Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Beethoven Piano Sonata No. 28 manuscript sketch

Beethoven Piano Sonata No. 28 manuscript sketch

Original - Ludwig van Beethoven's manuscript sketch for Piano Sonata No. 28, Movement IV, Geschwind, doch nicht zu sehr und mit Entschlossenheit (Allegro), in his own handwriting. The piece was completed in 1816.

Reason: To quote from Wikipedia's biography, Ludwig van Beethoven was a crucial figure in the transitional period between the Classical and Romantic eras in Western classical music, and remains one of the most respected and influential composers of all time. This document holds particular encyclopedic value: a manuscript sketch in Beethoven's own handwriting for the final movement of Piano Sonata No. 28--the first of his late period sonatas when he began composing in the Romantic style. Restored version of Image:Beethoven sketch op. 101.jpg and Image:Beethoven sketch op 101a.jpg (combined file of a two page manuscript). Completed version of the music available for listening at Wikipedia:Featured sound candidates/Beethoven Piano Sonata No. 28 (part 3 of 3 files).
Articles this image appears in: Musicology, Sonata, Piano sonata, Beethoven's musical style and innovations, Life and work of Ludwig van Beethoven, Piano Sonata No. 28 (Beethoven), Art music, Romantic music
Creator: Ludwig van Beethoven

Support as conominator --Durova^Charge! 19:04, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support as conominator Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 19:38, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support. my first thought was yes, because of the super EV. my second thought was no because it's a bit sloppy IMO. But I think the EV hugely outweighs the sloppiness of it, most of which comes from the age of the documents. so yeah. nice choice. Intothewoods29 (talk) 20:08, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The sloppiness is to be expected from this type of manuscript - what we're seeing here is a composer jotting down his thoughts quickly. =) Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 20:59, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support Looks like a very interesting an encyclopedic image. I am no expert on classical music, but I'm confident that the composer's own manuscript will be of great interest to those studying the composer and his works. Great find! -Pete (talk) 21:39, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support. A good quality scan and restoration of a historically important manuscript. NauticaShad es 14:00, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Extremely high EV, but it still looks pretty shabby. It looks like the crease in the middle was raised off the scanner bed. I guess that can't be helped without risking damage to the document. Still, I think it would look better if only one sheet were in the image, then the difference between the fading would not be so stark and distracting. It is really faded, with a lot of shadows, creases, etc. --Uncle Bungle (talk) 21:19, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. I don't see the need of combining those two (different coloured) sheets. Would support a single well-restored copy though. Lycaon (talk) 09:55, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The Library of Congress listed it as a two page manuscript; it's the composer's working notes for the movement. Durova^Charge! 22:03, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Could they be made the same shade?: Presumably, they were that way when the maestro was writing on them. NauticaShad es 16:05, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - If the scans were higher resolution than this, they might be tweaked that much. Durova^Charge! 16:13, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - It would actually be pretty easy to adjust the shades like that, even at the document's present resolution. However, I'm not sure it would be appropriate to do so. There are many possible explanations for this "flaw"; one explanation (which is pretty likely) is that the storage of the documents has left one page more exposed to light than the other, causing more fading. Since we don't know the cause, I think it would be inappropriate to further tamper with the document.
    - I'd be more inclined to split it into two documents, and display one right above the other. Just because they are conceptually one document, I don't think means we're obliged to display them one-above-the-other within a single computer file. -Pete (talk) 18:05, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - By all means do, if that's your preference. I handled these similarly to the German and Japanese surrender documents. Durova^Charge! 18:29, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support I LOVE Beethoven! Clegs (talk) 14:40, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Agree with everything said by Peteforsyth (talk · contribs). Cirt (talk) 19:03, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- He does make very good points. Unfortunately the scan resolution prevents this from going as far as either of you would like. In order to get an end result like this, this file would need about ten times its present data. What I was able to do in the other instance was recreate an even paper tone, but in order to do that it was necessary to get down to 800% resolution in some places and retrace the outline of individual pen strokes. That wouldn't work here because the image just doesn't hold up at that level, so I can take out the larger stains and dirt but there's no way to work the full magic--unless you can talk the LoC archivists into doing another scan? :) Durova^Charge! 21:19, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted Image:Beethoven opus 101 manuscript.jpg --jjron (talk) 08:27, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]