Talk:Grosse Fuge

message: Firstly I would like to say that this article is very well done. It is informative and well written. I particularly like the use of the quotes, very amusing !!
Concerning the article, could someone with knowledge of this subject add something about the orchestral version of string quartet Op. 130/Op.133. How did it come about? How was it adapted from the string quartet? 
I have a recording by Otto Klemperer which is extraordinary but do wonder how it was accomplished.
Thank You  Nmollo (talk) 18:37, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Große Fuge Orchestral Version 

message: Pfly, great additions to this article. Thank you.
I think that a lot of the material that you have added to the lead belongs in the body of the article. How would you feel about this: Let's add a section History of composition. Let's take the third paragraph of the lead ("Beethoven originally composed... " and put half of it in this new section and half (the part that deals with analysis and comparison to the Ode to Joy) in the Analysis section.
Awaiting your ideas, --Ravpapa (talk) 07:08, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. The article's overall structure could be much improved. I saw that when I made my edits, but didn't have the time or energy to deal with it. Please feel free to improve it as best you can! I'll try to find time to do more. I've been pondering adding notation graphics of the main subjects, but as always it may take me a long while. Pfly (talk) 12:44, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Great work, I suggest some reorganization 

message: "There have been numerous orchestral arrangements of the fugue, including by conductor Wilhelm Furtwängler, and a full orchestral arrangement by Felix Weingartner."
That's like saying, "There have been numerous car models manufactured in blue, and a model manufactured in blue."  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.180.44.133 (talk) 17:50, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe both these arrangements are for string orchestra. The only full orchestral arrangement I know of is by Manuel Hidalgo, which is available on CD. Probably not worth mentioning in the Wiki entry (though it's fun!) Opus131 (talk) 02:25, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: This makes no sense

message: The section on Op. 134 opens, "When Beethoven detached the movement from the quartet, he still wanted the music to be as accessible as possible." Cooper reconstructs the timeline quite differently. The publisher Artaria asked Beethoven to make a four-hand arrangement well before the fugue's separation from the Op. 130 quartet was ever proposed. There was evidently a demand for a more accessible score, even though the quartet version wasn't found very palatable. If there's no comment, I'll rewrite this paragraph, but I'll need to use an in-line reference because I don't know how to do it the right way! Opus131 (talk) 02:00, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Went ahead and did it. I even figured out how to handle a footnote! Opus131 (talk) 03:29, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Four-hand arrangement

message: User:Fydlerp has added a sentence that the fugue is the subject of a poem in Ted Hughes's volume of poetry "Moortown" (or maybe "Moortown Diary"). I don't have the book, but looked at the table of contents and found no poem with the title "Grosse Fuge". Perhaps Fydlerp could quote a line from the poem, or give a page reference, so someone can check? Thanks, Ravpapa (talk) 04:41, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ted Hughes 

message: Toccata has reverted a number of additions to the Reception section of the article (here), including quotes from Hanslick and Schindler which I found very interesting. The quotes were undocumented, but the anonymous editor who added them promised to provide references. I think we should restore it, edit it so it is a little less editorial, and give this anon a chance to do his thing. The bit about Schuppanzigh seems a bit problematic: was he talking about the fugue or the 9th symphony? If it was the symphony, it is really a bit over the top. Ravpapa (talk) 07:26, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edits by  46.115.35.7 

message: Igor Stravinsky deemed the Grosse Fuge of the second to last quartet the greatest piece of music ever written. this should be added if correct.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 06:54, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I would not invest a lot of faith in that particular source - it is pretty off the wall to me. I have never seen a quote of Stravinsky's claiming such a thing, but if you find a reliable source for it, by all means add it.--Ravpapa (talk) 14:49, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Quote

