off the pianist, with a cello part of less weight." Do you think something like that should go to the lead? Tried. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:53, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
That is perfect, thank you! Now it is clear that Beethoven brought the cello up to the piano's dominance, not vice versa, passing now. Aza24 (talk) 01:21, 24 December 2020 (UTC)


### Other
Refs look good
Seems to have GA-standard comprehensiveness
The article is neutral and stable
Media is helpful and appropriate Aza24 (talk) 07:19, 22 December 2020 (UTC)