Talk:Grosse Fuge

Comments

Yahoo pulls down their articles after about a month. Just check your link in a month. I would use a link like this. [1]

I might be off, but I am fairly sure that the theme is related to that of Opus 130, not 132 (it was certainly concieved simultaneously with the theme of 130, and resembles it much more closely). I don't think there would be any objections to a somewhat extreme expansion of this article when I have some more time? 63.194.212.145 04:43, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

i have to agree with the article that the fugue is clearly connected to op. 132. just compare the openings of each; the overture of the fugue is just four variations of the same idea as the opening of 132. i don't know with which movement of 130 you're suggesting a connection. --Jeffcovey

I'm not positive but I think (some things in, not all of) almost all the late quartets have some connection to the motif that opens opus 132 in any case... Schissel | Sound the Note! 01:55, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Hard to believe that there is an edit war over this topic

As one who contributes occasionally to articles related to the Middle East, I have been a spectator of numerous edit wars. But who would have dreamed that there would be an edit war over a topic so abstruse, so remote from the eye of this world's petty but vicious political mayhem? Well, it just shows you how right was Henry Kissinger, who said, "The reason academic arguments are so virulent is that there is so little at stake."

To the matter at hand: I will summarize events for readers of this talk page who will drop by years after this edit war is ancient history: There was (perhaps will be again) a section of this article called "Grosse Fuge in popular culture", which listed a number of fundamentally trivial references to this piece in movies, plays and stuff like that. The section was deleted in a massive strike against sections like this in several hundred articles, by a user named Burntsauce. Mr. Burntsauce's talk page expresses a deep contempt for trivia and popular culture sections in articles of all types. This massive deletion was discussed with some bitterness on Mr. Burntsauce's talk page, and the discussion continued on WP:ANI#Removing pop trivia. Even before that discussion reached a conclusion, User:Equazcion restored the deletion, and User:Antandrus deleted it again.

Wow!

Now the real question is, what do I think about all this? The section "Grosse Fuge in popular culture" had three problems:

• It had no references. Adding references would not be a big deal, but whoever wrote the section didn't bother to do so.

• Three of the six items cited (the novel Fifty Degrees Below, and the two movie references) are trivial and (perhaps) not worthy of inclusion in the encyclopedia.

• The title of the section is misleading. A string quartet by Schnittke, a poem, and even a composition by PDQ Bach, cannot be called "popular culture."

So what do I think we should do? I think we should restore the section, rename it (References to GF in other works?), mark it as unreferenced, and wait for someone to edit it so it is pertinent and pompous enough to be "encyclopedic."

I think Antandrus should edit it, as penance for his hasty and ill-considered redeletion.

I will wait a couple of days, and if no one adds to this post, I will restore it and do the editing myself (sigh!)

--Ravpapa 19:34, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Focus on content rather than behavior, please. "Hasty and ill-considered" -- you just might want to have a look at our assume good faith policy. It's an important one. Nor is your characterisation of my single edit as an "edit war" particularly helpful.

My deletion was consistent with our mission to produce a quality encyclopedia, with verifiable content. "X in popular culture" sections are weed-patches, where passersby add their memories, more or less reliable, of having seen or heard X on TV shows, T-shirts, coffee-mugs, video-game levels, or whatever.

I do not believe that lists of trivial items such as formerly existed in this section belong in an encyclopedia article. Others are free to disagree; it's a wiki, and such disagreements are in the nature of this editing environment. I see a couple of items that could sensibly be worked into a paragraph named, perhaps, "Influence"; the Schnittke is the most significant of these. I'm willing to write it myself, but I assure you doing so would not be a "penance", for there is nothing in deleting useless and unencyclopedic sections about which to be penitent. Such sections are little better than graffiti, in my opinion, and are generally added by people who know nothing at all about the topic to which they are affixing them, and thus are not qualified to assess their significance. Thank you, Antandrus (talk) 01:12, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

What you believe isn't a great argument because Wikipedia is rather divided on the subject of trivia, so it behooves us all to find a happy medium. See WP:TRIVIA -- As of now, we're supposed to keep these sections in for possible integration.

Equazcion • argue/improves • 01:25, 10/10/2007

Antandrus, I am sorry if you took umbrage at my characterization of your undocumented redeletion of the section as "edit warring" and as "hasty and ill-considered". I was apparently wrong about the edit warring part - I thought that three reversions of a section constituted an edit war, and yours, I thought, was the third. And it is clear from your comment that your act was the result of considerable thought, though you chose not to share those thoughts on the article's talk page.

To the point: you yourself acknowledge that at least one fact in that section was worthy of inclusion in the article (the Schnittke quartet). By wholesale deletion of the offending section, you would have made that fact go away forever, and a good-intentioned editor would then have been unable to rewrite the section, to weed the unweeded garden (to continue your conceit).

