Talk:Piano Concerto No. 4 (Beethoven)

message: As to the contemporary review (translated from the German?)
*A review of the concerto right after the first public performance said it was the "most difficult and most complex Beethoven concerto ever", meaning this fourth concerto was very virtuosic for the time in its musical writing.
do you have a source? (I have Beethoven: A Documentary Study - one of H. C. Robbins Landon's books - here - and the concert of Dec 22 1808, as described by Ries, is quoted on page 126. There is an account by Spohr, too, of the concert, of Beethoven forgetting that he was the soloist, ... various anecdotes; but a source for this review would be helpful.) Thank you. Schissel : bowl listen 01:10, July 19, 2005 (UTC)
Sorry,i've found now the source( i thought i lost the source) and is the "Allegmeine Musikalische Zeitung" May,1809 : the review says exactly that " [this concert] is the most admirable,singular,artistic and complex Beethoven concerto ever".I have only a translation in italian but the source is reliable.So i edit the article with the source, you're right for the source, thanks 16:17, July 20, 2005 (CEST)
Thanks! My command of German has never been very good, but there may be an issue that early at the library here; like the later Neue Zeitschrift a number of libraries carry it (the Neue Z. especially since its older issues have been "reprinted" in a way, on better paper, a few decades ago - maybe someone will do that for the AMZ too, as a similar musicians/music historians' resource.) Schissel : bowl listen 17:01, July 21, 2005 (UTC)
In the section on the second movement, the phrase "pedaling directions that cannot be executed on the modern piano" is rather misleading. Of course the direction in question cannot be technically executed on the modern piano, but neither can any other "una corda" marking in piano literature. I recommend either deletion or a change to better wording. Junggai 22:20, August 30, 2008  —Preceding undated comment was added at 20:21, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

message: There's a serious mistake in the page : 
The cadenza is in the end of the 1st movement instead of the 2nd!
You can check out the sheet of the 1st movement,
there's a little note "cadenza" in the piano part in the page 34 :
http://imslp.org/wiki/Special:ImagefromIndex/01287
Can some one fix this?
Bisconect (talk) 18:38, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I think there's a cadenza near the end of each movement.  The *big* one is in the first, yes, but this note could be talking about the mini-cadenza in second movement.DavidRF (talk) 19:48, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  The cadenza is in the end of the 1st movement instead of the 2nd ! 

message: :I think there's a cadenza near the end of each movement.  The *big* one is in the first, yes, but this note could be talking about the mini-cadenza in second movement.DavidRF (talk) 19:48, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: =================================

message: No, I checked the sheets of the 2nd movement :
http://imslp.org/wiki/Piano_Concerto_No.4,_Op.58_%28Beethoven,_Ludwig_van%29
There's no cadenza in it. There are many solo parts, but none of them is cadenza. 
Bisconect (talk) 20:28, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: =================================

message: I appreciate your vigilance, but if there's a mistake in the page, it's an overly liberal definition of "cadenza," not a factual error. At any rate, the passage described in the article is indeed in the second movement, and it is a place where the orchestra pauses shortly before the ending while the pianist embellishes the  I 6/4 - V - I harmonic motion, all of these characteristics of a classical cadenza. As the passage's formal label is not the point of the sentence, there should be little harm in changing the wording to "solo passage" if you prefer. Junggai (talk) 21:25, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: =================================

message: The quotation by Marx by way of Jander is correct.  But Jander has an elaborate (and in musicological circles, pretty famous) discussion on how the 2nd movement is really a dialogue between Orpheus and the Furies, with the result being that Eurydice is sent back to Hell.  Since this idea (first published in 1985) has been used already in program notes and liner notes, I think it's appropriate that it should be in the section on the 2nd movement. Yes? - kosboot (talk) 23:46, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes – but probably without delving into Jander's complete elaboration. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 03:23, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Jander and the 2nd movement