Talk:Piano Concerto No. 5 (Beethoven)

	This  level-5 vital article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
Classical music: Compositions This article is supported by Compositions task force.

First it says this concerto was written in 1809 and first performed in 1810. Then it says "This three movement work was completed in 1811". Which is it, 1809 or 1811? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Beetfarm Louie (talk • contribs) 00:08, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The wording has changed, but the contradiction remains. The first paragraph now reads: "It was written between 1809 and 1811... The first performance took place in December 1810". One of the external links says: "The first public performance of the work is most likely that of Friedrich Schneider on 28 November 1811", but I am unsure whether this is

reliable enough to be cited as a source. leevclarke (talk) 22:48, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

It seems that this entire article also appears, pretty much word-for-word, on this website -- there's no date given on that page so I can't be sure who stole from whom. However, I think it is nonetheless cause for concern. --Todeswalzer|Talk 21:43, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I imagine the situation is vice versa, i.e. the allexperts.com article is a(n older) version of this article. Maybe some acknowledgement in its small print somewhere...?  Regards, David Kernow (talk) 03:29, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm no expert by any means, but I was just listening to Op. 73 (Concerto No. 5 "Emperor", Brendel - Haitnik, London Philharmonic) and I noticed that the theme/melody in the Adagio ma non troppo - Marcia assai vivace, repeated in the Allegro ma non troppo (Quasi andante con motto) - Presto is very similar to that of the 4th movement in the 9th Symphony.

Op. 73 was completed on or before 1810, preceding the 9th (1824).

Perhaps someone with a more scholarly bent can confirm this. It would appear that Beethoven did a variation of the 5th Piano Concerto's theme in the 9th.

Ghostlightning (talk) 07:10, 29 February 2008 (UTC)ghostlightning[reply]

Sorry I do not hear this thematic relationship at all. Are you speaking of a thematic relationship to the main theme of the 9th ("Freude schoener gotterfunken...")? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gee19685 (talk • contribs) 02:06, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I also agree and none of the editors have jumped to add this, either. We'll wait until someone can find anything citable before worrying about adding anything here. Cheers. DavidRF (talk) 20:28, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It was written between 1809 and 1811 in Vienna, and was dedicated to Archduke Rudolf, Beethoven's patron and pupil. The first performance took place on November 28, 1811, at the Gewandhaus in Leipzig. It was Beethoven's last public performance due to his increasing deafness. In 1812, Carl Czerny, his student, gave the Vienna debut of this work.

This suggests it could not have been performed earlier than 1811. However, the Grove V article says that Friedrich Schneider "played it at Leipzig" in in December 1810, which predated Beethoven's own November 1811 performance. Our article says that Schneider "is thought" to have premiered the work, but in 1811. So, we need to get clear on who played it first - Schneider or Beethoven - and when.

Then Grove V says that Carl Czerny gave "the first public performance in Vienna" in February 1812. It's not clear to me whether this means the very first public performance (which happened to be in Vienna), or just the local Viennese premiere. If the former, then the Schneider/Beethoven performances were private. -- JackofOz (talk) 22:11, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Beethoven never played it in public. That's for sure. Anon 24.5.237.27 added that this spring and nobody caught the error. I'm pretty sure the comment about Beethoven's last public performance is associated with PC4. Schneider did premiere the work with Johann Philipp Christian Schulz conducting the Liepzig Gewandhaus. As for the date, I too see discrepancies in my sources. Steinberg says Nov-1811 as the article says, but Solomon says 1810 performance and a Feb-1811 publication. Steinberg mentions the Czerny Vienna premiere. I would stay safe and keep that as the "Vienna premiere" because neither source mentions whether Liepzig was public. As far as whether to believe 1810 or 1811, well my first inclination is to believe Solomon because Steinberg is less scholarly, but I'd also keep looking.DavidRF (talk) 23:09, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I heard this on the ABC this morning and I've got a theory about it. The piano is bloody-minded and just wants to do its own thing. In the first movement, the orchestra comes up with this theme which is really quite serious, and it wants the piano to play it, but the piano wont. The orchestra keeps telling the piano what it wants it to play and the piano keeps stuffing around with its own ideas. Then the piano starts deliberately tormenting the orchestra, like its going to play the big theme only it never gets there. It does all these big build-ups about a hundred times and every time the orchestra thinks its going to do the theme, it tinkles off in a different direction. The orchestra tries everything. It begs. It says "pretty please". It tries to trick the piano, but the piano is too smart. Then all of sudden, when the orchestra is distracted, the piano starts playing the orchestra's theme, really quietly and the orchestra doesnt even notice. After that, the orchestra gets really pissed off and bellows out the theme really loudly. The piano go "so??" and keeps doing its own thing. then the orchestra heaves two sighs "Ho! Hum!" and goes "stuff this!" and plays a sort of fairly weak ending to the moevement, because it can't be bothered any more.

