Talk:Schubert's last sonatas/Archive 1

Archive 1

Is the merged article now too big?

I'm thrilled with all the new content and all the citations, but now the article is 60k long. Its almost asking to be split back up into individual sonata articles again. I haven't read the article closely enough to see how easy or "natural" that would be. What do other editors think? -- DavidRF (talk)

I've given it much thought before deciding on this format. Rather than split everything back to the individual sonata articles, a better option would be to leave the unified article with part of the material, and move the rest to the inidividual sonata articles - but I'm not sure this is necessary or better than the current format. Just to let you know, I plan to further refine the text in the following week or two, so as regards the phrasing, I'd appreciate you being a bit patient with the editing. However, if there's a strong case for splitting, of course it should be done ASAP. Cheers, Gidip (talk) 20:39, 17 November 2007 (UTC).

Sure, no problem. Just a heads up. Thanks. DavidRF (talk) 02:01, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

How splendid!

In Japanese wikipedia , I should rewrite more.The last three sonatas are often called as "Beethoveniana".The A major is a perfect work,and I usually imagine its arrangement for the orchestra.Some people only appreciate Schuberts symphony and the piano sonatas are not so found important.

However it is not right!The beautiful melody should be played by violinists or oboe players.So Schubert has his 21 symphonies written in "Klaviersonate".----Kaori Makube (talk) 01:55, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Additional

• Multi-lingual : A major
• Multi-lingual : C-minor,A-major, B-flat major
• Multi-lingual : C-minor,A-major, B-flat major

And I hope to find the article in also German wikipedia.----Kaori Makube (talk) 02:34, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Additional 2

Schubert has his violin sonatas in A major or so.The title of the article will be "Schubert's last piano sonatas",I guess.----Kaori Makube (talk) 03:33, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

I thought about it. We can continue this line of thought and change the title to "Schubert's three last piano sonatas" - this is even more accurate. These are the last of all his sonatas, including the chamber ones, so I don't see a problem with the title, and I think in this case shorter is better. This title appears in many refernces, for instance Brendel's. Gidip (talk) 09:31, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Sure. No problem.Thanks.----Kaori Makube (talk) 02:21, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Symphonic form

I couldn't see any reference to the specifically symphonic structure, in form and detail, of these four-movement sonatas. --Wetman (talk) 04:52, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Schubert has his own and independent symphonic structures in his piano sonatas. And we sometimes find them in B minor, too. The sonata form is still remains in his works. Cheers.----Kaori Makube (talk) 06:10, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Actually, the last sonatas are texturally more intimate and resemble more a string ensemble, as compared to the middle-period sonatas, which are more symphonic. This is discussed in the legacy section. If you don't refer to the texture but rather to the form of these sonatas - I don't no what makes them more 'symphonic' than other sonatas, apart from the 4-movement structure (which is hardly unusual, especially in Schubert). Gidip (talk) 09:31, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't understand the original question either. The "structure" section spells out the forms of the movements and their four-movement sequence. A note could be added to the first sentence saying that this four-movement sequence was common in compositions of this era (symphonies, trios, quartets, etc). Its not necessary, but couldn't hurt. As for the 'texture', I didn't think that is what the question was asking, but its an interesting point that 'symphonic texture' implies something different than symphonic form. DavidRF (talk) 12:42, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

We often hear the Hammerklavier is the sketch for the orchesta.Actually it consists of so huge structures.And Schubert was the devoted fan for Beethoven at the meanings ,I guess.----Kaori Makube (talk) 02:19, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

By "the specifically symphonic structure, in form and detail" I did not mean generic platitudes but specifically, an extended first movement in sonata form, with recapitulations, a slow second movement, followed by a minuet-and-trio or scherzo, with a brisk finale in rondo form. Symphonic structure, whereas "sonata" in the early C19 would naturally suggest a three-movement piece with a different over-all structure. It seems almost too obvious to mention, of course. Just thought it was strange to miss it... No matter. As you were. --Wetman (talk) 05:25, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Name of article

Hello, and congrats (in particular to Gidip) on the lovely article. I see that the question of what to name the article did come up briefly. I feel that the current name falls a little short of what's required. Sure it makes sense to those already in the know -- but that's not really good enough for an encyclopedia. So I would like to move the article to "Schubert's last three piano sonatas". Please let me know if there are any serious objections to this proposal.

