Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Piano Sonata No. 31 (Beethoven)/archive1

< Wikipedia:Featured article candidates
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 26 September 2021 [1].

Piano Sonata No. 31 (Beethoven) edit

Nominator(s): GeneralPoxter (talk • contribs) 15:33, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the penultimate Beethoven piano sonata. GeneralPoxter (talk • contribs) 15:33, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Image review edit

  • Suggest adding alt text
  • The Schnabel recordings will need tags for the music itself, and what's the status of the recording in the US?
    • Not sure, but since the recording was published in 1932, the copyright does not seem to expire until 2032. GeneralPoxter (talk • contribs) 16:33, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • Okay, so as far as you're aware these are non-free? If so they would need to be uploaded locally using a non-free rationale, or removed. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:39, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Sonata_No._31_1st_Movement.png is incorrectly tagged - the uploader does not hold copyright. Ditto File:Sonata_No._31_2st_Movement.png, File:Sonata_No._31_3st_Movement.png
  • File:Beethoven 110 4 Quarten for wikipedia.mid needs a tag for the music. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:56, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Not sure what "tag for the music" means in this case, same for above. GeneralPoxter (talk • contribs) 16:33, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • The music has a copyright status which is different from the status of the recording - the image description page should include tags reflecting both. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:39, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • Okay, I added a PD-old-100 tag to cover the music itself for all the above files. GeneralPoxter (talk • contribs) 16:46, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Nikkimaria: With the help of Alexis Jazz, I think we were able to find a PD-US rationale for the sound files. If that's the case, what's the status on the image/media review (which seems kind of messy at this point)? GeneralPoxter (talk • contribs) 22:00, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Nikkimaria: Following Alexis Jazz's explanation that there might be reason to upload the sound files under fair use there may have been a mistake, I think we could use some of your input to help resolve this problem. GeneralPoxter (talk • contribs) 23:13, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry, could you clarify what you're asking me? Nikkimaria (talk) 00:58, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I apologize for the confusion. The discussion here shows how uploading these Schnabel recordings violates WP:NFCC, but we are still unsure of whether PD-US-record applies to the recordings (see Alexis Jazz's explanation in the discussion on HMV). If it turns out PD-US-record doesn't apply (which was Alexis's first thought), then we can still include the Schnabel in the article since the PD-US rationale would be PD-1996. If it does apply, we probably can't use the recordings at all since US copyright hasn't expired yet and because the complete recordings do not qualify for fair use uploading. If you could help us figure out whether the US copyright on these recordings has expired yet, that would be great. GeneralPoxter (talk • contribs) 03:28, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • @GeneralPoxter: Looks like you can't use the Schnabel recordings at all. (Clindberg knows this better than I do) Sorry. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 12:33, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's a shame, but since a link to the Schnabel recordings is included in the references along with a link to a Gould video, it shouldn't be that bad. GeneralPoxter (talk • contribs) 15:03, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from Tim riley edit

This is a splendid article, but I have a few quibbles.