In any case, I have rewritten the section, preserving the information I felt contributed substantively to the article. I would appreciate your adding citations for the two quotes that I believe you inserted oh, so long ago. Also, the citation I have for Stravinsky's comment isn't a very good one - do you know where he said this originally?

Thanks, and I hope that, in spite of gently scratched egos, we have come up with an article we all can be proud of. (And so, ending this comment with a preposition, I am, sincerely,) --Ravpapa 07:16, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Why is this article classed as a stub?

It doesn't seem a stub to me. --Ravpapa (talk) 07:50, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

I saw this too. But there is no "why". Unfortunately the Wikipedia community now actively encourages often incorrect and generally meaningless edits related to "assessment", whether they're done by humans or bots. This one was done by a bot, which I assume looks for a stub template on an article -- yet there is no stub template on this article. (There is the word "stub"born, but please don't tell me the bot is programmed that poorly!) You should bring this up with the editor who runs the bot.

What's ironic is that in August I participated in a discussion at the classical music wikiproject in which I discouraged 'members' from bothering with this assessment crap. Nobody bothers with discussion or consensus when it comes to this stuff anymore, so somebody has now fired up a bot to look for the combination of "classical music template" and "stub tag", and then put "stub" in the "classical music template". They figure it's somehow beneficial to wikipedia to mass-tag thousands of articles in a manner that represents a "rating", without stopping to wonder what it means to "rate" without actually engaging in the article at all. If you question them, they tell you it doesn't actually mean anything, so don't be offended. This is rampant, and one of the reasons I've stopped editing -- the ratio of pointless edits to thoughtful editors has gone through the roof.

Anyway, I've removed the "stub" from the template, and if you participated in making this article, thank you. (That's really all anyone wants from wikipedia -- an occasional recognition -- but now we have passive "reviewers", if they're even human, who say nothing but slap a rating into a template, a rating which, if you look it up, has the general effect of denigrating the article, if you make the mistake of assigning a meaning to it.) What a coincidence that I was here to answer your question at such length! :) Whiskeydog (talk) 08:17, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

In general I agree with you, Whiskeydog; these "assessments" are one of the most poorly-considered aspects of the project. Probably the solution is for people who know the most about the subject matter to assess articles pre-emptively, before the bots and teams of assessors, having contests for speed and number, get there. As of them not "meaning" anything -- if there is any release of Wikipedia as a stable version, the assessments are used to choose what goes on the DVD. So unfortunately, yes. Another singular utility of these assessments is to infuriate good editors who spend a lot of time and trouble researching and writing, only to discover a "stub" "start" or (somehow more insulting) "C" stamped on the talk page by someone who has never before visited the article.

For this article, I think B is fair, and is the highest class that would not require intervention from one of the assessment processes. Thanks all, Antandrus (talk) 13:48, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the polite message. It was so kind I feel like going ito a deep, thoughtful answer about the assessment. If you would have assessed the class like a somewhat decent editor, my bot wouldn't of had to have done it. You have to get your small mind around the fact that automated processes aren't perfect. HAVE A JOYOUS LIFE! §hep • ¡Talk to me! 21:51, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Stepshep, your bot doesn't have to do anything. Article assessment by bot is one of the most absurd, and indeed destructive, actions I have seen on this project: how can a bot possibly know anything about a topic? Only someone who understands a topic can possibly leave a sensible assessment. You do understand this, yes?

I see it doesn't make personal attacks, either: only its owner seems to do that. Antandrus (talk) 21:57, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

And just making sure that there is no misunderstanding here (most conflict arises from misunderstanding): I have no objection to bot-assessment as "stub" when there is a stub tag in the article; the worst thing that can happen then is we remove it when we make a correct assessment (often stub tags get left in articles inadvertently). My objection is automated assessment at levels above "stub", since a bot cannot make meaningful distinctions between classes. Thanks, Antandrus (talk) 22:20, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Stepshep: yes, I am criticizing what you do. If you want to call me impolite, fine. I disagree with your activity and consider it a detriment to wikipedia. I am in the minority, however—but I've noticed that many editors who I consider especially valuable contributors to wikipedia have related concerns (Antandrus is a good example!). I don't come by the position randomly; in another life (account) I created the "assessment javascript" which unfortunately made drive-by assessment all the easier. Out of concern for Wikipedia I asked an admin to delete that script a few weeks ago. A rash end to put some rash behavior to rest.

I consider most of the editing that occurs under the rubric of the assessment system to be thoughtless editing. Never mind that the system itself troubles me; but its application is a real problem. It used to be that "wikignome" type tasks (which I have frequently participated in) were productive tasks that, if carried out in a thought experiment to every single article, would be awesome for Wikipedia. This includes categorizing articles, improving layout, correcting spelling, etc. But there is a new "wikignome" job description, and I don't think it's good for the encyclopedia. A thought experiment involving the new wikignome work would see a template at the top of every article and article talk page, left without any discussion. The templates would say "this article is missing something", quoting a guideline or policy that we already know applies to every Wikipedia article—and every Wikipedia article is a work in progress. They don't need templates and voiceless reviews, they need work. We don't say that something is wrong; we fix it. That's how a wiki works. Where did this new, counterproductive wikignome "work" come from? It's been created so that it can be done by someone, as far as I can tell, and I will not pretend that it is a beneficial effort just to not hurt someone's feelings. I believe that human resources are being lost to the project because of the new, passive-aggressive "wikignome" work, and that that loss is much greater than any gain produced by huge categories full of "stubs" and "starts" that may or may not be "stubs" and "starts".

