Talk:Symphony No. 5 (Beethoven)

High bassoon/horn line near end of 1st movement (re horns in Eb)

The line near the end of the 1st movement, at the beginning of the C major modulation, was scored in the upper register of the bassoon because it lay outside the natural open harmonic series of the Eb horn crook. However it is very possible to play this on a natural horn in Eb. The concert C would be written as A for the horns and can be played by partly shading the bell on the 7th partial, and it would have only modest effects on the tone color. The D (written B natural) would be the only really troublesome note, as it requires the hand to cover the 8th partial much more completely and would make the tone very muted, especially when playing forte. Beethoven actually uses this very note on the Eb crook in the famous horn solo from the 3rd movement of the 9th symphony, though it is at a much softer volume level where stopped and covered notes can be managed more easily.

I suspect that Beethoven might have considered having the Eb horns play this line with the bassoons doubling so as to provide some support on the hand-stopped notes. But in the end he chose to omit the horn part. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Comrade Sephiroth (talk • contribs) 04:16, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for this helpful perspective! 31.185.169.45 (talk) 18:00, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

I was listening to the Simon Rattle recording that's referenced in the article (at least I think I have the recording right) and the bassoons don't play the passage shown, unless I'm listening at the wrong place, but I'm pretty sure I am. Aaron Bruce (talk) 02:33, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

I always wondered why the written A is actually not often called for in classical symphonic horn parts. After all, the written high F was easily gotten through shading the 11th partial, and the written A comes from shading the 7th instead. It would certainly make minor-key works a lot easier: ask for the crook of the relative major! And yet, it just doesn't happen that often. I hope the first example is not actually Schubert's Unfinished (in B minor, but the first movement asks for horns in D), even though I can't remember any before it. Double sharp (talk) 09:14, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Ref. 23 is defunct external link

Thanks.  uriel8  (talk) 20:43, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

BBC WWII broadcasts to Europe, Morse Code

Whether mistaken, co-incidental or not, it is beyond discussion that many people will look to this article to find out the connection with Morse Code and with the BBC WWII broadcasts to Europe - see various mentions in the "Talk" above.

It is therefore essential for Wikipedia's credibility that Wikipedia mentions both in this article. RobinClay (talk) 21:05, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

It is equally essential for Wikipedia's credibility that reliable sources are provided to support these facts. The mention of Morse code was removed by another editor because (according to the edit summary) it contained a factual error regarding who devised the code. When I checked the cited source, I found that practically nothing else in the claim was supported by it. All that is required when a "ciation needed" tag is placed on such a claim, is to find and add a supporting reliable source. No reason to get all aeriated.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 21:12, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

You are too cavalier by half. I had made several changes, and added more references, which you ignored when you so rudely simply reverted the text without explanation. And, No, I have made more changes. The Morse Code aspect is still relevant - it is actually the reason I came to this page in the first place. Had the page been as I have just left it, there would have been no need for me to look further. RobinClay (talk) 22:06, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

So far, the only "references" I have seen added are an external linking back to the English Wikipedia article on Morse code, and a parenthetical remark (relegated to a footnote, which does not make it a reference) concerning who actually devised Morse code. The reference that has now been in place for quite a long time is fine, as far as it goes. It establishes that the BBC started using this signal during World War II (in fact, they continued using it through at least the end of the 1960s, but that is not important here), that the version they used was played on "drums" (type unspecified), and that the rhythm was meant to be interpreted (by the BBC and not Beethoven, of course) as Morse code for the letter "V". Adding claims beyond what this source verifies requires the addition of further reliable sources, excepting only statements along the line of "the sky is blue". There is nothing wrong with adding such statements provisionally, in the expectation that a source eventually will be found, but do not be surprised if these get tagged with a "citation needed" template. In fact, I find it prudent to add such a tag myself, when inserting claims I know to be verifiable, even though I don't happen to have the source immediately to hand. The problem I am seeing here is the addition of a claim with an attached putative source, which proves not to be a reliable one, according to the Wikipedia guidelines. Oh, yes: I did not revert your edits without explanation. I think if you will consult my edit summaries in each case, you will find the explanation for my reversions there.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 23:13, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

No mention of famous transition

The article states simply that the finale "begins without interruption after the scherzo." There is no mention of the transition passage, surely one of the most gripping and effective things in Beethoven's music and, at the time, something totally new. It certainly had its effect on audiences then and still does today. Shouldn't this be mentioned? Opus131 (talk) 00:03, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Symphony No. 5 (Beethoven). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20150609154217/https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Paqj1Nz_2g4 to http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Paqj1Nz_2g4
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20050831060244/http://www.symphony5.com:80/en/sn5.htm to http://www.symphony5.com/en/sn5.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 04:56, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Second Movement, Third Theme?