  • General
  • First – and others may disagree with me – I find the use of the preterite for reporting what analysts have written extremely jarring. I mean such constructions as "Denis Matthews described the first movement … Charles Rosen called it…" I can't recall seeing this form in any reputable source, where "So-and-so writes…" or "So-and-so has written…" is the customary usage. I am inclined to oppose promotion to FA until this is addressed, but if other reviewers tell me I'm talking rubbish I'll pipe down.
  • We have some fifty FAs on classical music, and as far as I can recall not one of them uses the preterite when quoting authors. Here are examples from half a dozen of them (not ones I have worked on, let me add): "Macdonald writes that Bizet's legacy is limited" ... "Charles Rosen comments that most of the written-out indications of rubato in Chopin are to be found in his mazurkas" ... "Taruskin writes, 'The older he became, the greater was the irony with which Rimsky-Korsakov looked back'" ... "Boris Asafyev comments that Schumann left his mark on Tchaikovsky" ... "David Matthews writes of passages in Tippett's music" … 'Millington describes Meistersinger as…" – and so on. Tim riley talk 08:05, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Secondly – see detailed comments below – the article seems at present to be in a mish-mash of English and American, and it really needs to be in one or the other.
  • I think the article should be in British English, since that was what it was originally in and what it was tagged as (it's also using dmy format as well). However, as an American, I'm not sure which words should be spelled differently in British English. Is there a tool/source I can consult for this (besides checking each and every word in the dictionary), or can someone with a better background in this take a look? If it proves that the article is now "too American", I guess we can also consider going the other way as well. GeneralPoxter (talk • contribs) 23:02, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've attended (I think) to the minor changes needed to make the text all BrE. While doing so I noticed four commented-out phrases, one of which has a "citation needed" tag against it. I think these ought to be removed before the article goes forward to FA. Tim riley talk 08:05, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Detailed points
  • The sonata … is the subject of musical analyses by Sir Donald Francis Tovey, Denis Matthews, and Charles Rosen – no doubt, but this reads as though no other pundit has analysed the piece, which is not so.
  • sent his son Maurice to meet with Beethoven in order to form business relations – two things here: first the "with" is superfluous, and secondly so is "in order".
  • Beethoven received a receipt for 30 ducats for the sonata in January 1822 – I don't follow this: surely Beethoven was receiving the 30 ducats, and would be issuing rather than receiving a receipt for that sum?
  • The original letter here says it was a receipt for 30 ducats for the sonata, but I rephrased it to read "payment" instead of "receipt" for clarity. GeneralPoxter (talk • contribs) 23:02, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Adolf Schlesinger's letters … confirms – plural noun with singular verb
  • Ferdinand Ries in London, informing Ries that he had sent manuscripts of Opp. 110 and 111 so that Ries – a lot of Rieses – perhaps a "him" for the second one?
  • Alfred Brendel characterised the main themes – if the article is intended to be in American English, one might expect "characterized" here.
  • Each movement's estimated duration is based on Artur Schnabel's 1932 recording of the sonata. – without for one instant impugning Schnabel's authority, I think it might be better to cite three or so recordings by leading Beethovenians to give a representative summary of typical timings.
  • Would adding in Gould and Brendel work here? I hope these two choices wouldn't seem too arbitrary. GeneralPoxter (talk • contribs) 23:02, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • demisemiquaver – I'm struggling here with whether we're in the Queen's English or in American. We seem to have been in the latter so far, but if so, oughtn't demisemiquaver to be "thirty-second note"?
  • See above. There seem to be way too many small details that I simply wasn't aware of before that I think the normalizing of the article's English should best be left in a better qualified editor's hands. GeneralPoxter (talk • contribs) 23:02, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sir Donald Tovey compared … – if this refers to Tovey's 1931 book, he wasn't "Sir" yet, and the MoS bids us use the title applicable at the time.
  • both Matthews and Tovey rationalised – more unexpected BrE in an AmE article.
  • attempts to characterise – ditto
  • rougher side of his humour – or humor?
  • (an Adagio and a finale) – not sure why Adagio needs a capital letter if finale doesn't
  • That's the stylizing Martin Cooper uses on page 191. I think the convention here is that for tempo headings of movements (e.g. Allegro or Adagio), the title is capitalized, while for more form-related titles (e.g. scherzo and finale), there is no capitalization. GeneralPoxter (talk • contribs) 23:02, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm unsure of whether this an actual convention though; this is just my best guess given how Cooper stylizes the movement/section titles as well as how the article's original author chose to do it. GeneralPoxter (talk • contribs) 15:36, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Brendel ascribed an unreal, illusory quality – with the greatest imaginable respect for the wonderful Brendel, one does just wonder whether one could have an illusory quality that was real rather than unreal. (This is probably as good a place as any to insert the annoying fact that I have heard both Kempff and Brendel – though not, thank you, Schnabel – play this sonata at the Festival Hall.)
  • Actually, these were not Brendel's exact words but a paraphrasing/summary by the original author for the quote "The inverted fugue theme then appears, as unreal as a mirage." I cut out "unreal" from the article text. GeneralPoxter (talk • contribs) 23:02, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • while Tovey went so far as to label – a touch editorial, perhaps?
  • For the complete discography, see Late piano sonatas (Beethoven) – are you sure we'll find the complete discography there?
  • The sonata has also been recorded by Wilhelm Kempff in 1951, Claudio Arrau in 1965, Alfred Brendel in 1973, Maurizio Pollini in 1975, and Daniel Barenboim in 1984 as part of their respective complete recordings of the Beethoven piano sonatas – perfectly true, but why single out these recordings? What is wanted here, I think, is a sourced pick of the top recommendations for recordings of the work, from a reputable book or magazine.
  • Embarrassingly, these were selected from the top results from presto Music that have recording date attributions. I could use some pointers for gathering more sources for recordings/discography. GeneralPoxter (talk • contribs) 23:02, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • It isn't easy, I agree. I'll ponder and come back on this point. Tim riley talk 08:05, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am obliged to admit that I can't find any WP:RS listing recommended versions of the sonata. My usual resources are The Penguin Guide (a little out of date these days), and comparative reviews in Gramophone and on BBC Radio 3's "Building a Library", neither of which has looked at this particular work. So I am withdrawing my query about the sourcing of the list of runners chosen here. If at some point, post-FA, a reliable comparative review is posted I'm sure it can be added after consultation on the article talk page. Tim riley talk 17:27, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Those are my initial thoughts. Over to you. – Tim riley talk 22:03, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Tim riley: Thanks again for comprehensive and insightful review. My main, outstanding concerns are for the American English/British English problem as well as the recording choices. For the former, I don't think I would do a great job myself in fixing this mess, since I have very little knowledge of British English and British music terminology (with respect to how it differs with American English). For the latter, I'm still looking for more sources regarding Op. 110 recordings, but haven't yet been able to find a comprehensive but reliable source listing what they consider to be the most significant and noteworthy recordings. GeneralPoxter (talk • contribs) 23:02, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Happy to support now. My last reservation, above, is withdrawn. This is an excellent article, clear, balanced, no more jargon-ridden than a thorough musical analysis needs to be, illustrated with musical examples, and widely and thoroughly sourced. Tim riley talk 17:30, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Recordings edit