I'm posting once more in case I can convince one more person (anyone). Last message from me. Whiskeydog (talk) 23:11, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Apologies for the mistake. I explained the bot run here: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Classical_music#Automatic_stub_classification. The stub class marking was within the agreed project system. Please post on the project if you have concerns.

I arranged the bot run with Stepshep. He had to write a special script because of the proliferation of stub types (49 at the last count) for this project, see Wikipedia:WikiProject Classical music/Stubs. If we just had one or two stub types for this project we wouldn't have had this problem. Best regards. --Kleinzach 00:37, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

You do notice that there was an auto=yes parameter yes? The idea is that eventually an editor from whatever project will get to the article and double-check the work. So far only one complaint of 2 articles out of over 2,000 assessed seems good enough to me. I have no need for an argument so this will be my last comment on the matter. Thanks. §hep • ¡Talk to me! 01:26, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

It was I who pointed Shep to this article on his talk page, and I was might snappy about it, I admit. But, truth be told, Shep does have a point. By automatically labeling the article as a stub, he forced us to do a real assessment, which was a good thing. In a second case, String_Quartet_No._2_(Mendelssohn), the offensive assessment even inspired me to make improvements in the article. So, I suppose, all was for the good, even if feathers were ruffled. --Ravpapa (talk) 10:02, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

A moment later: But I now see that all the B assessments have disappeared from the articles, this one included. The template says { {Classical|class=B} } but it displays as ??? This article has not yet been rated on the assessment scale. This problem is universal, not just on this article. Please fix. --Ravpapa (talk) 10:10, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Maybe that "stubbot" should be programmed to put his output to an internal list of stubs aso., which could then be presented to possible editors maybe as a "suspected stub list". That list could then be worked down by human beings to the point that a co-worker looks at the article and makes a decision wether a stup template be placed or not. That list could also roughly be sorted into content areas like "classic music" "modern art", "history", "astronomy" or something similar.
That might ease up human work on articles but not turn a lot of articles into "almost rubbish" in common readers view. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.115.35.7 (talk) 21:52, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Literary influence section

Does anybody else feel this should be removed? I fail to see what light a character in a sci-fi book's plauing the Grosse Fugue and the Hammerklavier sheds on this work. Does Mr. Vernor have any real background in music, or did he simply pick the archetypal examples of late Beethoven conterpoint for his scene? Additionally, how does this exemplify "abstruse, difficult character of the piece?" Music criticism this isn't. If this was an iconic scene recognized the world over, then it might be significant on its own, but alas it simply is not. NeverWorker (Drop me a line) 06:39, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

I am a little surprised that you chose to this particular reference as insignificant, and not the use of the fugue as background music for a Charles Bronson film. You are right that this is not particularly significant, but there are many, far less significant squidgets of information in the Wikipedia. There is a separate article on Bissli, an Israeli snack food.

My own feeling is that, the piece being what it is, any reference to it in works for popular consumption (as opposed to highbrow stuff, like Doty's exquisite poem), has some significance. I would leave it. --Ravpapa (talk) 12:08, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

You're right, the background music note is also insignificant, and it should also be removed. This one simply happens to be a double offender in that it also makes silly claims about what this use shows about the Fugue (while the supposed meaning of the Fugue in the film may need a citation, at least it's not ridiculous). As far as the existence of other sillier things is concerned, I simply don't see the relevance. Let's fix things one at a time. On a side note, Bissli is probably a bad example of something insignificant. Having spent several years over there, I can tell you that to Israelis, that's the iconoclastic snack food (though recently i get the impression it's been losing market share, but that's purely anecdotal). NeverWorker (Drop me a line) 07:24, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Große Fuge Orchestral Version

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)

Great work, I suggest some reorganization

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)

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)

This makes no sense

"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)

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)

Four-hand arrangement

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)

Went ahead and did it. I even figured out how to handle a footnote! Opus131 (talk) 03:29, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Ted Hughes

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)

Edits by 46.115.35.7

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)

Quote

[2] 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)

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)

Attributed to Louis van Beethoven

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

(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)

You appear to have missed my comment "By all means add further clarification". 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)

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)

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)

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)

And again: "By all means add further clarification". Your suggestion removes the word "Louis". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:13, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

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)

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)

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 "Perhaps "Published under the French spelling of Beethoven's name, 'Louis van Beethoven'" would satisfy?", 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: "By all means add further clarification". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:09, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Can we hit the reset button on this discussion? Nobody is trying to attack anyone and no one need feel threatened. We all want the same thing - to have the best article possible.

