Talk:List of compositions by Ludwig van Beethoven

	Classical music portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Classical music, which aims to improve, expand, copy edit, and maintain all articles related to classical music, that are not covered by other classical music related projects. Please read the guidelines for writing and maintaining articles. To participate, you can edit this article or visit the project page for more details.Classical musicWikipedia:WikiProject Classical musicTemplate:WikiProject Classical musicClassical music articles
	This article is supported by Compositions task force.

This article is a former featured list candidate. Please view its sub-page to see why the nomination failed. Once the objections have been addressed you may resubmit the article for featured list status.

Older discussion (through 2005)

Op. 44

Okay, is Beethoven's op.44 variations on an original theme or on a Dittersdorf opera? I keep hearing different things.

Title styles

It is a bad idea, in my opinion, to have links to titles like Piano Sonata No. 23 in F minor, Opus 57 (Beethoven) when there is nothing wrong with simply Piano Sonata No. 23 (Beethoven) or even Appassionata Sonata. It is unnecessarily complicated, and I can't think of any benefits over more simple titles, so I'm changing all these links (incidentally, see also Wikipedia:Naming conventions (pieces of music), which is where we should probably discuss this if there's any disagreement. --Camembert

OK, I've changed the links. I'm not saying it's perfect, but I'm convinced it's better than linking to elaborate titles with keys and opus numbers always included - much better to go with a title that people can link to without having to look it up (if you see what I mean). In some cases, I think it's pretty academic what title we link to, because the chances of somebody in the forseeable future writing about the song "Der Mann von Wort", op. 99, for instance, is tiny; but for symphonies, sonatas, quartets and other large and well-known works, I do think it's quite important to make things as linkable and as simple as possible. So that (I hope) is what I've done. --Camembert

I find it confusing to find titles such as Fidelio, Egmont, and Diabelli Variations mixed in with titles such as Piano Sonata No. 8 (Beethoven) and Symphony No. 3 (Beethoven). All works by Beethoven (I think) should be named under the same naming convention. What I was trying to do was create one naming system that would apply to all Beethoven's works. I think we should be true to the names under which they were published or under which they were given by Beethoven. Kingturtle 19:33, 31 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay in replying - only just noticed this (must've missed it on my watchlist somehow). You say "I think we should be true to the names under which they were published or under which they were given by Beethoven". I'm looking at the title page of a score of his third symphony (Eulenberg edition, miniature score) and it says "Beethoven - Op. 55 - Symphonie No. 3 - Eb major - (Eroica)." I think we can agree that that wouldn't make a good article title. Similarly, I have a score of the fourth symphony which just says on the title page "Ludwig van Beethoven - Symphonie". This also isn't a good title.

There are probably dozens of reasonable titles one could give these pieces, but there's no need to make them more complex than is necessary (that's why we don't include the "(Beethoven)" unless its necessary - that's standard Wikipedia practice. We don't include "(movie)" after every movie either, unless there's something else with the same name). But as I say, Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (pieces of music) is probably the place to discuss this if you want to continue. --Camembert

Calm sea...

I recently heard | Calm Sea and Prosperous Voyage at the Baltimore Symphony. Is anybody familiar with this piece? I've googled it, and it comes up as different things. Does it belong on this list? Taco325i 14:10 9 Aug 2005.

Yes. The one by Beethoven is not done as often as the overture by Mendelssohn. Beethoven's version is for four voices and orchestra, Meeresstille und glückliche Fahrt, opus 112, written 1814-1815, first performed Christmas Day 1815. It wasn't published until 1822 which is why it got such a late opus number. It's based on the poem by Goethe (and was dedicated to him). Hope this helps! Antandrus (talk) 18:21, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Nicknames of symphonies

Do all of Beethoven's symphonies have nicknames? 70.152.141.226 00:06, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The only Beethoven symphonies with widely used nicknames in English are those given in the article: "Eroica" for the third, "Pastoral" for the sixth and "Choral" for the ninth. --Camembert

Dates

I added the clarification that the dates listed in parentheses are publication dates, which I assumed because I know that the first six string quartets were not written in the same year. I hope this is correct. --Robert Turner 21:21, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sonata in E flat

I'm doing a presentation on some of Beethoven's works. Can anyone tell me anything about Sonata No. 33 in E flat? Especially the first movement. I'd really appreciate it. Thanks.