@GeneralPoxter: Here are some recordings you could upload with c:Commons:video2commons:
I'd suggest uploading them all, I mean why not. For the third link you could uncheck "keep video" so you just get the audio. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 03:22, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hm, thanks for these suggestions, but it feels kind of weird just to upload only one movement for #1 and #2, and #3's performance is not very good. I guess when it comes to Creative Commons licensed recordings, we can't be too picky, but in this case, I feel like unless we have a complete recording of decent quality by the same artist, we should probably not include any performance audio files in the article. GeneralPoxter (talk • contribs) 18:00, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@GeneralPoxter: on https://musopen.org/music/56-piano-sonata-no-31-in-a-flat-major-op-110/ are some different recordings. The recordings by Donald Betts are already available on Commons:
— Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 10:17, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ah thank you for pointing these out (sorry for missing them, I don't know why I didn't take a look on Commons first). Tempo on first and third movements is slower than usual (I assume this faster first movement is by a different performer) and rather odd LH sforzandos in the finale's coda, but these are certainly decent enough performances, both in terms of recording quality and musicality. I'll add them to the article. GeneralPoxter (talk • contribs) 14:40, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Glad you could use them. The faster first movement is by Carlos Gardels, so yes, different performer. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 17:16, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport from Aza24 edit

Planning to look at this, and will see if I can find any better sources on recordings. Aza24 (talk) 01:13, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Hi Aza24, I was wondering if you were still intending to look at this one? No pressure either way. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:38, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes! Thank you—it seems to have fallen off my list. Aza24 (talk) 04:42, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The delay was due to factors such as Beethoven's deteriorating health"—well, since the only other factor seems to be his work on Missa solemnis, perhaps that should simply be included here? Maybe "The delay was due to prior commitments and Beethoven's deteriorating health"?
  • You might link Recapitulation (music), Exposition (music), Development (music) in the lead and elsewhere. The latter may not be especially pertinent to link, but I would think the other two should be, considering their somewhat specialized definitions
  • "compares the fugue" seems to mean little at the moment. Is he comparing them and finding they are similar, or perhaps "favorably comparing" them?
  • Is it known why he didn't end up dedicating it to Antonie Brentano? Perhaps that "considered dedicating it..." would be more correct?
    • There are letters I believe that Beethoven sent to Schlesinger indicating his intent to dedicate the sonata to Antonie Brentano, but for reasons unknown to the sources I've consulted, the publishers never actually carried out Beethoven's wishes. However, this delves quite a bit into speculation, so I felt it would be best left out of the article. GeneralPoxter (talk • contribs) 12:47, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would include the pianist's name in the file recording
  • I would think non-musicians will not know what any of these intervals mean; perhaps link to Perfect fourth, which ever third is being referred to and the sixth
  • You could link "6th degree" to Submediant as well
  • I am a little surprised that none of Schenker's comments are included, though I can understand that's an uninviting world to get into
    • I'll hopefully add Schenker sometime, but right now I don't have the adequate time to read/study his analysis. Do you consider this critical for the FAC? GeneralPoxter (talk • contribs) 14:55, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • No!—Thankfully. would be interesting but is probably beyond the expected scope of Wikipedia. Aza24 (talk) 20:43, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, here's what I think the article is mainly lacking at the moment (nothing major). Beethoven's late sonatas are notoriously hard to understand, complicated, boundary-pushing, harmonically intricate etc. This work seems, comparably, rather routine (though lovely regardless) and perhaps not nearly as adventurous as the others. The exception to this may be the fugue, but based on the descriptions you've included from commentators (and my own experience), the first two movements seem rather conservative. Can something like this be included in the lead somewhere?—in doing so, you could include its being part of Beethoven's late sonatas, a point which I also thought was missing. If any sources go into such difference in detail, such comment might be added to the reception section. I notice that only one other of B's late sonatas is the standard three movements.