Now my question is: why is it necessary to have the word "Louis" in the caption? What is it you are trying to clarify? If we can understand that, maybe we can find wording that is clear to everyone. (Ravpapa, and I cant seem to find the tilde on my new tablet)

Andy, are you planning on continuing this discussion? Or are you done? --Ravpapa (talk) 17:26, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

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: "By all means add further clarification". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:29, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

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)

New edits by S Husarik

Dear Husarik,

I am glad you have written a new article. I do think, though, that you should not insert quotes from it randomly in paragraphs where they are non sequiturs. In the first instance, you deleted a quote (from yourself) which concluded, quite nicely, the thesis of the paragraph - that structural analyses of the Grosse Fuge somehow leave listeners unsatisfied. Instead of that, you inserted a quote (again, from yourself) about humor in the Grosse Fuge, and about Christ's Passion - none of which has anything to do with the paragraph.

In the second case, you removed a nice, punchy quote (from yourself) about humor in the piece, and replaced it with a different quote, much less focused on the subject, that discusses "a resolution of the rhythmic, melodic and harmonic irregularities presented by its cantus firmus" - which, again, has nothing to do with the subject of the paragraph.

I don't rule out the possibility that your new article has something of value to contribute to a full discussion of the Grosse Fuge, but the way that you have introduced it makes it seem frivolous and irrelevant. I suggest that you send me a copy of your new article via wikimail, and I will read it and try to add material in a way that actually makes sense.

Regards,

--Ravpapa (talk) 18:23, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

I agree with Ravpapa that the new quotations are much less poignant, or even distracting ("Christ's Passion" ?). -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 03:30, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

In light of the comments here, I have restored the original Husarik quotes to the article. I will look for Husarik's article, and see if there is some other appropriate way to include it. I also removed the reference to Speck's book in the Books section of the bibliography, but left the reference to Husarik's article in the Journals section. No need to include two citations to the same book.

Naturally, if Husarik responds here, we can consider other options. Ravpapa (talk) 14:17, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

Once again, Husarik, you have made an addition to the article that makes no sense to me. "William Caplan has shown that it was arrived at in just two steps." What was arrived at in just two steps? The Bach fugue? Beethoven's subject? What does this mean and why is it relevant here?

If you explain it, maybe we can rewrite it so people will understand what you are talking about. Thanks, Ravpapa (talk) 03:07, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

paradoxical notation

"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)

Quite right, and thank you for your critical reading. --Ravpapa (talk) 15:03, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

score of second/third variation of the first fugue

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)

How right you are! Corrected. --Ravpapa (talk) 05:10, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

Note to Husarik

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)

+1 – The unwillingness 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)

Reference to Schoenberg's 'atonalism'

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)

If you read my edit summary and inspect my edit, 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)

That's unusual because the notification I received clearly stated that the edit had been reverted. The edit had been reverted so I changed it back. It's true that I didn't check (or even notice) the link, but really I'm only interested in correcting errors of fact. Vanderloo (talk) 20:08, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

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)

Husarik is at it again

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)

Requested move 14 April 2020

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Moved. WP:USEENGLISH says that we should "generally use the version of the name of the subject which is most common in the English language". It does not say to eschew foreign terms in favor of English terms, such as "Great Fugue" or "Grand Fugue", per se. It is my opinion that the "support" side has adequately demonstrated that "Grosse Fuge" is the most common formulation in English sources, and hence it should be moved as proposed. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:14, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

---

Große Fuge → Grosse Fuge – The symbol 'ß', which represents 'ss' in modern German after long vowels, (and has been abolished when following short vowels) is deprecated by current German practice and is not part of English. This is English Wikipedia. English language wrtiers (e.g. Sylvia Plath who is cited in the article) use 'ss'. We should therefore spell the name as is common in England and the US, and as has now become conventional in Germany.WP:RECOGNIZABILITY and WP:NATURALNESS wouls both argue in favour of "ss". Smerus (talk) 13:09, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose: "ß" is not deprecated. Our latest Orthography reform replaced ß by "ss" in cases of short vowels ("dass" being the most familiar example), but this is not one of them. "große" is THE ONLY correct way to write that word in today's German (Switzerland is different, but always was), and that should be even more true for historic German. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:16, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

That may be true for German, Gerda, but we are talking here about English WP.--Smerus (talk) 17:42, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

Would you please strike the passage about "ß" being deprecated in German, because it's wrong? ... and led me to believing we speak about German here. - Do me a favour: move this article to Great Fugue (English) or Grande Fugue (first publication, pictured in the article), but not to German-looking-but-wrong-German. See (earlier) reply below. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:31, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

I'll have all replies in this one place, please understand. Pronunciation was mentioned below. Große is pronounced with a long "o", similar to "groceries" or "mode", while "grosse" (if it existed in German) would sound like "gross" or "moss". GROSSE is a substitute only in cases where the letter ß doesn't exist, as in capitals, and perhaps that explains the abundance of sources using it.