In the second movement the orchestra is absolutely stuffed, and the piano needs a rest too so they just have a sort of truce in which the orchestra lets the piano do its own thing.

In the third movement, the piano has livened up a bit, and the orchestra is still trying to get it to cooperate. The piano comes up wqith an idea, so the orchestra says, "OK, we will do it your way for a bit" so the orchestra grabs this idea and turns it into a nice little gallopy theme which ought to keep the piano happy. The piano go "will I, wont I?" and to the relief of the orchestra, it starts to play the gallopy theme. Only the orchestra doesn't trust the piano at all. It keeps letting the piano lead and then comes in, never too certain as to when the piano is going to change track and go off on something entirely different. But the piano likes this theme and does it a few times without stuffing up. So the orchestra thinks "OK, so your cooperating now! So we'll try the big theme again!" The orchestra starts gently trying to work the piano around to the theme from the first movement, but the piano isn't having any. It is much too smart for the orchestra. In the end, the piano wins and the orchestra just has to be content with making a resonably together end to the movement.

I was laughing the whole way through. Does anybody know if this was what Beethoven intended?

DuncanDugan (talk) 05:52, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There's lots written by musicologists on this piece. We really have to focus on what people like them write... its great that you are so intrigued by the work, as editors here we can't be engaging in original research (

WP:OR). A lot of what you describe is typical of the form for works of this era... the dialogue between soloist and orchestra. Setting up expectatons and delaying their resolution. Soft introduction followed by loud repeat... Your description of the final movement reads almost like a description of the rondo form (ABACADA...), the main theme does return over and over with contrasting episodes in between. Anyhow, to reiterate, we need to focus on what others have written here rather that our own personal observations.DavidRF (talk) 19:28, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

I was just wondering if Beethoven wrote anything about what he meant by it. Or if somebody had a really good way of explaining it like they did with the Pastural Symphony in Fantasia. I don't read books by musicologists I just like listening to classical music on the ABC. DuncanDugan (talk) 11:00, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What about Horowitz ??? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.113.31.207 (talk) 19:34, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What about Van Cliburn with the Chicago Symphony Orchestra (Fritz Reiner) - RCA 172.56.30.211 (talk) 17:45, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Serkin recorded it four times, the first with Bruno Walter in New York on December 22 1941. I emended the text accordingly but could not get the Bruno Walter link to work correctly. Maybe someone else could have a try at it. Orthotox (talk) 05:33, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The music notation has the theme of the 3rd movement beginning on the downbeat. But this is incorrect; the theme begins with the upbeat. The problem with using the first appearance of the theme is that the upbeat is extended as part of the transition from 2nd to 3rd movements. But in all other cases it's an eighth note. - kosboot (talk) 03:03, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, there is a single sixteenth B-flat anacrusis missing. It seems that User:Skiasaurus simply transcribed what the previously used File:Beethoven-empereur-theme-3mvt.png showed. Either he can be persuaded to amend the notation, or somebody else can, or I can attempt it when I've got a bit more time. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 04:06, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That's exactly what I did. It really should be an eighth note, though---the only reason that it's notated as a 16th at the beginning is because it's still in the slower tempo of the second movement at that point. I'll change it. Skiasaurus (/ˌskiːəˈsɔːrəs/) 03:50, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

