Talk:Für Elise

message: I erased a paragraph that claimed that the piece is considered technically difficult "even by advanced pianists," which is incorrect. Within the scope of the canonized repertoire, it is very technically easy (it is one of Beethoven's easiest bagatelles, which as a group, are considered some of the easiest things he wrote).  It often is considered musically difficult because it is so overplayed that a performance needs something very special to stand out to most listeners.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.39.88.158 (talk) 05:16, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: it is considered appropriate material for Canadian Royal Conservatory of Music grade five or six level. My son is working on it as I type. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:47, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I can understand that you're proud of your son, but this piece is nothing compared to others. Those grades aren't really meaningful.--89.14.66.75 (talk) 18:07, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

text: I agree. Though it can be studied later, it's a grade two piece at best. I learned the first part when I was six years old from my grandmother and the rest by myself when I was nine. By then I had studied piano informally for about three years. It's a comparatively easy work.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.94.229.13 (talk) 11:32, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Difficulty

message: The article doesn't mention the extreme popularity of the work. It would be very interesting if someone could research how and/or when it became so popular.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.39.88.158 (talk) 05:18, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Popularity

message: How about a section for songs in which it's used? I know it's used in a Nas song, "I Can"  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.38.54.19 (talk) 22:12, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Sampled

message: :In some parts of Taiwan the tune is played by garbage trucks to notify people to bring their rubbish to be picked up.
This isn't vandalism. I've found it to be absolutely true. (This edit) :) — Stevey7788 (talk) 05:02, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Garbage truck music

message: Why is one of the most famous pieces of music in history not given any fundamental, easy to understand musical analysis, but more focused on a discussion of the title?  The primary subject matter is not linguistic.  I advise anyone intent on making future edits to the page to please write about the music firstly and foremostly. --Knucmo2 13:36, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Ancillary

message: The medical doctor Johann Malfatti von Monteregio (1775-1859) wasn't Therese Malfatti's father. He was her father's cousin.--131.130.135.193 16:33, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Malfatti

message: Isn't it the standard policy on here to name a piece's page as the proper name of the piece and create redirects to it for popular names/nicknames? For example, a search for Revolutionary Etude redirects to Etude op. 10 no. 12, which mentions the "Revolutionary" nickname in the first sentence. So shouldn't this page be called "Bagatelle in A minor" or "Bagatelle in A minor (Beethoven)", including the opus number if it has one? The nickname "Für Elise" could be mentioned in the first sentence or paragraph. Lbark 17:14, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: From the stomache, I'd say no. The case is different, because "Etude op. 10 no. 12" applies to a specific piece, but "Bagatelle in A minor" might mean anything, maybe even several Am-Bagatelles by Beethoven. In this case, "Für Elise" is a specific as it goes. Sadly. — Mütze 01:27, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Er, no.  Not one single person in the entire world would ever, ever, ever search for it under any of those titles.  Heck, we even have an article called Minute Waltz, not Waltz No. 8 in D-flat major (Chopin) or Waltz in D flat major, Op. 64, No. 1, because the former title is FAR more well-known than a technical, formal designation that later cataloguers have deigned to give it.  We're here to actually help people, not hide our information under impenetrable and stuffy titles.  Oh, but Für Elise would still be a redirect, and they'd still get to the article they want quickly - I hear you cry.  Not the point.  Besides, if they wanted Für Elise but ended up at Bagatelle In A Minor, WoO 59, most people would assume they mis-typed and would go back and start again.  It's unrecognisable to all except musicologists, but we're writing for the general population here.  First rule of writing: Consider your audience. --  Jack of Oz [your turn] 19:15, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Page title 

message: I added this to the introduction, since it mentioned garbage and gas trucks. While I do not have a citation, I know this for a fact, as in Israel, the ice cream van used to play the melody; It was the known sign that the ice cream van is near.
:Oh yeah, the ice-cream van plays it here too (Texas). Annoying. And i wouldn't be surprised one bit that the ice-cream van in Isra'el was shipped from the United States. --Jerome Potts (talk) 06:51, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ice cream vans playing fur elise 