I hope we will not discuss O Mensch, bewein dein Sünde groß. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:06, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Well, "discussing" it (which I'm going to do in the next three sentences) would anyhow be preferable to proceeding with a page move without preliminary discussion & consensus. As for "O Mensch, bewein dein Sünde groß": don't worry, the very large majority of well-established (e.g. Wolff) and more recent (e.g. Dahn) English-language scholarly sources write it that way. One would be very hard pressed to find even a handful of reliable sources who do otherwise. In short, English-language reliable sources mentioning the chorale (and its derivatives) would nearly have to double, all using the now highly uncommon spelling variant, before that variant would become the dominant one. If and when that happens (probably not within the next century) we might need to revisit the spelling of the article title. --Francis Schonken (talk) 08:07, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

… or Voßstraße. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 07:39, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

As far as I can remember Voßstraße has already been discussed ad infinitum. --Francis Schonken (talk) 08:07, 15 April 2020 (UTC) Indeed: 2006, 2007, 2008 (these are only the three major ones on the article's talk page, not counting minor ones and other splits). --Francis Schonken (talk) 08:17, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

And, on the other hand Weissenhof Estate (not Weißenhof Estate) seems to have never elicited a discussion, so I hope we need not to start one on that one. --Francis Schonken (talk) 08:30, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict)On the other-other hand Weißenfels station (not Weissenfels station), also apparently never needed discussion. The ones needing discussion are mostly the ones that fall in the WP:ENGLISH#Divided usage in English-language sources (my emphasis) category, e.g. Große Fuge, Voßstraße – while article titles such as "O Mensch, bewein dein Sünde groß", Weissenhof Estate and Weißenfels station do not fall in that category, and thus mostly never need discussion. --Francis Schonken (talk) 08:55, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

Weissenfels Estate is not comparable, because the word Estate marks it clearly as English, while Fuge is just as clearly German. It would be a different discussion if Weissenfels Estate is a good translation, because estate doesn't let me think of housing estate, and I'd think that Weißenfelssiedlung would be more precise. I won't begin, though. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:22, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

There's no such thing as Weißenfelssiedlung: hypothetical cases are not helpful. There is de:Bahnhof Weißenfels, with German "Bahnhof" translated to English "station", that makes (with the word order as customary in English) Weißenfels station for the English-language article title. There is de:Weißenhofsiedlung, with German "Siedlung" translated to "Estate" (and split off, according to English-language custom) that makes Weissenhof Estate. The last one, obviously, appearing often in English-language literature, as major example of the emerging International Style in architecture. When a "Weißenfelssiedlung" would pass WP:GNG at any point in the future, how the article title will be spelled will have to be decided there and then, and not earlier. --Francis Schonken (talk) 09:57, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

Gerda, please look at the citations in my reply to Michael Bednarek below which indicate I think clearly that 'Grosse Fuge' is a common form in English. I could add to this list every English language major biography of Beethoven (Thayer, Solomon, Cooper, etc. etc.) I understand that to you as a native German speaker this may be a painful abomination, yet nevertheless it is the case that in English 'Grosse Fuge' is a norm - WP should reflect that and German speakers may have to learn to live with it. WP:DONTLIKEIT is not enough when set against the evidence.--Smerus (talk) 08:52, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

What I see is a lot of evidence that the "ß" was unavailable to people writing the many sources, and probably understanding for the background unavailable as well. We, however, could do better ;) - We could simply explain that "ss" is a substitute (only) when "ß" is unavailable. - I can live with it, I learned to live with SMS Grosser Kurfürst (nice pointing out of the correct spelling there!) in ship titles (which use all capital letters, so "ß" IS unavailable) ;) - I'd prefer, though, not to think "gross" in connection with music ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:22, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

Oxford Companions know how to spell Groß, see e.g. p. 560 of this 1999 "Oxford Companion" series book – only in the case of the Grosse Fuge they don't (see Smerus's second example below). I suppose that if they know how to print "ß" in one edition of their books, they also do in another book of the same series. The '"ß" unavailable' argument simply doesn't float. --Francis Schonken (talk) 10:19, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

Gerda, you are still writing from the point of view of a German speaker/writer. The vast majority of English readers would'nt have a clue what an esszet represented - we should be catering for WP readers, not for what we think is ideal despite their orthographic incapacities.--Smerus (talk) 11:30, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose – "Grosse" is not any more English than "Große" and it's certainly not DE/AT-German. The English Wikipedia has many articles with non-English characters in their title. ("ß" doesn't represent "ss" in German; there are several words that have different meaning dependent on "ß"/"ss". "ss" can be used in extremis where no "ß" is available, like telex – or in all-caps, but that is a story in itself.) -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 14:06, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

But, Michael Bednarek :