I'm puzzled by the mention in the article of a "third theme" in the second movement, consisting of "thirty-second notes in the violas and cellos with a counterphrase running in the flute, oboe, and bassoon". As near as I can tell, this is referring to the passage with 3nd notes in the violas and cellos, held notes in the winds, and pizzicato accompaniment in the violins and basses (on page 22 of the Dover edition of the full score). However, this is very clearly a variation on the first theme; I don't detect any new thematic material here, and indeed it would be rather odd if there were a third theme in this set of double variations. Unless there's something obvious that I'm missing, I think this comment should be removed. Aiwendil42 (talk) 02:25, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Admittedly an odd statement, but it does appear to be referenced to Scherman & Louis' The Beethoven Companion. If the source actually says this, it could be quoted directly, in order to avoid any future question. If it does not, then of course the statement should be removed.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 03:28, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

An example of overreaching in citation requests

Under "Fourth movement: Allegro," in a discussion of the similarity between the interruption in this movement and a similar piece in Haydn's Symphony No. 46, we see this charming little sentence and its accompanying request:

It is unknown whether Beethoven was familiar with this work or not.[citation needed]

Are you kidding? It's hard enough to cite some references for positive things...to cite an unknown is to ask for the impossible. One could put scholarly reference after scholarly reference to say "I don't know whether he was familiar with Haydn's 46th symphony," "He never mentioned Haydn's 46th symphony in his writings," or "I never heard any student of Beethoven's music say whether he had ever heard Haydn's 46th symphony," and it still would not do any more to cite whether Beethoven was familiar with Haydn's Symphony No. 46 than simply to state it.

Should, at some later date, someone say something like "Beethoven went to performances of Haydn's 46th all the time," "Beethoven conducted Haydn's 46th on Nowonder 32, 1808," or "Beethoven loved Haydn's 46th so much that he wrote a piano reduction of it and played it every night before he went to bed," then THAT would merit a "citation needed." But it is not only unfeasible but patently ridiculous to request a citation of something that is an unknown. This insertion exists, according to Wikipedia's template page, to question an uncited claim--but this is not an uncited claim, it is simply a statement that no claim is being made--no claim that Beethoven was, or was not, familiar with this earlier work, that it is simply an unknown.

This request for a citation should be removed, and we should all take a lesson from its having been here in the first place. 108.231.42.28 (talk) 19:27, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

And yet I managed to find one after looking for a few seconds: James Webster, Haydn's 'Farewell' Symphony and the Idea of Classical Style, p. 267. "No comparable stroke was heard again until Beethoven's Symphony No. 5 (presumably an independent inspiration; Haydn's symphony did not circulate widely, and there is no evidence that Beethoven knew it." And yes, a citation is absolutely required, as the statement could conceivably be false (what if, hypothetically, it was only put there because the original writer did not know of such an influence, when one existed?) There are indeed lessons to be taken here, but I doubt they are the ones you thought of. Double sharp (talk) 06:10, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

"The music resounds in C major, an unusual choice by the composer as a symphony that begins in C minor is expected to finish in that key"

Despite this being sourced, it strikes me as being nonsense. What of Haydn's 78th or 95th, which both start in C minor and end in C major? Double sharp (talk) 06:01, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

Unfortunately, there is a lot of nonsense about, even under the restriction of requiring reliable sources. What is needed in this case is an equally reliable source that refutes this claim.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 22:16, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

It would not be the first time that a musicologist overlooked the fact that Haydn did everything before everyone else! Syek88 (talk) 23:16, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

Indeed not. Nor have musicologists always been innocent of forgetting that even Haydn had predecessors.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 00:21, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

Alas indeed, I shall have to go looking. It would be very nice if there was a source that had a list of minor-key Classical symphonies categorised by whether or not they ended in the parallel major. Double sharp (talk) 14:46, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

Fourth movement quote?

The following un-cited remark occurs in the "Development" subsection...

"The final movement quotes from a revolutionary song by Claude Joseph Rouget de Lisle."

... but is not mentioned in section about the fourth movement.

Is this real? The article on de Lisle makes no mention of it either.

--23.119.204.117 (talk) 01:13, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

Coda of the finale

Why does the score for the coda of the finale have a common-time signature on this page? Whoever did has clearly not looked at any score for the symphony, because if they did, they would notice that it is written in CUT TIME, NOT COMMON TIME! Seriously, how lazy and idiotic can some of us get?! MoonMan2 (talk 03:51, 14 September 2018 (UTC) MoonMan2 (talk) 19:51, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

I'd bemoan if I were an idiot, but in no case I am one of yours. Purgy Purgatorio 09:39, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

MoomMan2, however strongly you feel, there is really no need for a comment like the one above. I think you should rapidly adjust that remark and also apologise to User:Purgy Purgatorio. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 09:55, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

Okay, Purgy Purgatorio, I am sorry for calling you an idiot the first time; I shouldn’t have been as harsh as I was, plus I didn’t know what “afaik” meant (I do now). I was really just annoyed that the score for the coda had a 4/4 signature and not a 2/2 like it does in other scores, and just felt as if I needed to bring the issue up. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MoonMan2 (talk • contribs) 10:09, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

"Schicksals-Sinfonie"

The third paragraph says that the symphony "was given" the nickname "Schicksals-Sinfonie," putting it in the same nickname-bearing category as the 3rd and 5th. This is incorrect. The "Eroica" and "Pastorale" nicknames were assigned by the composer, whereas any nicknames for the 5th were made up by publishers, critics, etc. The nickname "Schicksals-Sinfonie" is no more a proper part of the 5th than is Walter Murphy's disco version. 134.173.81.150 (talk) 18:45, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

Trivial question about capitalization

Quick question, why are some of the instruments capitalized in the Instrumentation section while others are not? GeneralPoxter (talk) 23:59, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing this out. I've removed the unnecessary capitalisations. Tayste (edits) 01:12, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

I suppose the rationale was that if a word starts a list element, it should be capitalized. This is a possible interpretation of MOS:LISTCAPS. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 06:01, 27 September 2019 (UTC)