He only wrote 32 complete sonatas. --Hesperides

This is not the case, if one counts youthful works which are sometimes still played (the Electoral Sonatas). Schissel | Sound the Note! 15:47, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

E flat is the key of the first of them (the Electoral or Kurfürsten Sonatas, WoO.47/1-3, written around 1783)- the movements are: 1. Allegro cantabile, 2. Andante, 3. Rondo vivace. ([1] for sound samples and a midi, from the first I think, at [2]) - and this may well be what was referred to. Some sources on the sonatas in general (on the web) include this - [3]. Schissel | Sound the Note! 16:06, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Folksong Arrangements

Added to the lists some of Mr. B's folksong arrangements. --Hesperides

10th Symphony

Should this be mentioned next the actual symphonies, or somewhere at the end, or not at all? It seems quite out of place to mention a piece written by someone else on a page called "List of Works by Beethoven". Tiki2099 16:18, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Piano Trio in F minor

I've run across mention of an unfinished work, "Piano Trio in F minor" and looked here to see if it was included in the listing of Beethoven's works ... I don't see it or I'm not recognizing it as listed. If it would be appropriate to list this work, could someone knowledgable in the area add it? Included below are a couple of links with information related to this work. Regards, User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 16:35, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"First movement of unfinished Beethoven trio reconstructed by scholar". From the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign News Bureau; 3/23/06.
"Beethoven's Unfinished Piano Trio in F Minor from 1816". Journal of Musicological Research, 25(1):1-42, 2006.

Sharps and flats

I'm planning to replace all the sharp and flat words with ♯ and ♭- can everyone read these symbols, and are they the best ones to use? Stephen B Streater 08:47, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think that's a bad idea. I don't think I've ever seen it done that way, and isn't as readily clear. --Milton 05:34, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Piano Sonata

Were not his first 16 Piano Sonatas really written for the harpsichord, and should not they be labled as such?

I don't think they were. Beethoven was a pretty popular pianist in his day, and the piano-forte was invented almost 100 years before Beethoven got started. --Milton 05:41, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Violin/Cello Sonatas"

I know that in colloquial speech those sonatas usually are called like that, but the original titles are "Sonaten fũr Klavier und Violine/Violoncello" and not "Violin-/Violoncellosonaten", not even "Sonaten fũr Violine/Violoncello und Kalvier". Shouldn't that be translated accordingly? Not only for reasons of grammatical correctness - the original title gives a better impression of the roles of the instruments: the violin/cello are by no means solo instruments in this sonatas and the piano is not merely accompanying. All pieces are true DUOS (and not 'duets', which probably also should be changed) with both instruments being treated equally. I will not make these changes myself because I am not a native English speaker and do not want to mess with your language but all modern Urtext editions (and the German Wikipedia) list the sonatas in this way...

Piano Sonata Bar

Should this bar ({{BeethovenPianoSonatas}}) be included on this page? Someone added it to the end of the piano sonatas section, and it seems that it might be redundant, or that it should at least have an explanation. Asmeurer 02:41, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think you were too kind. The template may be useful in the articles on individual sonatas, but here it was redundant and distracting. I got rid of it.—Turangalila ^talk 22:12, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What? No catalogue numbering system?

Aside from "Opus" and "WoO", why doesn't Beethoven have a *comprehensive* catalogue code, like Bach (BWV), Mozart (KV), and even Vivaldi (RV) ? Seems strange no musicologist has created one. I mean, it's Beethoven. Or is there some other reason? Just wondrin'. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 124.62.212.69 (talk) 02:59, 30 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]

According to Opus number, Beethoven added opus numbers himself, therefore eliminating the need for other systems. Asmeurer (talk • contribs) 04:13, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The short answer is: it just hasn't happened yet (and may never happen). The longer answer is: because the published record of Beethoven's works is both better than the earlier composers, and worse. Music publishing was more developed by Beethoven's day; opus numbers don't exist for many many pieces by Mozart & Vivaldi, & I think not at all for Bach, so the need for catalogue numbers was more urgent for them; in Beethoven's case almost all the more popular works have commonly accepted numbers--both opus numbers and genre numbers (e.g. sym #5; Piano cto #3, etc). At the same time the history of Beethoven editions is a crazy quilt; the old Breitkopf "Complete Works" is notoriously incomplete and not particularly authoritative textually either. Some attributions are still controversial (as the list documents) The autographs were scattered to the four winds for decades and decades -- one autograph of the Grosse Fuge was dug up just a couple of years ago. Various competing critical editions continue to come out -- the Bärenreiter] critical edition of the symphonies was completed just in the 1990s, and not everyone is in love with that. Add to all this the conflicting editions of Fidelio, the long history of conductors re-orchestrating the symphonies, etc etc...the upshot is we're left so far without either a final comprehensive cataloging, nor even, for many pieces, authoritative edtions. So it goes...—Turangalila ^talk 21:58, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Isnt that the Biamonti's?? Khullah (talk) 04:19, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Song