message: The notion that the piece starts off with the notes E - E♭ (flat)- E, transferring into ESE, thus spelling part of Elise should be looked into.  It is stated that the Flat symbol (♭) represents the German S set symbol(β).  First off the symbols are not the same, and the German S set symbol (β) actually is equivalent to a double S (ss) in both English and German.  For these reasons, I would challenge the authenticity of this claim.
:Where have you seen the connection between ♭ and β? I have never heard about that – as you say, they are very different symbols. But I don't really see the relevance of that fact here. E♭ is pronounced "E flat" in English but "Es" in German (just like it's pronounced "Ess" in Swedish etc). That's what makes it interesting, albeit a bit far-fetched probably. -- Jao 02:10, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Is there a reputable source confirming this reading? -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 11:02, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Spelling of Elise Musically 

message: Regardless (above comments), it's all original research and must be left out until someone can cite something. Also, citations must be made for the definitive statements throughout, such as "The most reasonable theory" and "There is an apocryphal story". ALTON .ıl 06:42, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Cleanup

message: There should also be redirects from "Fur Elyse" and "Für Elyse," as the title is sometimes spelled.
* Done Daniel 15:55, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: "Fur Elyse"

message: Op 29 by Kuhlau is entitled Elisa. Since there wasn't any Elisa in Beethoven's life, maybe this piece is a flute part for "Elisa", Kuhlau's drama. Kuhlau was influenced by Beethoven.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.191.171.186 (talk) 16:38, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds speculative.  We just report what others have written here.  No WP:OR.  If you can find books or papers published by musicologists that say something then we can consider including it here.DavidRF (talk) 16:43, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Composed by Kuhlau? 

message: So, do I understand this correctly? Some random musicologist (who has an oddly long article on the Spanish wiki but nothing anywhere else) makes a guess based on absolutely no evidence, and it takes up half of all the information in the article about Für Elise. In the meantime, another musicologist who has written a few books on Beethoven and who is referred to as an expert on the subject, presents a theory backed up by some findings, but these are called "somewhat dubious" without any citations as to why. Would anyone mind if I deleted the guess and it's "citations" and removed the "somewhat dubious" notation next to the other theory, considering it is clearly labeled a theory but is backed up with something substantial in the citation? The emphasis on this Luca Chiantore does not make any sense to me. Ludwig Nohl was a well known music scholar, and I think most of us know that it's not uncommon for an original manuscript to go lost. It happened even with works that had already been published, and with all the fires around the world's homes, libraries, and other places, there is no reason to doubt Ludwig Nohl regarding the autograph. 71.59.213.105 (talk) 19:38, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I have deleted this piece of self-promotion.--Peter cohen (talk) 11:11, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: As a matter of fact Kopitz is no expert on archival research and is "referred to as expert on the subject" only by reports in the yellow press that he himself initiated. His supposed "findings" consist of nothing else than one document in which a priest in Vienna in 1813 added the third name "Elise" to Frau Hummel's two baptismal names "Maria Eva". Maria Eva Hummel never called herself "Elise", she called herself "Maria Eva" and "Betty". Furthermore there is absolutely no proof in Kopitz's claim that Maria Eva Hummel ever was in possession of  Beethoven's autograph. The autograph came from Therese Malfatti to her friend Josef Rudolf Schachner, who gave it to his relative Babette Bredl, who showed it to Ludwig Nohl. Kopitz's hypothesis is dead as a doornail.--62.47.136.129 (talk) 14:27, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: This leaves the article a mess right now. On one hand it lists Kopitz claim, but also that it's "definitely refuted" by the fact that Bredl showed Nohl the autograph. Right below this, Luca Chiantore's claim that the autograph didn't exist is also listed (this must have been re-added in condensed form since the original self-promoting section was removed a while back). However, if it's been proven, as the article currently states, that Bredl showed Nohl the autograph, then Chiantore must be wrong in his assertion that the autograph never existed. Either way, should the article not focus on citing the proof and removing the other claims altogether? As it is, the article is doing a terrible disservice to the reader regardless of who is right or wrong or what has or has not been proven. It's making downright contradictory claims. Seems like all the "experts" are tripping over each other to make baseless guesses that essentially mean nothing. 76.105.196.159 (talk) 22:31, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Luca Chiantore Thesis 

