Talk:Egmont (play)

Untitled

The music section is very interesting, but the timing highly depends on the version of recording. Wouldn't it be better to indicate bar numbers, or at least the exact recording the timing is based upon ? Chris CII 11:27, 23 May 2006 (UTC) Chris CII

That makes sense - do you have the bar numbers? The whole lot is close to original research as it stands — it would improve with a reference to the analysis. --Scott Davis ^Talk 13:47, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Quote from the article: "[...] of great quality but a little disconnected"

Whose opinion is this? There are no sources cited and Wikipedia is not the place for original ideas.

Merge from Egmont (Beethoven)

RHaworth has suggested that the new article Egmont (Beethoven) be merged into the play. While I understand that they're joined works, I'm also of the opinion that they're both capable of standing on their own. I'd like to suggest leaving them separate. ~Kylu (u|t) 06:38, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Speaking from a Musicological standpoint, I feel that this work should stand alone, given its significance as a programmatic piece which is considered to be a precursor to Liszt's Symphonic Poems. To that end, a mention of the programmatic features of the work, being highly significant to Romantic Music to come, would be a boon. Giamberardino 22:14, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

I personally also agree with keeping the play and the overture separate. They can both stand alone. In fact, the University of Cincinnati Symphony Orchestra (in which I play) just performed the Egmont overture completely independent of the play. While a college orchestra playing a piece of incidental music doesn't automatically make it notable as a stand-alone work, Egmont in particular is fairly common in Orchestra repetoire. Daniel McCurry 05:32, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

I think that the play and overture can be kept seperate. If not, why not add Mendelssohn's Egmont to the article considering that his relationship with Goethe was important and thus shows through his music. Personally I think the articles are better off by themselves. 213.202.153.199 13:53, 19 March 2007 (UTC)Ash

Hangen vs. Langen

The word "hangen" is often substituted for "langen" in later publications of the text. However in the earliest publications [Goethe, J. W. von. Egmont; trauerspiel. Leipzig: G.J. Göschen, 1788.] we see that "langen" in used. An early manuscript sent by Beethoven to Goethe also indicates that Beethoven composed the piece with the word "langen" in mind. I have seen "langen" used in German publications as late as 1840. In the most recent publications of Beethoven's score, "hangen" is substituted. I am unsure at what point "hangen" entered into print or performance. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.58.116.252 (talk) 00:39, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Egmont plot sounds familiar

I am not familiar with the play "Egmont." I only came across it this morning after reading about Beethoven. As I read about a man who stood against an oppressive empire/country/people and was willing to sacrifice his life for the virtue of freedom and nationality...plus a woman who loved him killed herself because she couldn't help him...and his death incited the people to revolution thus fighting for their freedom - well, I couldn't help but think of the movie Braveheart. Although Mel Gibsons' girl from the movie may not have killed herself, but just felt really bad. Anyway, it could be loosely based on the classical play "Egmont." Yet, I have not seen nor heard of the play before today - I have only read a wikipedia page. Any thoughts from anyone?

-shane hand —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.18.97.103 (talk) 16:34, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

translation please

It would help if somebody gave the English translation of Klarchen's "famous line", for those who don't know German that well. All I could make out was "High heaven something to death" CharlesTheBold (talk) 14:55, 6 February 2009 (UTC)