What is the part about the song, it looks like vandalism to me, sould all that be there or is it just vandalism.189.171.178.143 18:36, 1 July 2007 (UTC)Rolugomi[reply]

March

What about Yorck`s March? Should´t it be included? See here: [4] It´s quite well known.--Tresckow 02:14, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Germania, WoO 94

I think this should be listed, I can't give much information on it, but it is symphonic + a chorus —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.83.186.67 (talk) 20:06, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bagatelles WoO

I'm surprised that the listing of Bagatelles includes only the Opus 33, 119 and 126 sets plus WoO 59 ("Für Elise").

The ABRSM/Howard Ferguson edition includes WoO 52-54, 56, 59-60. In more detail these are given in the score as

Bagatelle in C minor WoO 52 with a tempo of Presto and a 1797 date
Bagatelle in C minor WoO 53 with a tempo of Allegretto and a 1796-8 date
Bagatelle: Lustig-Traurig WoO 54 with a date of c.1798
Bagatelle in C WoO 56 with a tempo of Allegretto and date 1803-4
Bagatelle: ("Für Elise") WoO 59 with date 27 April 1810
Bagatelle: in B flat WoO 60 with a tempo of Ziemlich lebhaft dated 14 August 1818.

In our listing of the WoOs we have them as WoO 52: Presto for Piano in C major (1795, rev. 1798 and 1822) WoO 53: Allegretto for piano in C minor (1796-97) WoO 54: Bagatelle for piano in C major (1802) WoO 56: Allegretto for piano in C major (1803, rev. 1822) WoO 59: Bagatelle No. 25 in A minor, "Für Elise" (c. 1810) WoO 60: Bagatelle for piano in B-flat major (1818)

So three are labled as Bagatelles, three not, and there are some date and key discrepancies.

The Brendel/Brilliant Classics set of variations and Bagatelles includes WoO 53 titled as an Allegretto in C Minor, WoO 59 (with the expected title), Wo0 60 As ZIEMLICH LEBHAFT in b flat major WoO 60 so no mention of W0) 53 & 59 being bagatelles.

The 50 disc EMI Beethoven "The collector's edition" set includes a bagatelle in C minor, dated 1797 (this turns out to be WoO 52), a bagatelle in C dated 1804 (this turns out to be WoO 56) and WoO 59 with the same details as the above sources.

The 60 disc Sony/RCA/BMG set includes WoO 59 with the additional decription of Albumblatt in parentheses, WoO 53 as an Allegretto, (the E-Booklet claims it exists in two versions,) WoO 52 as a Bagtelle and WoO 54 as Klavierstück Lustig-Traurig.

So how do people think we should list these? I'm inclined to add all these into the Bagtelle list and go for the majority on issues like dates. WoO 52 certainly has a C Minor key signature, not C Major.--Peter cohen (talk) 20:46, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Other catalogues

I saw on internet Gardi and Groove. Are they other catalogues? Should we add it? Khullah (talk) 04:13, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is also the Biamonti Catalogue, which contains several pieces that don't have Op., WoO, or H. numbers. Most of these are spurious or unfinished, but this page contains some of those too. I think they should be added. However, I don't necessarily think that we need to add Bia. numbers to every single piece. That is more open for discussion. Asmeurer (talk ♬ contribs) 18:15, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Piano Trios

