Talk:String Quartet No. 12 (Beethoven)

message: About the second movement, my own counting of the variations is as follows, with 6 variations (like the edition mentioned above by The Fletch) instead of 5 (as says the text):
(Like the theme, each variation has a first and a second part. I point it separating the measure numbers by a bar "/")
mm. 1-4: Introduction
mm. 3-11/11-21: Theme (in A flat major)
mm. 22-30/30-40: Variation I
mm. 41-48/49-61: Variation II
mm. 62-69/70-79: Variation III (in E major)
mm. 79-88/88-98 to 102: Variation IV
mm. 98-105/106-111: Variation V (in C sharp minor) (Why the article says it is D flat major?)
mm. 112-114/115-120: Variation VI
mm. 121-129: Coda
Comment: I desagree considering this movement with 5 instead of 6 variations. That "transition" in C sharp minor (that the article calls D flat major) is a perfect variation (var. V), with its middle ending in measure 105/106, marking the change of section like the theme. It is interesting that the coda also modulates to E major (mm. 125), like the movement did at the third variation (being a "microcosmos" of its all).
Another correction, as also mentioned, is the tonality of Variation V (that the article considers a transition): it's C sharp minor, not D flat major. --Leonardo T. Oliveira (talk) 13:25, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes.  Five variations with an episode versus six variations... its all a bit equivalent since the form of the variations is not very strict.  The article is uncited, so details could be spelled out from a citable source.  Winter & Martin say six variations, though they do refer to the number five as a "mysterious episode".  They say that fifth variation starts in D flat major (though the key sig stays four flats) and shifts to C sharp minor (D flat minor) with four sharps halfway through.  I'll see if I can improve the article with details from Winter and Martin. DavidRF (talk) 04:48, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: OK.  So I changed it.  Its a blow by blow with the keys and meters.  Feel free to tweak the wording if you'd like without changing the content.  I know the piece, but I don't have it memorized well enough to deliver the play-by-play as well as I'd like.  Cheers. DavidRF (talk) 05:22, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Important considerations

message: In the section of the second movement, it refers several times as E major as the lowered submediant of A flat major. This is absolutely wrong in terms of tonal music (which Beethoven is). E Major would be the raised dominant of A flat major (which is even a bit of a tenuous description since E is an augmented 5th above A flat not a Perfect 5 which is part of the traditional definition of a dominant). The submediant of A flat major is F. This is diatonic music, 'E' can't be anything but a variation of the dominant. 'F flat' would be a lowered submediant. Sure, it's 'E' but for theoretical considerations it must be called 'F flat' not E, calling 'E' a lowered submediant of A flat major is confusing and academically incorrect. 
I haven't changed it in the article on the chance that I'm missing something (and I'm pretty sure you have to be part of the 'composition taskforce to do it, yes?) but felt is bore discussion. 
Manny75586 (talk) 11:26, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Have you checked what Steinberg says in Martin and Winter?  I think that whole paragraph is based on his play-by-play from that book.  Also, what does Beethoven put in the score (either with key signature or with accidentals on the notes)? I'm almost tempted to just remove the word "submediant" and leave it as simply "remote" but Beethoven liked this key relationship (e.g. A-flat major shows up in his C-minor symphony).  I think it was common for Beethoven to do enharmonic equivalences.  The C at the beginning of the third symphony resolves into a D later in the movement... and I think there's something else in the finale of his eighth though I can't remember.  I'd leave "E major" as it is.  If you want to add a clarifying (enharmonically equivalent to F), then fine.  Cheers.DavidRF (talk) 15:42, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lowered Submediant? 

message: In this and other late quartet entries, there is little to tell a casual reader why the piece is of interest or significance. Technical analysis offers little in this regard. However, critical opinion is mostly in agreement as to the importance (and reasons for importance) of each piece, and some language can be easily added to cover this with appropriate references. I will do this over the next few days unless I'm missing something (being new to Wikipedia editing). Comments? Opus131 (talk) 06:38, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Overall evaluation 

message: Hi, I'm Shane Valencia and I will be revising this article as part of my class on chamber music literature this spring. I look forward to your feedback on my revisions!B33thov3n70-27 (talk)  — Preceding undated comment added 18:48, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Revision 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for speedy deletion:
* 
* 
* 
You can see the reasons for deletion at the file description pages linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 15:22, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for speedy deletion