    • I do *feel* that your analysis gives valuable insight into the sonata, but any of your or my thoughts on the analyses (e.g. something that is not explicitly evident in the sources) might constitute WP:SYN (I am open to disagreement here though). As of yet, I have not found a particular passage from the sources stating/supporting the idea that the sonata is more conservative/less difficult than the other late sonatas. Rather, I recall a passage from Martin Cooper describing how the sonata's emotional depth and difficulty makes it a common test piece and should not be approached by young amateurs (I don't however consider this claim by Cooper to be very encyclopedic and didn't include it in the article since this isn't supposed to be a manual for how/who should play the piece). GeneralPoxter (talk • contribs) 14:55, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • No worries then, I had a feeling this would be the case. Aza24 (talk) 20:43, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ah recordings. What an impossible section to write given the sources available! Hmmm, at the least I would include the cycles of Rudolf Serkin and Igor Levit (the latter is basically a reference recording now). I know that Myra Hess's recording of the sonata is rather famous (see grove); I've never heard of her, but Kathleen Long seems to be well regarded for her recording of Op. 110 as well ([2]).
  • Tim Riley was concerned in his review over what standard the recordings were chosen for mention. So far, the best we could seem to muster were the top results on Presto Music that came with recording dates and/or recording awards. Accordingly, I added in the Levit recording, since that was one of the top results for Beethoven Complete Piano Sonata recordings on the platform. Thus, I was wondering what in particular distinguished the Serkin, Hess, and Long recordings? Besides on Grove, I was not able to find a lot of coverage of Hess's or Long's recordings. GeneralPoxter (talk • contribs) 01:26, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, presumably those cycles could be included in the recording sections for every Beethoven sonata, as their importance is dependent on the cycles as a whole, not Op. 110? Clearly there is not much written about recordings of this individual sonata, but given that there are no recordings currently included where that of Op. 110 in particular is notable, it might make sense to include Hess and Long (since it seems they are known for this sonata, not their own cycles). Not a huge sticking point, however. Aza24 (talk) 20:43, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Aza24: That makes sense--I have included Hess's recording for now. I am still wavering on the Serkin cycle though since we've already mentioned a lot of important cycle recordings, and Serkin is included anyways in the late piano sonatas discography (both Rudolf and Peter!). As for Long, the Grove entry only says she "performed" the Op. 110, not necessarily recorded it. This might explain why trying to find other literature on Long's recording was so difficult. GeneralPoxter (talk • contribs) 23:41, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sounds good, I only suggested Serkin because of his reputation as a Beethoven interpreter, but I agree you have a good list already. Aza24 (talk) 01:08, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • It looks like—besides this piece—the term "Arioso" was almost never used in instrumental music (per Grove) so perhaps such a detail is worth including?
  • This is likely unhelpful, but just incase, grove says that the Op. 110 autograph score was owned by a Charles Lett, and sold in 1912 in London. Aza24 (talk) 04:42, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Interesting fact, but it seems quite disconnected temporally in the history of the composition from the rest of the content, and I'm not sure if this is all that notable (couldn't figure out yet who Charles Lett was). GeneralPoxter (talk • contribs) 01:26, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Aza24: Thanks for your thorough review! I have responded to your points and await your feedback. GeneralPoxter (talk • contribs) 01:26, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Everything looks good to my eyes. Happy to support Aza24 (talk) 01:08, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments and support from Gerda edit

I love the piece, and with supports from Tim riley and Aza, I could probably support blindly, but am curious ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:40, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I will look at the lead last. Infobox and TOC read fine, - the infobox might show the first performance (date/location/performer).