Also, I have a question: I gather that this article was created by combining already-existing articles about each of the 3 sonatas. But there don't appear to be redirect pages to this article from those former articles. Were they all deleted, rather than converting them to redirect pages? Cgingold (talk) 14:03, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

I guess they were deleted, I haven't noticed it until now. The original articles for the Schubert piano sonatas were named Piano sonata No. X (Schubert), with X running from 1 to 21. When I created this article I redirected Nos. 19-21 here. Later on I also redirected the articles of the other sonatas (Nos. 1-18) - in the new names I gave them, I removed the serial numbers and added the key and Deutsch numbers (because of inconsistencies in the numbering among different sources). Then I guess someone simply deleted all the original articles. Gidip (talk) 14:35, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Nope, the redirects are all still there. Graham87 15:32, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for these replies. I see the problem now -- I was looking for pages that never existed in the first place! (like Piano_Sonata_in_A_major,_D._959_(Schubert)) Okay, I'm going to proceed with my plan to create those redirect pages. Cgingold (talk) 22:41, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

On second thought, I'm gonna wait until the name of this article is settled on. Cgingold (talk) 22:47, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Also, I would prefer a title that more closely matches the other Schubert piano sonata articles, like Piano Sonatas, D. 958-960 (Schubert). A similar scheme is already used at String Quartets Nos. 1 - 6, Opus 18 (Beethoven), but in Beethoven's case there is no controversy about the numbering of his string quartets. Graham87 15:44, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Ahah -- I hadn't considered that possibility. You do have a point. Right at the moment I'm not sure what the right answer is. I'd like to hear what other editors think about this. Cgingold (talk) 22:41, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

I would leave the title. It's pithy, and I don't think anyone will be tricked into thinking there might be six or seven rather than three, or that the sonatas are for zither, rather than piano. If a reader is looking for a zither sonata here, he will be disabused in the first sentence.

I think you have done a mammoth job. There are some minor copyedit issues, that I will try to deal with when I get the time. Also, the beginning of the section on Structure I thought was a bit of overkill. You simply describe the piano sonata form as it was pretty much standardized before Schubert. I think a single paragraph, with a link to a more general article (is there one?) covering this stuff, would suffice.

Kudos. --Ravpapa (talk) 13:41, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

I did some copyediting

If it suits you, I will do some more. I know these things are largely a matter of taste, so if you prefer I will lay off.

You say Schubert left Vienna in September. What year? 1822 or 1823? Tnx. --Ravpapa (talk) 09:27, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Later: I gather from your last edit that you were not pleased with my changes. So be it. I do, however, suggest that you change "in his guise as a music critic". According to my dictionary, guise means "False appearance; pretense". And that wasn't so - Schumann really was a music critic, he didn't just pretend to be.

regards, --Ravpapa (talk) 13:42, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Response to peer review

The following issues have either been fixed by me or I don't think they should be changed:

1. Lead section - done.
2. Dashes - done (use either en dashes with spaces, or em dashes without spaces - I chose the first option)
3. "mainpulates our sense of time" - done.
4. Citations and punctuation - as long as the entire article maintains the same style, punctuation can come after citations.
5. Capitalization of work names - done
6. Major and minor mode - seems okay to me
7. "Beethoven's Influence" - rv capital letter, done.
8. Self-referencing - seems okay to me.
9. Composers' names - seems fine to me, the links prevent ambiguation.
10. "You visit the idea of them being presented as a set" - the article mentions also Erdmann and Schnabel that played the whole trilogy together, and that many pianists have recorded the three sonatas on a single occasion.

The following have not been treated yet, and perhaps should be:

1. Structure section - more citations, less original research.
2. More linking
3. "sketched up to the barline"
4. Adding a separate article for each sonata
5. Extramusical connotations and suggestions of a narrative - relevant to Schubert's work in general, not only the sonatas?
6. Beethoven's Influence - same?
7. Credentials of Charles Fisk

Gidip (talk) 13:42, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

A few comments on the latter list.

