Talk:Symphony No. 8 (Beethoven)

Classical vs. Romantic

I disagree with the classification in the summary of this as a Classical symphony. Allmusic.com says it is a Romantic symphony, and I should agree because it sounds more like from the Romantic era than the Classical era. The symphonies of CPE Bach sound much closer to those of Haydn and Mozart than Beethoven. Therefore those should be considered classical. Marcus2 23:47, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Sigh. It's really quite a stretch to call this particular symphony, which echoes throughout with memories of Haydn and Mozart, "Romantic". However, given that the "Classical" label is causing trouble, I've replaced it with "in all of Beethoven's works". Please don't continue the revert war. Opus33 00:23, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Isn't Beethoven's death the begining of the Romantic period? The symphony sounds more classical than Romantic for sure. Justin Tokke 01:11, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

1827?? No, it didn't begin that late. And rather than "echoing with memories of Haydn and Mozart", the Eighth Symphony rather foreshadows the works of Mendelssohn, Schumann, and even (yikes!) Tchaikovsky, all of whom were also Romantic composers. Justin Tokke, if you don't believe me, listen to one of CPE Bach's Hamburg symphonies, one of Haydn's first symphonies, or Mozart's Symphony No. 40. They sound by far closer to the Classical period than Beethoven's symphonies 3 to 9. And all of Beethoven's works from the beginning of his Middle period onward differ greatly from his Early period in that they sound something far removed from the Classical style, which I call Romantic. I hope this helps. Marcus2 01:59, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

____

So, I did my standard procedure for getting ordinary critical opinion, which is to Google "Beethoven Eighth Symphony program notes". This gives you the stuff people read in their program at a concert, which is typically written by people with musical training. Not a one of these people calls this a Romantic symphony; rather, they say:

• Critics still condemn the symphony as a throwback to older forms and styles. To this there is some truth, but it is Beethoven's last word on the old classical sonata form that he had learned from Haydn and Mozart and used in his own earlier symphonies. The Eighth is really a jovial stab at the old classical forms to which he bids adieu. http://www.jhu.edu/jhso/about/prgrmnotes/pn_101803.html

• the eighth has often been seen, by modern listeners as well as Beethoven's contemporaries, as a throwback to the styles of an earlier period. http://www.barbwired.com/barbweb/programs/beethoven_8.html

• But now, scarcely a decade later, came a piece that appeared to return to the more restrained language and modest dimensions of the symphony as it had been conceived in the eighteenth century, a work more brief and lightly scored than any of its recent predecessors in Beethoven’s symphonic output. http://www.carnegiehall.org/article/box_office/events/evt_7614_pn.html?selecteddate=12282006

• One of the shortest of Beethoven's symphonies, it returns to the more compact dimensions of Haydn and Mozart, and pays tribute at several points to 18th-century symphonic style. http://facstaff.uww.edu/allsenj/MSO/NOTES/0607/2.Oct06.html

• The ebullient eighth recalls the older, classical style he inherited from Mozart and Haydn, but still reveals Beethoven’s forward-looking brilliance. http://www.jacksonsymphony.org/concerts/2003/pn-04-02-07.htm

• Even in his middle and late periods, when he was writing his most radical and idiosyncratic music, Beethoven would occasionally take a backward glance at the late-18th-century forms and styles that he had inherited and would never wholly abandon. The Fourth Symphony (1806), the charming Piano Sonatina in G major, Op. 79 (1809), and his very last completed work, the String Quartet in F Major, Op. 135 (1826), were just such affectionate, witty, tongue-in-cheek tributes to the sound world of Haydn and Mozart. The Eighth Symphony, composed in 1812, was another, http://www.tso.ca/season/experience/programme_notes.cfm?pID=160&cID=6&ID=361&FileName=

• By the time Ralph Vaughan Williams wrote this scherzo, he was well past eighty and enveloped in Beethovenian deafness . . . but not the thunderous temper that went with it in the earlier composer. This is actually a movement of his Symphony No. 8 -- one wonders how seriously Vaughan Williams might have been following treadmarks that were well over a century old . . . but both composers, on their way to a large, definitive, and rather difficult final Symphony No. 9, paused to do a tidier, vervous "Haydnesque" Eighth. http://www.lowellphilharmonic.org/program.htm

I would be curious where a critic has said that this is a Romantic symphony. (I can't find the discussion that Marcus2 cites at allmusic.com - though I do notice they've got Beethoven's birth date as 1782, making me wonder about their merits as a source.) Opus33 03:41, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the lengthy explanation, but take a look at this. According to this allmusic.com site (http://www.allmusic.com/cg/amg.dll?p=amg&sql=41:6981), Beethoven's birth date is 1770, and in the "Work Type" heading of the Eighth symphony (http://www.allmusic.com/cg/amg.dll?p=amg&token=&sql=42:34920), the description is "Romantic Symphony". I hope this helps. Marcus2 13:18, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Allmusic.com's "Work Type" is not the final say on a complex question such as this. This is indeed a complicated question. Yes, the work is short and Haydn's influence is strong here, but the composer of Eroica, Waldstein and Egmont doesn't just forget all that. So there are aspects to this symphony that would never appear in Haydn. I'm not sure its really "neoclassical" either. Anyhow, rather than insist that the symphony is either classical or romantic, the older-style-yet-still-forward-looking can be mentioned and played up in the article somehow. 1812-1814 is in the grey area where the two periods meet anyways. DavidRF 03:22, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