1

  • I am no friend of brackets in general, and less so with a full sentence in brackets within a sentence (Beethoven had ...). How about a hint that the opp would be his last? You and I know that, but ...
    • Parentheses removed, and Op. 109-111 are now mentioned to be his last sonatas. GeneralPoxter (talk • contribs) 22:16, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't need "however", but that may be just me.

2

  • Sound files: "Piano recording" - isn't "Piano" redundant?
  • Brendel - you and I know that he is the pianist who not only played all B. sonatas several times, but also wrote about them with insight, but others may need a bit of background.
    • I feel that since this background is already mentioned in the linked Alfred Brendel article (and also that the lead mentions Brendel recorded the piece), there shouldn't be a need for this? GeneralPoxter (talk • contribs) 22:16, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      While correct, you could aid the memory of a reader a bit, - I would not remember that someone was mentioned in the lead. Others may just jump to the Background section. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:19, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "scherzo second movement" - I haven't seen "scherzo" as kind of an adjective.
  • "Another unifying feature is", "There is also the significance of" - I'd say that simpler, but up to you.
  • I think "trio" deserves a link.
  • "The third movement also begins with F at the top." - not sure what that means.
    • Yeah, I think the original author meant that the trio begins with a high F in right hand, but "F at the top" sounds a bit weird. Fixed. GeneralPoxter (talk • contribs) 22:16, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Each movement's estimated duration" - I didn't understand first that this refers to the following. Perhaps I'm the only one.

2.1

  • "Duration of approximately 6–7 minutes." - after you introduced how the duration is determined, I think you might drop "approximately".
  • how about mentioning and translating "(sanft)"?
    • It wasn't mentioned in the analysis cited, and also may cause some problems with the nested parantheses in the English translation (i.e. the translation would look like "(amiably (soft))"). GeneralPoxter (talk • contribs) 22:16, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      I'd do it separately - something that stands out in the image. It's a word of many meanings, and "soft" is perhaps not it here, - mellow, gentle ... --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:24, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • If the translation of sanft isn't a literal translation, I think a source is needed for what it should translate to, which I have yet to find in this case. GeneralPoxter (talk • contribs) 18:28, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think that a link to "cantabile" is not needed after it was already translated.

3

  • I could imagine some more recent comments there, but understand that they are part of the analysis.
    • Yes, I tried looking for some more contemporary reviews, but most that I found were more concerned with specific performances of the sonata than the music itself. GeneralPoxter (talk • contribs) 22:16, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

4

  • not sure if the link to the other article is helpful, where recordings are listed without any detail, not deserving the name "discography".
    • The intent here is for a thorough expansion of the existing recordings on the late sonatas page, since rarely do we find a recording of just the Op. 110 sonata. In other words, any thorough discography of the Op. 110 would have to be done in tandem with the other late sonatas. Not sure however whether this should be done as a requirement for the FAC. GeneralPoxter (talk • contribs) 18:28, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I come from In Freundschaft#Discography (up for GA), - consider more detail about times, labels etc.
  • Did critics of these recordings comment specifics of how the listed pianists played this sonata? Just names and years - that's a bit dry and lifeless
  • The only recording in the list that appears to have substantial critical coverage is Levit's, but I'm not sure the reviews would be very topical, since most pertain to praising Levit's performance as a whole, and do not necessarily single out his coverage of the Op. 110 sonata. GeneralPoxter (talk • contribs) 00:43, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I will look at the lead after sleep. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:49, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Now the lead, and then I'll go over your questions. I was amazed how fast you made changes, thank you!