I tried fixing some errors in the piano trios, but as I am not highly familiar with those works, I might have made a mistake. Could someone verify that this edit is correct. Also, does Op. 38 have a number, or is it like his arrangement of his violin concerto for piano concerto? It was listed as No. 8, but I think someone just got it confused with WoO 38, which is listed as No. 8 everywhere that I look. Also, I have seen WoO 39 listed as piano trio no. 9 elsewhere, (e.g., here, but not here). Of course, if this isn't no. 9, then what is? Asmeurer (talk ♬ contribs) 18:50, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK. So I did a little more looking, and now I am deeply confused. Apparently Op. 38 was written for Piano, Clarinet or Violin, and Cello. So if it is played with a clarinet, is it called a clarinet trio? Otherwise, is it a piano trio? It looks like Op. 11 is like that too. Should these just be listed as "Trio for Piano, Clarinet or Violin, and Cello"? That is how this page lists them. Someone please help clear up my ignorance of chamber works. Asmeurer (talk ♬ contribs) 18:58, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Op. 38 is a reduction of the Op. 20 Septet. I would call it a Clarinet Trio. The clarinet part in trios is often commonly transcribed for a violin because violinists are easier to find than clarinetists. I should add a note about it being a reduction of Op. 20 to the page though. DavidRF (talk) 19:47, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think the violin part should be noted. I have a recording of Op. 11 with a clarinet and of Op. 38 with a violin. And I just noticed that Op. 11 is considered the piano trio no. 4 when it is played with a violin (at least according to this page). It wouldn't surprise me if Op. 38 is not numbered, as it is just a transcription like the violin concerto I mentioned above, and also it doesn't fit the piano trio form very well. Asmeurer (talk ♬ contribs) 20:18, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

More: It's probably a bad idea for me to jump into a January 2009 discussion in October 2011, but I'm running into the same question in trying to catalog a large collection of CDs and LPs. Antandrus quotes New Grove (a 1980 edition) as not assigning numbers to the piano trios at all. IMSLP[5] lists Op. 1 Nos. 1-3 = #s 1-3 and gives up attempting to number them after that, until WoO 38 = #8. (However, their forces listed are also all screwed up. They correctly give Op. 1 and Op. 70 as violin, cello, piano; and Op. 11 as clarinet (or violin), cello, piano. But then Op. 44, Op. 97, and Op. 121a, are shown as violin, viola, cello. WoO 39 and Hess 48 are listed, but without numbering or mention of instrumentation.) Schwann Opus Winter 1997-98 (the latest one I have) gives a different numbering system from that shown here, and different recordings are all over the place with their numberings. It's probably not a good idea to just go around removing these numbers, including at their linked articles, but somehow it should be made clear that the numberings of the eleven piano trios are arbitrary, and that Wikipedia visitors/ users/ editors must treat them with extreme caution. Apparently only the three trios in Op. 1 are uncontroversial as being Nos. 1 through 3. Op. 11 is where it first starts falling apart. I've edited ~~just~~ this List of compositions article, ~~without going to any of the linked articles~~, and am not entirely happy with my phrasing if anyone can improve it. Milkunderwood (talk) 08:13, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Articles on Opp. 11, 70, & 97 are now moved from trio numbering to opus numbers. Milkunderwood (talk) 05:24, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Also: There's no mention in the article on the Op. 11 trio's Gassenhauer nickname. This name occurs on some CDs, but most recordings of Beethoven's piano trios note only the "Archduke" and "Ghost" nicknames. Is there any explanation for "Gassenhauer"? Milkunderwood (talk) 08:28, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See de:Klaviertrio op. 11 B-Dur (Beethoven). -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 09:03, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Michael, I don't suppose you'd like to add a brief note to this effect at the en: page? Milkunderwood (talk) 17:02, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That de: link excels at being a non-explanatory explanation, still giving no indication at all of where the name Gassenhauer comes from. Further, Google Translate renders the German as "His nickname" - whose? Beethoven's? - which I take to actually mean Its nickname. So we're still no further ahead. Milkunderwood (talk) 05:54, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"...the trio’s occasional nickname, the Gassenhauer or Street Song trio." From notes to the Agon Trio's version. I assume this refers to the last movement. Opus131 (talk) 03:20, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Minuet in G Major?

Where is it? Is it a subset of something else?--Coching (talk) 05:27, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There are plenty of Minuets in G Major. What is the opus number? —La Pianista ^(T•C) 05:28, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Separate Article for Solo Piano Pieces

Why is there a separate article for the solo piano pieces? The article is not that big. If this page needs to be made smaller, I think the best way would be to create a separate article for the opus numbers. But frankly, I don't think it is even big enough for that, and it certainly isn't going to expand significantly in the future. I have also made a note on the talk page of that article. EDIT: I have added a merge proposal to the pages. Asmeurer (talk ♬ contribs) 05:13, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User:Timneu22 created lists of solo piano compositions for a large number of composers a while back. I think that stemmed from a previous deletion discussion for older solo piano article lists and the new article hierachy was proposed as a result of that. Not positive on the details and don't have time to check myself but I've given a link to a key player and discussion. Cheers.DavidRF (talk) 14:56, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I left User:Timneu22 a message on his talk page, and he says that he doesn't care, as long as we don't recreate the page that was deleted. Asmeurer (talk ♬ contribs) 16:35, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please see this discussion; I decided to bring the attention of the community to the issue. Maybe it will be resolved at the project page. --Jashiin (talk) 18:00, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rationale for partial Hess catalogue?