• Structure section - more citations, okay, but the analysis seems fine as is (saying this with some reservation as I lack the factual knowledge)
• more linking - perhaps, but not too much, this is not your average pop culture article
• add separate articles for each sonata - that idea makes me unhappy, the three of them are rightly treated as a group, and splitting off individual articles would distract from that important fact. If that fact (the threesomeness) needs more referencing I am sure it can be found, I seem to remember that Brendel wrote something along these lines, can't verify at the moment though.
• extramusical connotations, narrative, Beethoven - these sections could be moved to articles of their own, but they are well written and relevant, so at least significant parts of them should stay here

Overall, the article is rather long, but IMO totally adequate in length. It is not typical of today's Wikipedia in that it will overstrain the attention span of many readers, but that results from the depth and breadth of its subject. Kosebamse (talk) 20:45, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Update

I have added some refs and toned down the OR in the structure section. #3 and #7 have also been taken care of. I think the article is now ready for GA nomination. Gidip (talk) 12:20, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Citation punctuation

Gidip, while you're working on citations, you need to work on their placement (generally outside punctuation, per WP:REFPUNC). This is a great article, but something like that will probably cause it to fail (or at least hold until fixed) GA. (I'm also wondering if another picture or painting somewhere might provide some color contrast. For example, a portrait or photo of Brahms or Schumann near the discussion of them.) Magic♪piano 16:52, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

"Some editors prefer the in-house style of journals such as Nature, which place references before punctuation. If an article has evolved using predominantly one style of ref tag placement, the whole article should conform to that style unless there is a consensus to change it." The way I understand this is that there's no need to change the placement, since it's uniform throughout the article. Do you think otherwise? Gidip (talk) 15:18, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Refs after punctuation - done (took me about 15 min - not so bad...)! Gidip (talk) 16:52, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Sorry I didn't get back sooner on this. I hadn't noticed the weasel words in the MOS paragraph. (I happen to think that cite-after-punc just looks a lot better.) Cheers! Magic♪piano 18:17, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Schubert's last sonatas/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

I embarked on this GA review with some trepidation. First of all, the article is huge. Just to read through it carefully end to end took me several sittings. Secondly, the depth and scope of it is daunting - I asked myself if an analysis of this scope is suitable for a general encyclopedia. It has more the nature of a master's thesis (I am guessing that that is how it started out). Can we grant GA status to an article that the average Wikipedia reader - say a high school student with limited or no formal musical education - might have trouble understanding, at least in part?

I consulted. I asked Kleinzach, who in turn also consulted with Magicpiano. They both agreed that being thorough should certainly not be a roadblock on the way to GA status. MagicPiano did note that the article's relative inaccessibility to the musically uninitiated could be a problem for FA status, but certainly not for GA status. So, armed with that reassurance, I proceed.

I want to preface my review with two other remarks: first, the article raises for me a number of issues about writing about music in the Wikipedia, including the borders of original research and synthesis in writing about music, that I will discuss later in the review. Second, the article was an inspiration to me: it was partly because of this article that I embarked on my own article, String Quartets, Op. 20 (Haydn).

So now, avante:

Well-written

This is the first criterion of a GA, and the article passes. The writing is fine: clear, concise, correct. Gidip has occasional lapses - a few days ago I corrected a dangling participle - but almost all those errors have been cleaned up.

At the risk of being school-marmish, I must say that I think that there are occasional lapses in style. Take for example this sentence (from the lead): "Furthermore, like the rest of Schubert’s piano sonatas, they were mostly neglected during the entire 19th century, and have only gradually achieved public appreciation, after more than 100 years since their composition." A true pedant would not like this sentence. First, they weren't neglected during the entire 19th century - more than a third of the century was gone before they were even written. Second, "more than since" is an odd construction; better to write, "more than 100 years after their composition."

But, as I say, this is nitpicking. I was raised as a pedant, but have since succeeded in shedding the mantle. The writing is certainly as good as that of other GA articles.

The GA review guidelines say the article must comply "with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, jargon, words to avoid, fiction, and list incorporation." This it does. There are no listy sections, the layout is fine, it is nicely wikified. There is the issue of jargon. Can you use terms like "submediant" and "semiquaver" in a Wikipedia article without explanation? Of course, if you can't, that means you can't write an article of this depth. Well, Kleinzach has convinced me that you can. So I am not dinging the article for this, though I think the issue merits further discussion, perhaps on the Compositions task force talk page.

Factually accurate and verifiable

This article is wonderfully researched. I am not an expert on the literature, but my impression is that just about everything written on these sonatas is cited in the bibliography. Assertions that require attribution are always footnoted. Issues of debate are carefully documented. Good work.