message: User:Pigsonthewing is insisting on including in the caption to the picture in the lead the words "attributed to ". The addition suggests to most readers that the publication is attributing the work to some other Beethoven, not to Ludwig van Beethoven. That is certainly misleading. Ludwig in French is Louis. It was quite common in the period to publish works with title pages in French rather than German. In light of this, Pigson, is there some compelling reason that you think we need this? --Ravpapa (talk) 15:08, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: No, including that wording does not "suggest to most readers that the publication is attributing the work to some other Beethoven", any more than having a picture of a score with those words of attribution on the front of it does. But it does explain what is written on the front page of the document. By all means add further clarification, if you think others might make that mistake. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:57, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

text: Similarly, on the title page of the famous sonata quasi una fantasia, he is named Luigi, and the dedicatee also with an Italian version of her name, Giulietta, - this is relevant information about the style of the time, I would think. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:20, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, if you ask me, it doesn't exactly explain what is written on the first page, it just repeats it. You'd think that people could read it for themselves. But if you think it is important, then that's fine. Didn't mean to be picky. --Ravpapa (talk) 23:37, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

text: The problem is that when we say some work is or has been "attributed" to some creator, that means either (a) we're not sure it really was by that person, or (b) we're sure it was NOT by that composer, but we're just letting readers know what the historical attribution was.  For example, "Albinoni's Adagio" was for a long time said to have been written by Albinoni; all the reference works said so.  Now, we know it was 99.9% the work of Remo Giazotto, who based it on a scrap of melody he claimed was by Albinoni.  So, we now say it was written by Giazotto and was formerly attributed to Albinoni.  Similarly for "Haydn's Serenade". which we now know was really by Hofmeister or Hofstetter or someone. Nothing remotely like that situation obtains in the case of the Grosse Fuge.  It was by Beethoven; nobody has ever questioned that fact.  But when we introduce the word "attributed", that already raises questions in the minds of readers; when we compound the error by having that word in close proximity to "Louis van Beethoven", a less well-read reader could reasonably conclude we're saying the piece was really written by some Beethoven relative named Louis, who was a different person from the famous Ludwig van.  That is not an outcome that anyone wants, is it?  Really?  Just because the title page of a publication spells the composer's name in a way that is different from the standard way, that is not a case of the work being "attributed" to the person named on the front.  Some Polish publications spell Chopin's surname as "Szopen", but that has nothing to do with attribution.  It is solely a matter of orthography.  --  Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 00:03, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: (ec)I agree with Ravpapa that the wording "credited to 'Louis van Beethoven'" might be confusing. At first glance, it might suggest an author other than Ludwig or hint at the publisher's perceived inaccuracy at writing his name. As Gerda points out, using Italian or French forms was very common and totally unremarkable at the time. The caption doesn't explain any of this, so I suggest the article would be better off without it. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 00:07, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: You appear to have missed my comment . Perhaps "Published under the French spelling of Beethoven's name, 'Louis van Beethoven'" would satisfy? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:36, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Andy, you asked for an explanation of why your addition was deleted. I explained. Can you explain why your addition is necessary? We all seem to think that it adds nothing but confusion. Obviously you think otherwise. Maybe if you explain why it is a useful addition, we will understand. --Ravpapa (talk) 15:35, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: To explain what is written on the front of the document. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:17, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: With all due respect, you have not explained anything. You have only pointed out that the name on the title page is "Louis van Beethoven"; and you have done so in a way that, to all of us here, confuses rather than clarifies. Here is a guess: you want to point out that, even though the score was published in Vienna, the title page is in French. If that is so, perhaps you would like "Title page of the first edition of the Grande Fugue, published in Vienna (with French title page) by Matthias Artaria in 1827". What do you think? --Ravpapa (talk) 00:43, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: And again: . Your suggestion removes the word "Louis". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:13, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

text: Note that the title and initial post in this section are misleading, the wording used is "credited to 'Louis van Beethoven'", not "attributed to 'Louis van Beethoven'". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:13, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: You added that phrase; consensus here is that it is unnecessary and confusing. You counter that it won't be confusing if a further explanation is provided, but you don't provide it. When consensus is enacted, you revert and introduce further errors to the article. What gives? Unkind people might call that disruptive editing; those of a sunnier disposition might call it only stubborn. No one would call it collegial collaboration. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 12:55, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Your claim of consensus is bogus, and your claim of "further [sic] errors" (which I have now fixed; you did not) is irrelevant to the issue at hand. I suggested above, in reply to you , but you have ignored that (so much for "collegial collaboration"!); your claim that I have not provided further explanation is also thus bogus. For the fourth time: . Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:09, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