• "Rehearsal Letters, Rhythmic Modes and Structural Issues in Beethoven's Grosse Fuge"; Cooper, B.; Nineteenth-Century Music Review, 1 August 2017, Vol.14(2), pp.177-193
• "Grosse Fuge" in Oxford Companion to Music: "Grosse Fuge (‘Great Fugue’). Beethoven's fugue for string quartet, op. 133 ( 1825–6 ), composed as the last movement of his String Quartet op. 130; Beethoven wrote another finale for op. 130 in 1826 and published the Grosse Fuge separately in 1827..."
• Late string quartets and the Grosse Fuge : opp. 127, 130-133, 135; Beethoven, Ludwig van, 1770-1827; 1998; Mineola, New York : Dover Publications
• BBC Discovering Music: Grosse Fuge
• Alex Ross in the New Yorker - "It was a draft of an arrangement for piano, four hands, of the composer’s “Grosse Fuge,” or “Great Fugue” "
• and Grove Music Online!!.....I could go on.......

I cannot find a single modern published source in English that uses the 'esszet' ('ß'). And I challenge you to do so. Esszet is not an English letter, and should not be used in the title of an English article. In that sense, it could certainly be said that "Grosse" is more English than "Große"; we don't after all, in English use "Чaikovsky" rather than "Tchaikovsky". And let's face it, nobody in the UK or America is going to search for this article in Wikipedia using esszet anyway. Best, --Smerus (talk) 15:04, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

• Support – Grosse Fuge and Große Fuge are afaik both correct in English. Which one is "more correct" seems a disproportionate discussion, compared to which one is most supportive of recognisability, and that would probably be the "ss" variant. --Francis Schonken (talk) 15:14, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
• Support - whether ß is correct German is irrelevant. It appears based on nom's sources and sources in the article that in actual English-language use, the ß is not generally used, so on that basis, move the article (i.e. a Germany vs. Deutschland type issue). SnowFire (talk) 18:22, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
• Support per WP:USEENGLISH. Rreagan007 (talk) 22:08, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

  If you want to use English, move to Great Fugue. If you want to use the name of the first publication, move it to Grande Fugue. But IF German, could it please be correct German, with a long vowel, instead of misleading short one, as in "gross"? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:26, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

  There is often a distinction between the common English title and an English translation of the title. If you have some evidence that either of those alternatives are currently the most common English title, then I'm open to that. But a spelling that includes a letter that doesn't exist in English and that most English speakers don't know how to pronounce isn't going to be the most common English title, so the current title isn't appropriate for the English Wikipedia. Rreagan007 (talk) 00:31, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

• Support - nom's argument has convinced me that this is an appropriate move for this article - and indeed, further, that the esszett has no place in article titles generally, as a non-English letter. What is or is not correct in German is entirely irrelevantIngratis (talk) 01:40, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
• What conceivable difference does this make? This is actually the second time to my memory that this issue has been discussed. The article (before it said anything, really) was called Grosse Fuge and someone - probably someone participating in this discussion now - felt strongly enough that we changed it to the current name. I am reminded of what Kurt Vonnegut wrote about this very issue (or one similar to it) - "ho hum".

Ho hum indeed. Because if someone looks for Grosse Fuge or Große Fuge, this article is where he ends up. Makes no difference, no difference at all. Both forms appear in scholarly works, so it is impossible to say that one is more correct than the other.

I suppose, in these days of coronavirus and Donald Trump, it must be comforting to argue about something as esoteric and irrelevant as alternate spellings of a Wikipedia article title. I guess I'm kind of sorry I can't join into the discussion with any of the passion I once felt for this sort of thing. Ravpapa (talk) 05:54, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

The original mover from "ss" to "ß" was User:Mahagaja on 14 October 2005, a few months after Ravpapa created the article on 17 February 2005, and its headword was always, even then, "Große Fuge". -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 06:56, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

Very simply - en.wikipedia is in English, and its rules state that article titles should be the common name in English. That must mean using the English alphabet (of which esszet is not a member). Evidence of Op. 133's common name being Grosse Fuge in the English language is given above - inlcuding the use of this form by major works of reference, and by leading biographers of Beethoven. Noone so far has provided any counter-evidence. The 'difference it makes' is that one of the foundations of WP is that editors should try to go with the rules. If this rule is abandoned, we shall have justification for articles titled Борис Годунов, הַתִּקְוָה, 道德经 etc. on thr justification that those are the titles as written by their creators. The headword of the article, of course, should conform to the title, whatever that is. If the title is changed I undertake to change the headword, in case anyone is losing sleep about that. It would be against the rules of WP to change it at this stage. Best, --Smerus (talk) 07:16, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

And my apologies to Smerus. when i mentioned coronavirus and Donald Trump, I forgot to include Boris J.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Ravpapa (talk • contribs)