  • Link the key?
  • "The delay was due to factors such as Beethoven's deteriorating health and other work". Sorry, that reads as if his other work was deteriorating, or is it just me? ... mention works first?
  • Lead and article don't give a location for the Clementi edition. Is London a default?
  • "The moderato first movement" - that's quite a short version of Beethovens elaborate marking. I'd at least link and capitalise Moderato, but suggest you quote it fully, for an authentic feel for his intentions. You can then keep the others short, but capital, Allegro, Adagio - Allegro.
  • I feel like there is reason to omit the ...cantabile molto espressivo part of the tempo marking; while the tempo does not stray far from Moderato during the first movement, the first movement as a whole can not be characterized as "singing-like" and "very expressive". However, I did clarify in the lead that the opening of the movement is expressive and cantabile. GeneralPoxter (talk • contribs) 18:28, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not sure that teaching the sonata form is lead material.
  • You may want to add specifically that the sections of the finale contrast, as do the sections of "Es ist vollbracht", btw, and perhaps that could come out more precisely in the body.
  • I'm not sure about going that far in depth for the Es ist vollbracht detail, but I did clarify that the sections contrast. GeneralPoxter (talk • contribs) 18:28, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "favorably" - "favourable" in two sentences in a row?
  • I see no need for "also" in the recordings sentence. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:13, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the reminder. I made one little change, and support this article. I can't help that what the "Main" article has to say about the recordings is poor, but it's not this article's problem. For other featured articles, we really have a separate article deserving the title discography, not just saying someone recorded it three times, compare BWV 1 as most recent. Piano Concerto No. 24 (Mozart) is a FA without a word about recordings.
GP, how do you feel about the clause about "part of complete recordings" before all these names and years? Also, I have no access to the Brendel thoughts, - does he really compare only the lament to Bach's aria, and not also the unusual form of contrasting moods in both pieces (which strikes me as obvious), with that aria also containing both lament and triumph? Or did someone else write about that? You have my support but it would add. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:50, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Here's what Brendel says: "What is the relationship of ariosi and fugues? The first part of the fugue attempts to counteract the 'lamenting song' — which, it has been noted, bears a resemblance to the aria 'It is finished' from Bach's St John Passion." (p. 70) Given the rather ambiguous phrasing of this (does the relationship bear a resemblance or does the aria itself bear a resemblance?), it does seem it could go either way. However, I believe Brendel was only referring to the arioso in this case, given the distinct similarities between both works' opening melodic lines. Sources here and here also discuss only the melodic similarity between Beethoven's arioso and Bach's aria, so I'm not sure if Brendel was referring to the contrasting relationship between sections here. GeneralPoxter (talk • contribs) 18:07, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think we're good to promote now; this seems a relatively minor discussion that could continue on the article talk page if necessary. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 04:47, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Source review edit

- spotchecks not done. Version reviewed

  • "For the movements below, the estimated duration is based on performance lengths from Artur Schnabel's 1932 recording of the sonata,[18] Glenn Gould's 1956 recording,[19] and Alfred Brendel's 1973 recording". Why were these in particular chosen for this purpose?
  • These three used to be the only recordings mentioned in the article I believe. Unfortunately, I haven't been able to find a source that broke the sonata duration down by movement, so this was the best I could manage at the time. GeneralPoxter (talk • contribs) 23:21, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Gould contrasts this fugue, which is used in a "lyric, idyllic, contemplative" context, with the violent but disciplined fugue from the Hammerklavier sonata (Op. 106) that "revealed the turbulent, forceful Beethoven"." - this specific claim would benefit from a time reference
  • Am I correct in assuming that recording dates are being cited to Presto directly? Or are these from liner notes?
  • Be consistent in how locations are indicated - for example, why include state for Princeton but not New Haven?

@Nikkimaria: Thanks for the source review, though I could use some help with the movement durations since I'm not sure how to properly address them. GeneralPoxter (talk • contribs) 00:47, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a reason to think these particular recordings (or alternative recordings) are representative? If no, does this information really need to be here? Nikkimaria (talk) 00:48, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Not that I know of. The information is only there to inform the reader on how the approximated movement durations were derived. GeneralPoxter (talk • contribs) 00:53, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Right, but my question is, if that information is not provided in any other source, and if there is no reason to believe these particular recordings are representative, then should that information be included at all? Nikkimaria (talk) 21:32, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Nikkimaria: I still feel like a duration metric of some sort is important to the article. Program notes here by Jonathan Biss claim a total duration of 19 minutes, so is it acceptable to replace the movement durations with Biss's estimate? GeneralPoxter (talk • contribs) 22:49, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Sure. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:26, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, done. GeneralPoxter (talk • contribs) 00:08, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Piano_Sonata_No._31_(Beethoven)/archive1&oldid=1046582077"