You couldn't have said it any better. Marcus2 14:18, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Hello all. This is indeed a question where both camps have rational, reasonable arguments to promote their side. Given that: A) Beethoven is usually considered the dividing line for Classical/Romantic eras (either side), and B) the period in which this piece was written is seen as Beethoven's own major dividing line, I am extremely reluctant to pigeonhole this symphony as either/or. Rather, it occupies a very unique place in the progression of Western art music. However, due to its overt celebration of certain 'Classical' attributes (i.e. sonata form, somewhat simple melodic motives), as well as what I can describe only as Mozartian mirth, this symphony is perhaps his truest expression of the Classical symphonic form. Beethoven, though, adds his own touch in such a way that makes mistaking this piece for Mozart or Haydn almost impossible. 157.252.69.43 21:30, 19 September 2007 (UTC)Dan K. 19 Sep 2007 5:29 PM EDT

Re: Edit Revert

I'm starting to hate wikipedia and it's members. I spend two hours of my life carefully preparing material that adds essential information about this work; suddenly it is all reverted simply because someone else feels this or that. OK, so my addition wasn't perfect, and I understand that entries inevitably become highly edited. So edit it a bit. Cut a sentence here or there. But completely reverting someone's addition isn't "editting". I doubt whether the person who reverted it gave the entry any thought beyond gut reaction. Only two reasons seem to have been presented. One of the complaints was a lack of verifiability: well guess what, bucko, I HAVE THE SCORE SITTING IN FRONT OF ME AND IN THE TEXT I INDICATED EXACT MEASURE MARKINGS FROM IT. I have hundreds of scores from the years 1780 to 1830, and have studied them closely, and a cursory comparison/contrast with contemporary works by (for instance) Haydn or Hummel would sufficiently illustrate comparitive claims. I agree that several items constitute original research, and therefore must go. But the complete deletion of everything added is not only myopic, its petty. And now I am responding with this petty, irritated post. I have read thousands of wikipedia articles and only TWICE has it been necessary to delete more than two sentences. This place reeks of the same inane power struggles that go on in the animal kingdom. I think I'm done trying to contribute to this site. Too frustrating. I guess I had enough of the high-school antics in high-school... and let's not kid ourselves; this place sure ain't collegiate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.38.82.19 (talk) 21:35, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Hello. I'm the one who put the OR tag on your edit, a later editor ended up deleting it. I saw some interesting points, but felt that citations were needed. The Beethoven symphony articles receive quite a bit of edit traffic, and a lot of unsubstantiated claims get made by various posters. Yes, you had the score in front of you and measure numbers were given, but you posted inferences from the score that are not up to the wikipedia editor to make. What we'd like here are statements that can be verified from secondary sources like musicologist writings, contemporary reviews or at the very least program notes. It's not really a power struggle issue here at all and I'm sorry you feel that way (I've seen those in other sections of wikipedia, so I've an idea of what you are talking about). Here, the idea is that the opinions of *any* wikipedia editor don't matter. We want information that can be backed up with citations. Your edit is still in the article history. If you can find citations to back up any of your claims, then we can add them back into the article. There is no shortage of published writings on Beethoven's symphonies. DavidRF (talk) 22:10, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Hello, I'm the editor who made you so mad. Look, I'm sorry if you're insulted/upset, but DavidRF is totally right. We editors are supposed to be merely a conduit from reputable, published references to WP pages. The quality of whatever you write on your own is really immaterial; the point is you're not supposed to write it on your own at all. This is official policy (see WP:NOR). So kindly don't take the revert so personally. Yours sincerely, Opus33 (talk) 00:08, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, but I'm not convinced it wasn't personal. If thou art so objective, this line (and several others) ought've been deleted: "As with various other Beethoven works such as the Opus 27 piano sonatas, the symphony deviates from Classical tradition in making the last movement the weightiest of the four." That is merely an opinion. Granted, I personally agree with that opinion, but it is mere opinion, and there is no citation accompanying it (as with several others). Sigh. Don't worry, though, I really am going to go away and trouble these pages no more with my apparently useless presence. Bye!

This guy is interesting

I don't have a side in this edit war, but 74.38's main point is valid. I, too, have made corrections (or, in other more subjective cases, improvements) to Wikipedia articles in areas where I am expert (I am a professor of music and professional orchestra conductor), only to seem them reverted because someone else felt his toes were being stepped on. In this article, the claim that the fff dynamic in mmt. I has a precedent in op. 68 is simply false (although one does find it in op. 92); one wonders how such a "fact" could have been included -- unreferenced, I might add -- in the first place, never mind stay in for years in an article that "receives quite a bit of edit traffic." The comparison with the op. 27 piano sonatas is arbitrary and bizarre, especially when op. 67 so conveniently presents itself as a much more relevant example of dramatic weight being shifted to the finale. Characterizing the "coda" of mmt. I as unusually long (I am accepting here the common, if unsatisfying and not universally accepted, definition of "coda" to be "everything after the end of the recapitulation"), without at least mentioning the much longer corresponding section in the equivalent movement of op. 55 is a strange and misleading oversight. I could go on, but the point is, it is hypocritical for the Wikipedia oligarchy to be so high-and-mighty about the privileges that Their Words should receive above the contributions of all others when those self-anointed chosen writers are, frankly, often not very good and not well informed. 76.90.232.8 (talk) 21:09, 14 July 2011 (UTC)