This article raises an issue of synthesis and original research as it applies to music. As we all know, OR and synthesis are taboo in Wikiland. The Compositions task force article guidelines contain some discussion of this. A strict constructionist might contend that the following sentence constitutes OR, or synthesis:

"The recapitulation is traditional – staying in the tonic, and emphasizing the tonic minor and the flat submediant (F major) as subdominant tonalities."

I, however, am not a strict constructionist, and since I am writing the review, I am allowing statements like that. In fact, almost throughout the article, statements like this one are indeed footnoted; most notably in the section on Unifying_elements_and_cyclicism, which relies on Brendel, Fisk and William Kinderman.

Broad in coverage

I especially liked the section on Performance issues. This is an aspect of compositions that we editors have pretty universally ignored in our articles. There is a discussion of performance issues at Chamber music, but no others that I know of in articles on specific works. Kudos for this.

Illustrated

Here is my major criticism of the article. There are a great many places in this article where musical examples don't merely add, they are essential. "The opening of the Sonata in C minor is 'taken almost note-for-note' from the theme of Beethoven's Thirty-Two Variations in C minor, WoO 80." This statement needs a 20-second recording of the opening of the C minor sonata and the theme from the variations. It would hugely enrich the article.

Where do you get illustrations like these? Well, there was a minor flap about this when I wrote String Quartets, Op. 20 (Haydn). I had extracted 30-second extracts from commercial recordings, permitted as fair use. But Melesse nixed these, on the grounds that I could find free (uncopyrighted) versions if I really tried. I disagreed, but in the end, I did really try. I gathered together a string quartet, and we recorded the necessary excerpts.

Your mission in this article is considerably simpler than mine was. You don't need a string quartet, only a pianist (I am guessing that you, Gidip, are one), and a recorder with a good microphone. The playing doesn't have to be really outstanding (God knows, my examples in the Haydn article certainly aren't), only illustrative of the points you make.

Adding musical examples will make the article accessible to a much wider audience, and will also make it much less laborious to read. You can't have too many of them, in my view.

Conclusion

I considered putting GA status on hold, to force someone to provide the musical examples that I think are necessary. However, everyone who has worked on the article - and Gidip, of course, in particular - seems gung-ho enough to add these without this added sanction. What's more, the article as it stands, even without the examples, is GA level. So, by the power invested in me by absolutely no one, I hereby declare this to be a Good Article.

Laus. Omnip. Deo

--Ravpapa (talk) 14:24, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Followup comment on GA review

Just so that it's not missed, this is an edited version of what I wrote on Kleinzach's talk page about what I see as potential issues relative to considering this article for FA:

FA reviewers expect the article prose to sparkle, and be accessible to someone otherwise unfamiliar with the technical language of the subject. (This is a judgment based on reviews and commentary I have read, not personal experience with the FA process; I have not sheperded any articles through FA.) Ravpapa is correct to point out that this is a potential problem.

If Gidip wants to consider nominating this for FA, I trust he'll read other FA reviews to see what he's up against.

Ravpapa expressed concern about an article covering three works. GA (IMHO) ought not argue with the length of the article, unless it is really burdensome; FA might (possibly arguing that "too-long" articles are "not accessible"), in which case the article would need to be split in 4: 3 sonatas, plus one for the discussion of the cylic aspects that unite them. Necessary? beats me, the reviewers will tell you.

Ravpapa also mentioned concerns about "having to have musical examples". This is probably a valid concern -- the music notation and words only convey part of the story. A truly rich exposition of this sort of material arguably must contain comparative samples. Having been to any number of pre-concert lectures, I know that the better ones use clips to make their points in a way that the speaker cannot. This would also make the material accessible to people who can't read music. (This is also hard to do, since you have to actually edit down audio samples and include them in the article to illustrate your point.)

All that said, job well done. Magic♪piano 16:37, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Response to GA review

Thank you Ravpapa and Magicpiano for the detailed review. I am still thinking about your suggestions and will comment on them later on. Gidip (talk) 21:53, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