"... in these days of coronavirus" Wikipedia appears to be a beacon in an ocean of disinformation ([3]). Many people, like Boris, are now more or less confined to their homes, and maybe, after having cleaned the fridge three times, and having binge-watched most Netflix series at least two times, they might feel the time has come to contribute to that beacon of knowledge known as Wikipedia (instead of just getting depressed in a corner of the room). I'd recommend people like Boris, in that case, to stay away from coronavirus-related pages, for obvious reasons, and would like to invite them to make themselves useful elsewhere in the online encyclopedia, for instance by letting their light shine on this RM. --Francis Schonken (talk) 10:19, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose. "Große Fuge" isn't English to begin with, so the fact that ß isn't used in English is irrelevant. Beethoven wasn't Swiss, so there's no reason to use the Swiss spelling. If you don't want the article title to have ß in it, move the article to Great Fugue or Grand Fugue. —Mahāgaja · talk 07:19, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

• But see WP:COMMONNAME. No one has yet demonstrated that Great Fugue, Grand Fugue, or Große Fuge meet the simple criteria here. ("Wikipedia does not necessarily use the subject's "official" name as an article title; it generally prefers the name that is most commonly used (as determined by its prevalence in a significant majority of independent, reliable English-language sources") Whereas Grosse Fuge does --Smerus (talk) 12:15, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
• The purpose of this discussion isn't to decide whether to use the German or Swiss spelling, it's to determine which spelling is the most common English spelling, as that is the spelling that should be used for the title according to Wikipedia policy. Rreagan007 (talk) 16:52, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

• Another comment : for those who might be concerned with this, I have reviewed the list of sources (not all of them - I don't have all of them anymore), and I note that not one of them uses the German spelling. As I scanned the article, I noted that at some point someone had changed the spelling in quoted material to conform to the German spelling used in the title. This is definitely wrong - we must use the spelling as it appears in the original, and not go futzing about with quoted text just because we don't like something about it! I certainly intend to change the spelling back to the original in all places where it appears in quotes. Ravpapa (talk) 10:12, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

• @Ravpapa:, thank you for pointing this out, I will also check through. This does I think tend to bear out the case that English sources generally use the 'ss' spelling.--Smerus (talk) 11:07, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

• Support. It is our duty to use what English-language sources say, as we do with e.g. Friedrich der Grosse. It's bad German but good English.

Sidenote. Is subjecting this title to more tortuous disassembly than Beethoven did with his theme the most productive thing Wikipedia editors can do? In all honesty, this discussion strikes me as a total waste of time and effort. We lack an article on How English speakers mispronounce Bach, which IMO would be more valuable than this discussion. Narky Blert (talk) 20:39, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

I'm sure the same could be said for many discussions that take place on Wikipedia. But who are you to say what is or isn't a good use of my or any other Wikipedia contributor's time? I could just as easily say that your non-constructive comment is irrelevant to this discussion and thus constitutes a waste of your time to type and a waste of my time to read. Rreagan007 (talk) 21:40, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

---

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Spelling

I have changed the spelling throughout the article to conform to the spelling in the new title. I have left the German spelling in those cases where the source used the German.

My condolences to Gerda, Michael, and others who fought the good fight, but were defeated by the benighted forces of modern American usage.

Ravpapa (talk) 05:16, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

• Thanks Ravpapa for changing the spelling. Win some, lose some-- although let me gently point out that it was won on English usage (benighted or not) rather than American - best,--Smerus (talk) 07:58, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
• I'm late because I unwatched. Not sure why that great work can't get some good really English title, instead of abusing German, but I am used to loosing, and A Boy was Born was (and still is) much much worse, because here, it's at least not the composer's choice that is ignored. I fail to see how we are able to write Dvořák's name correctly, but not this one, though, but I won't spend any more efforts or even thoughts on it. - One remark, though. Why "The Große Fuge", I mean why the "The"? ... unless you also write "also known as the Grand Fugue"? IF it's a title, and not a generic name, why an article? We wouldn't say "The Fidelio", right? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:17, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

Dear Gerda, that's English usage for you! - --Smerus (talk) 17:43, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

@Gerda Arendt: Do not understand: the German WP uses the article. Jmar67 (talk) 20:02, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

For both: in German, it's a generic title, but you tell me - or I misunderstand - that in English it's a foreign-language title, just like Fidelio. You wouldn't say, "The Fidelio", or what did I get wrong? - Martin Lovett brought me back to the topic, btw. Lovely interview. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:08, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

@Gerda Arendt: Fidelio is not a noun that can take an article. Both German and English use the article for Fuge. An argument could be made for omitting it if the focus were on the title itself, but here we are talking about the composition. Jmar67 (talk) 20:32, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

@Gerda Arendt: s.o. Jmar67 (talk) 20:36, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

Perhaps my brain is too small, or I need sleep. I'll look again tomorrow I nothing more urgent comes up. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:40, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

Well, I looked just now, and you changed it to make more sense ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:43, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

How to refer to the piece in the article

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)

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)

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)

Gerda, please try to understand the English phrase 'comomon usage'.--Smerus (talk) 14:48, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

Grande Tugue

F-hole, not S-hole

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)

• Agree. Didn't read the NYT article yet, but seems a bit unlikely, or at least very much out of proportion (as in: WP:UNDUE – we're also not reporting whether Beethoven regularly dotted his i's or not). Maybe the little horizontal line was forgotten, but there are misspellings and misspellings: an "i" that is not dotted is still an "i"; similarly, an F without the little horizontal line is still an F, it is not because of that reason a "T". See also →. --Francis Schonken (talk) 05:36, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

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)

Great Fugue? Grand Fugue?

