Talk:String Quartets, Op. 59 (Beethoven)

Untitled

The last paragraph is POV and should be deleted. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.112.26.169 (talk • contribs).

Yah, I agree. It's gone now. Antandrus (talk) 15:56, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Merge this article w/ the "Harp / Serioso" article to group all middle quartets

I've placed a {{mergeto}} tag on the article String Quartets Nos. 10 - 11, Opus 74 "Harp" and 95 "Serioso" (Beethoven), and a {{mergefrom}} tag here. While the Razumovsky quartets at least share an Opus number, the Harp and Serioso quartets were composed and published quite separately. All they really have in common is that they're middle period quartets with nicknames. That does not an article make.

It seems that the only reason any of these "grouped" articles exists is for the convenience of the template {{BeethovenStringQuartets}}, or at least to explain it. But currently the template divides the quartets into four rows, and makes it look as if either there were four Beethoven periods, or maybe there were three, but only Opp. 74 & 95 belong in the middle period, the Razumovsky's belong in the Early period with the Opus 18's. Obviously this is wrong, and unintentional.

These two articles combined still border on stub-lenth. They should be combined into one "middle quartets" article, similar to the Late quartets article; and the template should be fixed.

Thoughts? I'll give it a bit before getting bold ;-). —Turangalila _talk 08:39, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Why not just merge them all into one article on Beethoven's string quartets and revise the template accordingly. It seems like it would be much simpler that way. --RAF (talk) 22:42, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Contemporary Reviews

I deleted the following text (including references) because I couldn't make any sense of it. I think some of it is maybe quotes from someone, but without quotes, it is POV (and nonsensical):

Contemporary Reviews

Three new, very long and difficult Beethoven string quartets, dedicated to the Russian Ambassador, Count Razumovsky, are also attracting attention of all connoisseurs. The conception is profound and the construction excellent, but they are not easily comprehended — with the possible exception of the Third in C major, which cannot but appeal to intelligent lovers of music because of its originality, melody, and harmonic power.

Have you got these here! Ha! Beethoven, as the world says, and as I believe, is music-mad;—for these are not music. He submitted them to me in manuscript, and, at his request, I fingered them for him. I said to him, that he surely did not consider these works to be music?—to which he replied, “Oh, they are not for you, but for a later age.”

References

Those are famous contemporary reviews. The Allgemeine musikalische Zeitung was a weekly musical journal published in Leipzig; a lot of the juicy commentary on early 19th century music comes from that source. The other is from Thayer's Life of Beethoven, quoted from Felix Radicati. What about them doesn't make sense? Do they need a lead-in paragraph? Antandrus (talk) 22:13, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Requested move 13 August 2015

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. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: no consensus. No clear consensus for any of the proposed titles, reasonable arguments have been made in favour of several titles and none have received significant traction. No prejudice against future discussion. Jenks24 (talk) 07:47, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

---

String Quartets Nos. 7–9, Op. 59 – Rasumovsky (Beethoven) → Razumovsky Quartets – WP:CRITERIA: Advantages for the criteria Naturalness, Conciseness and Consistency (compare Haydn Quartets (Mozart)); For the Recognizability criterion I don't see a disadvantage: keeping the numbers and Opus number in the page title suggests there are "other" Razumovsky Quartets besides these three; also for the Precision criterion there is no disadvantage: there are no other "Razumovsky Quartets" besides these three. -- Francis Schonken (talk) 11:00, 13 August 2015 (UTC) Relisted. Jenks24 (talk) 13:23, 22 August 2015 (UTC) --Relisted. sovereign°sentinel (contribs) 04:39, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Survey

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's policy on article titles.

Discussion

Any additional comments:

• Comment. Actually I question the need for this article at all (except in diminished form as a redirect to the three individual quartets - in which case it could indeed be reamed Razumovsaky Quartets). It says very little that cannot be better subsumed as appropriate in the articles relating to each individual string quartet.--Smerus (talk) 20:12, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose - I support a move away from the current title, which has too much information in it. However, I would prefer "String Quartets No. 7-9" or "String Quartets, Op. 59" which, at least in the former case, would be more consistent with the naming of other Beethoven works of Wikipedia. For example, Wikipedia titles the so-called "Waldstein Sonata" as the Piano Sonata No. 21 (Beethoven). In the case of these quartets, Gramophone Magazine, an authoritative reference, uses the numbers (7 to 9) first, correctly treating "Razumovsky" as an unofficial reference. Syek88 (talk) 21:50, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
• Support. While triple titling may allow a publisher to cover all possibilities, it's not appropriate in an encyclopedia. Gulangyu (talk) 01:48, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose. I too support a move away from the current title, for all the reasons already given. I suggest String Quartets Nos. 7-9 (Beethoven) for consistency with the articles on the 16 individual quartets. It's easy enough to create redirects from nicknames and opus numbers.

I also suggest that String Quartets Nos. 1–6, Op. 18 (Beethoven) be renamed to String Quartets Nos. 1–6 (Beethoven) for the same reason. Narky Blert (talk) 11:08, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

• Re. String Quartets Nos. 7-9 (Beethoven)/String Quartets Nos. 1–6 (Beethoven): not going to happen afaics. Apart from the two Beethoven groups, the name is either:
  1. By opus number: String Quartets, Op. 20 (Haydn), String Quartets, Op. 33 (Haydn), String Quartets, Op. 50 (Haydn), String Quartets, Op. 64 (Haydn), String Quartets, Op. 76 (Haydn)

     -OR-

  2. Without any number: Haydn Quartets (Mozart), Prussian Quartets (Mozart), Milanese Quartets (Mozart), Viennese Quartets (Mozart)

The only other group by Beethoven in Category:String quartets by Ludwig van Beethoven by opus belongs to the second of these formats: Late string quartets (Beethoven)

I know of no page name for a group of compositions that includes a "range" indicator in the format "Nos. [X]-[Y]" apart from these two groups by Beethoven that should be renamed ASAP. --Francis Schonken (talk) 11:35, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose. same arguments as Narky Blert, present title is too long, opus numbers are unhelpful, Narky Blert's suggestions are informative and not over complex.Pincrete (talk) 21:00, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
• Support String Quartets Nos. 7-9 (Beethoven) per Narky Blert. Prefer this to Rasumovsky String Quartets 7-9. Preferences are not strong, but the current title is excessive. There is redundancy in the four articles, and all are short. The three quartets are so similar in coverage, I recommend the three quartets merge and redirect to this article. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:04, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.