Talk:Piano Sonata No. 17 (Beethoven)
 | This article has not yet been rated on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||
| ||||||||
Move discussion in progress
[edit]There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Piano Sonata No. 1 (Beethoven) which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RM bot 13:16, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
- Note the date of the foregoing notice. The discussion, now long closed, concerned whether to move the sonata articles to new titles incorporating opus numbers. The conclusion was not to do so. Drhoehl (talk) 23:09, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
Serg van Gennip link points to a domain squatter. Whatever recording was there at one time isn't there any more.~~Michael Loukides~~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.195.20.241 (talk) 21:46, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
Schindler is **not** a reliable source! This should be fixed
[edit]This page tries to argue for Schindler's reliability as a source by simply stating that the story of Beethoven's reference to The Tempest is "a first-hand account like any other that any scholar reports." No, it is not. It is a story told by Anton Schindller, who, as any Beethoven scholar knows, (or indeed anyone who has read a good Beethoven bio ought to know) is an almost entirely unreliable source on biographical details due to his fabricating conversation book entries and destroying documents, among other astonishingly dishonest shenanigans. (See the Wikipedia article for more on this.) All of this was demonstrated by scholars in the 1970's.
The article then defends the supposed veracity of the "Tempest" story by quoting Tovey, who wrote decades before any of this was known to scholars. So of course Tovey repeats Schindler's story – he even goes Schindler one step further, by talking about the play itself, Prospero, etc.
The statement about its being "a first-hand account like any other that any scholar reports" should be removed, along with the Tovey quote.
David Zuschin (talk) 18:50, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
Omission in second mvt notation
[edit]The second mvt notation is missing the bar line between the fifth and sixth bars. 71.59.194.230 (talk) 18:32, 3 December 2022 (UTC)