text: As noted on my user page, I'm currently at Wikimania, so my time editing is limited this week. We present to our readers a picture with a name which is not "Ludwig van Beethoven". We should explain what and why that is, because we are building an encyclopedia. I'm done, unless Someone removes the caption, or replaces it with something less helpful. AS I said above: . Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:29, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you, I now understand why you have insisted on including Beethoven's French name in the caption. I have edited the caption in a way that I think clarifies what you are concerned about. --Ravpapa (talk) 15:32, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Attributed to Louis van Beethoven 

message: "Paradoxical" is the wrong word, I think. "Unusual" or "strange" works better, as does the "peculiar" we now also have. We all know that two tied eighth notes make a quarter note; what causes the problem in most people's minds is that then we start wondering why Beethoven didn't just write a quarter note, which seems to mean the same thing. (Of course, if you remember the convention, active till about the 1820s, of shortening the last note before a rest, it starts to make sense.) Double sharp (talk) 08:22, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Quite right, and thank you for your critical reading. --Ravpapa (talk) 15:03, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  paradoxical notation 

message: Hi all,
writing here as I am not sure so I am not doing the edit straight away.
The "Analysis" section, under the "First Fugue" subsection presents the score of "Third variation of the fugue". However, looking at the text of the section and at the score itself it seems to me the Second variation. Is it correct? Thanks
une musque de Biscaye (talk) 09:38, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  score of second/third variation of the first fugue 

message: Dear Professor Husarik,
Once again you are editing the article, adding references to your own research, in places where they are non sequiturs. I have looked for Barry Cooper's suggestion that the Grosse Fuge is in a "comic envelope" and could not find it anywhere. If you want to cite Cooper, please do so directly with a reference so others can verify it, and not via your own interpretation of his research. Also, if you want to strengthen your contention that the Fugue is comic, please do so in the paragraph where that contention appears - specifically in the third paragraph of the section "Understanding the Grosse Fuge" and not in other places where it is irrelevant.
It is always best, when making edits that might be disputed, to discuss these edits first on the talk page. You have heretofore eschewed the talk page. If you wish to make a positive contribution to the article and to the Wikipedia, and not merely promote your own opinions about this piece, I strongly suggest that you discuss first.
Thank you,
--Ravpapa (talk) 05:07, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: – The  of User:Shusarik to engage in any discussion makes these edits disruptive. They should be reverted on sight until Ravpapa's suggestion is followed. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 05:54, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Note to Husarik 

message: I edited this to reflect the correct terminology. Schoenberg's 12 tone system is not 'atonal'. His music bridging his early romanticism to his 12 tone composition was a free atonality, but 12 tone composition reflects structure based upon the chosen tone row. It is not 'atonal' and Schoenberg himself rejected the label.
Someone here (Michael something-or-other) reverted the edit; someone who clearly has no idea about how 12 tone music works. I ask that it be left alone, especially by those with no-to-limited knowledge of the matter under discussion.Vanderloo (talk) 19:18, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: If you read my edit summary and inspect , you will find that I didn't revert your change. I replaced your (unlinked) term "12 tone system" with "twelve-tone system". I ask that editors who lack the competence to read revision histories and edit summaries to refrain from uncivil remarks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Michael Bednarek (talk • contribs) 02:59, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Deep breath. Count to 10. And thank you both for your substantive and important - albeit small - contributions to this article. --Ravpapa (talk) 17:14, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reference to Schoenberg's 'atonalism' 

message: Professor Husarik, as we have asked on numerous occasions previously, please discuss your changes on the talk page prior to making them. You add information which is irrelevant to the material being discussed, and, while it may occasionally merit inclusion in the article, your editing often makes no sense. Thank you,
Ravpapa (talk) 13:50, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Husarik is at it again 