message: My notesheet (which is quite old) says the music is called "An Elise". Bleh?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.160.87.35 (talk) 21:21, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Bleh!  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.123.51.233 (talk) 11:04, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  An Elise? 

message: Some sources claim that "Für Elise" was published in 1865, while our Wikipedia article says it was 1867. What's the truth?--89.14.66.75 (talk) 17:51, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Nohl discovered it in 1865 and published it in 1867. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 12:47, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Published in 1865 or 1867 

message: by User:AKA MBG restored 2 additional audio files which  on 31 December 2011 as "unnecessary". These files, a guitar version (by AKA MBG) and a MIDI version (by me), are unsuitable illustrations of Beethoven's composition. The existing piano version, for all its faults, is at least played on the right instrument. The article does not benefit from 3 versions and these 2 should be removed. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 12:47, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, though I prefer more music in our articles :) -- Andrew Krizhanovsky (talk) 10:04, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

text: I think "Fur Elise.ogg" is much better than "FurElise.ogg". So it should be changed. And I changed it :) -- Muntashir 23:18, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: 3 audio files?

message: A bit of trivia: in Windows 98 Second Edition when user decides to install sample media files, the system also installs Für Elise MIDI file. I'm not sure what name has this in English, but as far as I know in Polish edition it's called "Dla Elizy Beethovena.rmi" (Beethoven's Für Elise)
I hope you understand what I mean.
62.152.150.93 (talk) 00:07, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Für Elise MIDI 

message: The sentence "Steblin admits that question marks remain for her conclusion." is incorrect, because Steblin did not present a "conclusion", but only a hypothesis. Her statement that "question marks remain" means nothing else than that her theory still lacks any proof.--80.123.63.104 (talk) 11:29, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Steblin's "conclusion" 

message: NOTE: The above recording [in the music section] is inaccurate. The performer inserts an extra beat in each of 5 identical cadences. An amateurish mistake, this recording should be replaced with one true to Beethoven's score.
--72.229.96.73 (talk • contribs) 16:46, 30 November 2015‎ (UTC)
 
moved here from the article itself DBaK (talk) 16:51, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Comment: Can someone please comment on this? The person responsible ignored my attempt to engage and just made their edit again - it might help if we could address their issue. Thanks DBaK (talk) 11:56, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Audio file complaint 