I'm wondering what the grounds were for only covering the parts of the Hess list without overlap. I'm also puzzled by the ommission of Hess 32, an early version of Op.18 No.1 which I can't see listed as a WoO.--Peter cohen (talk) 14:21, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like it was a judgment call by a single editor back in August 2006. See Special:Contributions/YisroelK. The subset that editor chose is mainly unchanged since the initial edit. I don't know why he chose a partial list. Could be he was concerned about space? Anyhow, the full Hess catalogue is here: [6]. What do people think about adding the full list (with perhaps some condensing if consecutive numbers are similar as was done with the canons and contrapuntal exercises)?DavidRF (talk) 16:21, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Piano variations

The intro to the Solo Piano Music section says, "notably more than twenty largely unpublished sets of variations..." This seems a bit unclear. Unless there is an objection, I'll change it to "over twenty sets of piano variations, most unpublished or published without opus number..." Opus131 (talk) 01:41, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Most only published posthumously? ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 04:18, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sheesh! OK. "...most unpublished in his lifetime or published without opus number..." Opus131 (talk) 05:56, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Change has been made. Opus131 (talk) 03:09, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Verification of a notable subject.

This article is too notable to lack in-line citations. I'm a bit disappointed that an article sure to be viewed very frequently has only four footnotes. Someone may have maliciously added false information without our knowledge (and more importantly, without the readers' knowledge) because we can't just revert on the grounds of 'Unverified info' or (Un-sourced) as most of the article is without in-line citations. We ought to focus on this when we improve this article. It is too notable to ignore.

That is my reason for adding the template: {{more footnotes}}.

--Mr. Guye (talk) 21:29, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted your tag; it is inappropriate. Your explanation here makes no sense. A great many of the works listed here are Wikilinked to their own Wikipedia articles. This a list; it's assembled from multiple sources - references are given at the end. All of the entries in this list are from the body of work of a great composer; there Is not a different source for each entry in this list. If you can't spend the time to read and grasp an article, don't tag. - Neonorange (talk) 07:00, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Minor text change.

The text says, "Many works that were unpublished have been assigned either "WoO" (works without opus number) or "Anh" (appendix) numbers." Actually many of Beethoven's works in the WoO listing were in fact published, but without opus numbers (usually this was Beethoven's decision). I have modified the text. Opus131 (talk) 18:38, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on List of compositions by Ludwig van Beethoven. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:37, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on List of compositions by Ludwig van Beethoven. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090203234337/http://lucare.com/immortal/cooper.html to http://www.lucare.com/immortal/cooper.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:06, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WoO25; Op. 103

I have recordings in which "WoO25" is included as the fourth movement (of five) in Opus 103, the Octet for Winds. Does it really exist as a stand-alone piece as well? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.95.43.249 (talk) 23:03, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The note at Octet (Beethoven) explains -- the Rondino was published later (thus the 'WoO' number) having been discarded as the finale and replaced with what we have now. No idea why a recording would put it like that though. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 03:07, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sigh...

Yet another composition page being filled with stupid cruft that no one will ever fix because no one cares. Oh well. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 05:07, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Creation Hymn

Hey, does anyone know about Beethoven's Creation Hymn? I heard it in a concert, but it's not listed here and is really hard to find anywhere. 45.74.110.152 (talk) 23:37, 7 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Creation Hymn is an arrangement by Virgil Thomson of the song Die Ehre Gottes aus der Natur Op. 48/4 Hochithecreator (talk) 16:50, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dedication of Violin Concert in C, WoO 5

The Violin Concerto in C is shown here as dedicated to Gerhard von Breuning: I have added a wikilink. But this may not be right: the concerto was written about 1790, and Gerhard, born in 1813, knew Beethoven in his last years. It seems more likely that the dedicatee was his father Stephan von Breuning, who knew Beethoven in Bonn, both having violin lessons from the same person, perhaps at the time the concerto was written. Or possibly the dedicatee was another Gerhard in the same family. AtticTapestry (talk) 09:58, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

On further consideration: the dedication seems to be for the edition published 1879, so dedicatee Gerhard von Breuning may be right. Or "ded" (I take to be dedication) may mean "ed" (edited). AtticTapestry (talk) 10:12, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]