For the record and the benefit of future nitpickers: The score (fr:Éditions Heugel, P.H. 87), shows a fermata for that sixteenth note with an annotation, "Semplice poco tenuto". However, in his accompanying notes, André Jolivet shows an eighth. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 07:19, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, with the exception of the first statement, all statements of the theme show an eighth as the upbeat. Thanks Skiasaurus. - kosboot (talk) 14:11, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think that this bears mentioning:

The composer's last piano concerto dates from the beginning of May 1809, when, with Napoleon's army besieging Vienna, the Austrian Imperial family and all of the court, including Beethoven’s pupil, friend, and benefactor, Archduke Rudolph, fled the city. On May 11 the French artillery, which commanded the heights of the surrounding countryside and had penetrated outlying portions of the city proper, was activated. Beethoven’s house stood perilously close to the line of fire.

Those who could not – or, like Beethoven, would not – leave sought shelter underground. Beethoven found a temporary haven in the cellar of his brother's house. Imagine the composer crouching there, with heaven knows how many other frightened souls, trying to shield his already irreparably damaged ears from the din of volley after volley.

Once the bombardment had ceased and the Austrian forces had surrendered, the occupiers imposed a "residence tax" on the Viennese. The composer, on whom a sufficiently heavy financial burden had been placed by the departure of those who would guarantee his income, described "a city filled with nothing but drums, cannon, marching men, and misery of all sorts."

After the summer Beethoven was able to get away from the city and return to composing, producing back-to-back masterpieces in the "heroic" key of E-flat, the present Piano Concerto and the "Harp" Quartet, Op. 74. The grim experiences of the preceding months had not diminished his creative powers.

^[1]

Kortoso (talk) 21:42, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Piano Concerto No. 5 (Beethoven). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140811212800/http://www.sfsymphony.org/Watch-Listen-Learn/Read-Program-Notes/Program-Notes/BEETHOVEN-Concerto-No-5-in-E-flat-major-for-Piano.aspx to http://www.sfsymphony.org/Watch-Listen-Learn/Read-Program-Notes/Program-Notes/BEETHOVEN-Concerto-No-5-in-E-flat-major-for-Piano.aspx

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018.

• 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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:18, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is a nitpicking thing regarding the musical incipits. So long as you have dynamic markings, it should be pointed out that while the first measure of the 3rd movement is marked FF, the 3rd measure is marked P. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kosboot (talk • contribs) 19:08, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Done. While at it, I also added sf in bar 2. FWIW, it's a very incomplete transcription. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 01:26, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am removing most of the Recordings section to conform with

The article states that "Beethoven often composed in E-flat for noble music, and audiences in his time would recognize E-flat's significance," which is backed by a single citation: the program notes from a Richmond Symphony Orchestra performance of the concerto, written by conductor John Varineau. However, Varineau does not actually claim that contemporary audiences were sensitive to the significance of Beethoven's use of E-flat major, only that "the key that a piece is written in makes little difference to many [modern] concertgoers," and that Beethoven's audience's ears were "probably" more "discriminating" than ours. Furthermore, Varineau is a conductor and clarinetist, not a historian, and he does not cite any sources. (Not that he necessarily should—they're program notes, not an academic paper.)

I personally find it difficult to believe that an early nineteenth-century audience would have understood that E-flat major meant "heroic," especially if the association was unique to Beethoven's music and not common among late-Classical composers.

(Finally, if we're going to keep the sentence, might I suggest saying "would have recognized" instead of "would recognize"?) Craggmire (talk) 19:51, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Good point, I'll remove the source YourJudge (talk) 03:06, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]