message: When we have an article about a person, we introduce him or her by complete name, and later use only the surname. When I write about a piece with a long title in German (Christ lag in Todes Banden, BWV 4), I repeat that exact title only once per section, or when confusion might be possible, otherwise say something like 
: the cantata - the motet - the hymn - the composition ...
I suggest to do something similar here. Once established that this piece comes under many names, we could more often say
: the composition - the work - the fugue - the Fuge - the Fugue. Thoughts? 
As far as I see Beethoven just said: die Fuge, which could be translated as: the Fugue. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:17, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Gerda, when the work was published it was not called "Fuge" but "Grosse Fuge". It's not unreasonable to construe that this title was approved by Beethoven, which discounts your 'as far as I can see...'. The WP rule is common usage in English. That's the way it is. If I were you I would learn to live with it.--Smerus (talk) 11:00, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:  We speak about different things. One is the article name, that was settled. The other is - as I tried to say - how to speak about it in the article. In many sentences within the article, we could just say - well, see above for choices. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:22, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Gerda, please try to understand the English phrase 'comomon usage'.--Smerus (talk) 14:48, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:  I still think we speak about different things. I count 36 occurances of "Grosse Fuge" in todays article, and I bet that at last twenty could be replaced by "the fugue", "the composition", "the Fugue", - in every readers interest. I compare to "Christ lag in Todes Banden", where most references to the piece are "the cantata" or "the composition". We don't need the full name every instance, is all I'm trying to say. - I'd even volunteer to make those changes. I changed two occurances, when speaking about the music in the quartet, having seen no reference that the forth movement was called Grosse Fuge. Did I overlook something? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:39, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:  I understand your concern and will make another edit pass thru the article to see what we could do. I did make such a change at one point. Jmar67 (talk) 20:10, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:  I have looked at the article again and see no place where "the fugue" (which is the predominant phrase) would fit better than "Grosse Fuge". The latter is rightfully repeated in each section. The only problem I see is the additional use of "fugue" to refer to the individual motifs, so that "the fugue" might be ambiguous. Jmar67 (talk) 01:43, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  How to refer to the piece in the article 

message: In the section "Rediscovery of manuscript", it is alleged that this was a misspelling of "Fugue"(supported by the NYT article). I find it hard to believe that someone could assume that Beethoven actually used a "T" here, rather that someone just misinterpreted the "F" as a "T". Jmar67 (talk) 01:29, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Sotheby's sales catalogue entry does however also mention the peculiarity. But as part of a detailed technical description of the manuscript. Still not sure whether this peculiarity raises to the level of what Wikipedia should report upon. Wikipedia does not usually give descriptions of primary sources with a detail such as "80 pages plus one opened paste-down (1 page), oblong folio, c.24.5 x 30.5cms, [Vienna, summer 1826]; early nineteenth-century (c.1830s) orange papered-boards, with overlaid green, brown, blue and gold floral design on treated paper or fabric and label", so I'd argue the misspelled title, which is only mentioned between parentheses in Sotheby's detailed technical description, does not need to be mentioned here. --Francis Schonken (talk) 06:05, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Grande Tugue 

message: Sounds like Beethoven discovered heavy metal. 2600:1012:B12E:8EC4:705A:2E3A:B570:3E1D (talk) 11:20, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  First heavy metal of the genre. 

message: The lead of this article says the Grosse Fuge is "also known in English as the Great Fugue or Grand Fugue". I have never seen it referred to as anything other than Grosse Fuge. And I have read a good deal of stuff about this piece. Can anyone cite a source where the piece is referred to in this way? (I preclude those citations where "Great Fugue" is offered as a translation of the German name.) If not, we should take it out. --Ravpapa (talk) 14:34, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: What about the sources above at #Great Fugue? Grand Fugue? -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 14:49, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Quite right. I wasn't paying attention. Been away from Wikipedia for a long time. Ignore the question. --Ravpapa (talk) 05:30, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Grande fugue?