The lead of our article says that the Grosse Fuge is also known in English as the Great Fugue or Grand Fugue. I googled these terms and couldn't find a single citation where the composition is referred to by these names. I did find a few places where "Great Fugue" was included in quotes, as a translation of the German, but nowhere where this appeared as a common name. Can someone point me to a source that actually uses these terms as a common name for the piece? If not, is it time we removed this from the article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ravpapa (talk • contribs) 11:53, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

I'm really wondering how much effort you've given this... while googling is one of the simplest operations on the www:

• "Great Fugue",
  • doi:10.2307/931606
  • Britannica
  • Nicholas Kitchen, the Borromeo Quartet's first violinist, shares his thoughts about Beethoven's "Great Fugue."
  • The Great Fugue was originally conceived as the final movement of the Quartet in B-flat Major, Op. 130.
  • The New Yorker
  • CD cover
• "Grand Fugue"
  • score edition (Henle)
  • New York Philharmonic website
  • other score edition (Universal Edition)

In both cases exclusively some of the most eye-catching results of the first google results page. Really. --Francis Schonken (talk) 12:47, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

First heavy metal of the genre.

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

Grande fugue?

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)

What about the sources above at #Great Fugue? Grand Fugue? -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 14:49, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

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)

Edit war over language

User @Remsense has rewritten a paragraph of this article, and has militantly justified his changes by a policy that decrees "the changes are pretty clearly justifiable in (sic) the well-established guidline (also sic) to use neutral, literal language instead of connotive (also sic), idiomatic language." The original text was

"Why the notoriously stubborn Beethoven apparently agreed so readily to replace the fugue is an enigma in the history of this quintessentially enigmatic piece. Some historians have speculated that he likely did it for the money (Beethoven was extremely bad at managing his personal finances and was often broke), while others believe it was to satisfy his critics, or simply because Beethoven came to feel the fugue stood best on its own."

The rewritten version is:

"Why Beethoven readily apparently agreed to replace the fugue is unclear: some historians have speculated financial motivations, as Beethoven perennially struggled to manage his personal finances and often lacked money, while others believe he did it to satisfy his critics or because had come to feel the fugue stood best on its own."

While I admit that Remsense's version is a lot more "encyclopedic" - read that "boring" - there is nothing non-neutral, non-literal, connotative (I think that is what he means) or idiomatic about the original text. What is not literal about "Notoriously stubborn"? What is idiomatic about "quintessential"? Let's be honest - Remsense insists on the change because he prefers dull, uninspired writing to anything interesting or colorful.

So be it. Remsense wins. I will not revert again. Ravpapa (talk) 04:55, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

I wasn't the one who rewrote the paragraph (to my memory), and reverting once with a clarifying reason isn't edit warring. I think inspired writing is fine, but if you're holding the example passage up as "interesting or colorful"—I'm sorry, I would mark this up with red pen if it were in an essay I was editing also, because it's not those things either. It's just a bit crass and irritating to read, if we're making the contention one about aesthetics.Remsense ‥ 论 04:56, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

Also, I doubt anyone would think that you suffered some severe failure in mechanically reproducing my edit summary—copying and pasting tends not to run the risk of introducing your own errors—so the [sic]s seem another "colorful" rhetorical flourish on your part that serve no real purpose but to take up space. Remsense ‥ 论 05:13, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

I'm under no illusions that I've covered myself in glory in your mind @Ravpapa, but I expect that you'll still find it worthy of your consideration that did it for the money is a genuinely problematic, tonally dissonant (ha!) idiom to use if one considers the broadest viable readership for this article. I figured it was worth making my objection known, at least. Remsense ‥ 论 09:34, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

No, I don't see anything problematic about "did it for the money". It is not, as you suggest, idiomatic (look it up if you don't know what it means) and it is perfectly clear. On the other hand "for financial motivations" - what does that mean? Stock options? Forgiveness on a loan he took from his publisher? I was taught in high school that you should always prefer the specific and clear to the general and vague. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ravpapa (talk • contribs)

I'll concede that point. I guess my concern is comparatively minute, i.e. the set phrase's use of the definite article for an abstract concept is unlike how "literal" English usually reads. I'll let it drop though, since like I said your point is clearly more cogent and I cannot think of a better way to phrase it. Sorry about this, as well as about getting a bit heated about this passage before. Remsense ‥ 论 19:30, 31 October 2024 (UTC)