message: In this section we find the following statements: "According to a 2010 study by Klaus Martin Kopitz (de), there is evidence that the piece was written for the German soprano singer Elisabeth Röckel (1793–1883), later the wife of Johann Nepomuk Hummel. "Elise", as she was called by a parish priest (she called herself "Betty" too), had been a friend of Beethoven's since 1808.[10] In the meantime, the Austrian musicologist Michael Lorenz[11] has shown that Rudolf Schachner, who in 1851 inherited Therese von Droßdik's musical scores, was the son of Babette Bredl, born out of wedlock. Babette in 1865 let Nohl copy the autograph in her possession. Thus the autograph must have come to Babette Bredl from Therese von Droßdik's estate and Kopitz's hypothesis is refuted."
The claim that Lorenz' findings refute Kopitz' hypothesis is on its face illogical.  Although none of Kopitz' evidence is given, his argument concern's Beethoven's dedication of the piece, but Lorenz' the provenance of the autograph. The argument about provenance has no clear bearing on an argument about the dedication.  
It needs to be made clear whether Lorenz himself wrote his article to refute Kopitz.  I can imagine his line goes something like this:  Kohl copied the autograph that was in BB's possession; BB was RS's mother; RS inherited the manuscript from TvD; how did TvD get it?  It must have come from Beethoven himself.  Why did Beethoven give it to her?  Because he wrote the piece for her.  If it makes sense to dedicate a composition to X, it makes sense to give X the actual composition.  It makes no sense to dedicate a composition to Y, then give the autograph to X.  If Beethoven had dedicated the composition to Elisabeth Röckel, then the autograph should have been found in ER's estate.  It was not found in ER's estate, therefore B did not dedicate it to her.  But if it was found in TvD's estate, then that must be because B dedicated it to her when she was TM.  Kopitz is thus refuted.   
If this is Lorenz' argument, or if he has another, it should be summarized fully enough for the reader to understand how the question of provenance bears upon the matter of dedication.
The passage discussing the provenance of the autograph is confused.  If Schachner inherited TvD's musical scores in 1851, then it makes no sense to say that the autograph came to Babette Bredel from TvD's estate. The verb "inherited" presupposes that TvD left the scores to RS in her will, but the verbal phrase "came to BB from the estate" implies no mechanism, testamentary or otherwise: if a wealthy art collector leaves behind debts so great that the trustee must sell some of his famous pieces to a museum, then those pieces come to the museum from the WAC's estate.  If RS inherited the musical scores in 1851, but at some later time gave one of them to his mother, then that should be made clear.  This is particularly important because "in her possession" justifies the inference that, not living with her son in 1865, Bredl and Bredl alone had access to the autograph.   
But this talk of provenance raises two further problems.  
First, who the heck was Babette Bredl?  Why was she important to TvD?  Why was her bastard son so important to TvD that she left her good friend Beethoven's manuscript to him in her will?  
Second, if the piece was never published, then how did Kohl "discover" it?  It could only have been because he went to BB to copy any of Beethoven's autographs in her possession; not knowing herself what was she had, BB gave Kohl a stack of autographs, and going through them Kohl eventually read one with the title "Für [not quite legible]," and realized it was unpublished. But if this is so, it raises the slightly different question of how it came to be public knowledge that BB had such autographs in her possession.  
If the writer did indeed have the line of thought in mind that I described, then the section should be amplified with answers to my questions.  In order to keep the argument clear, the information about BB's relation to TvD should be stated first, then the information about BB to RS, then information about RS's importance to TvD to explain the 1851 inheritance, then information about how BB came into possession of the autograph so that it was she who gave Kohl access. Wordwright (talk) 17:25, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Your statement "First, who the heck was Babette Bredl? Why was she important to TvD? Why was her bastard son so important to TvD that she left her good friend Beethoven's manuscript to him in her will?" suggests that you have not acquainted yourself enough with the literature to make any fruitful comments on the matter. This may alse be related to the fact that you repeatedly refer to Ludwig Nohl as "Kohl".--178.190.204.81 (talk) 17:16, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Problem in "Identity of Elise." 

message: "Steblin admits that question marks remain for her hypothesis"
"Steblin admits this hypothesis contains some unanswered questions."
Better yet, perhaps list a couple issues with this hypothesis. On the surface, it appears more convincing than the other two possible ideas.
2001:56A:F260:F400:1127:463C:A79D:BD40 (talk) 06:06, 29 September 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Low quality writing 

message: Until ten minutes ago, I never knew this song my Andy Williams existed. But I heard it on a British online radio station. 
What do I do about it? Uses of this melody seem to have been removed from the article and I can't find any reliable source that justifies an article for the song.
The best I could do with the "She'll Never Know" article was a hatnote. It's not the same song.— Vchimpanzee •  talk • contributions •  18:12, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  She'll Never Know