1. I browsed through the FA and indeed, I could find only one article which uses complex technical terms, above what one may say, can be understood with common highschool knowledge. This article is General Theory of Relativity, and it is compenstaed by a related article for laymans, also FA, Introduction to general relativity. So it seems that articles which go into too much technical detail cannot achieve FA status, which raises the question of their relevance to this encyclopedia. Furthermore, there are almost no articles about classical music composers and compositions which have reached such depth of detail, or that have achieved GA or FA status. So what is the perfect classical music article? Do we have any good model? Should the perfect article contain less musical analysis and more extramusical information?
2. I guess at least some of the technical fog could be removed simply by adding more links for musical terms - an easy emendation.
3. Occasional lapses of style - I am perfectly aware of this, and this is the main reason why have never intended this article for FA - my English is not native, and therefore this is my personal limitation. If other users are willing to improve on this, I would greatly appreciate it, however I do tend to revert copy-edits which, to my judgement, somewhat change the meaning of the text. I perfectly understand that this may discourage some users from contributing, as (I presume) was the case with Ravpapa.
4. In the structure section, some of the sentences which are on the edge of OR, are in fact cited by the sources. When there is a general source for the majority of the text in a section, I usually cite the source only in the beginning and/or end of the text. For example, Irit Yardeni's PhD thesis accounts for the most of the text in the structure section, up to the C minor Sonata heading.
5. Regarding musical examples - unfortunately I won't have a decent piano to record on until some months ahead (around April, I guess; my current piano is too horrible even for this modest purpose). I have never done these things before (only recorded on cassettes). Is there any free downloadable software which enables one to record stuff with a microphone and/or edit the recorded stuff?
6. I think adding separate articles for each sonata could be beneficial. In these articles, one could go into even further analytical detail such as giving more specific examples (perhaps all) of the cyclical connections between movements and the allusions to other works by Schubert. As for the unified article, I think most of the information currently in it should stay there anyway; the main things to be cut or removed are the majority of the structure section (except the first section which compares the structures of the three works); and perhaps some of the examples in the other sections.

I deeply appreciate the reviewers' patience to go through this long article. Gidip (talk) 15:30, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Re: musical examples, Audacity is a good free sound editor/recording program, with good documentation on its website. I don't have access to a decent piano either, so I can't help with making sound recordings. Graham87 16:03, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

I have quite a decent piano but don't know how to play it (I am a violinist). As for Audacity, it is very good and easy to use. The easiest way to make examples is to record the whole sonata, then copy/paste the excerpts for the examples to new files.

What about MagicPiano? I bet he's a pianist? --Ravpapa (talk) 17:08, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, yes, I do play the piano. I might be able to make clip-recordings of specific sections, but I don't have a very good audio recording setup. I've not worked on these sonatas much, so if there were specific sections to be clipped, I could work on those in my copious free time, and see if I can improve my recording options. Magic♪piano 18:31, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Adeste Fideles

I've never seen anything written about this, but I always hear the "Oh, come let us adore him" part of Adeste Fideles in the closing bars of the first movement of the D.960. Is there anything on record about this allusion? -- JackofOz (talk) 10:38, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

I can't answer your question, except to say I always hear it that way, too. Interestingly, the same thing comes up in the more obscure C Major Sonata D840. Ishboyfay (talk) 17:25, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

The D 840/i is more of a stretch, though. It can also be brought to mind by the end of D 894/i, IMHO. Double sharp (talk) 11:51, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

Use of the word "however"

RobertG has deleted the word "however" every time it appeared in the article (a total of 24 times, he only left it in 2 citations), but did not make emendations to ensure the logical flow of the text. I find the result pretty confusing. The Manual of Style guidelines warn against usage of the word "however" in instances where it may induce bias, but I looked through the text and definitely not all of the cases in this article were such. Anyway, I think the text is much better the way it was. I am willing to consider removal of the word on a case-by-case basis, but there is no reason to delete it completely; and then one has to make sure the text doesn't seem confusing, when one passes from one fact to a second constrasting one, without any intermediate linking word. Because of my time limits I simply undid the revision completely. Gidip (talk) 19:25, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree that in some cases, the removal of the word left the prose a bit awkward. Especially it was cleanly removed with not even a comma separating the two clauses. Still, looking at the diffs, there is indeed a comically large number of "howevers". Would it be possible to run through and see if many of them could at least be replaced with a synonymous phrase? "On the other hand" or "Contrarily" or whatever would be appropriate. Cheers.DavidRF (talk) 19:10, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Of course, that would be great! Gidip (talk) 11:28, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Lead image

It is quite unusual to begin a GA-level article without an image in the lead. Have you found nothing suitable? -- Ssilvers (talk) 16:53, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

References and further reading

I suggest that you split this into two lists so that it can quickly be seen which works have not been used as references. -- Ssilvers (talk) 16:58, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Now done—9 years later! Aza24 (talk) 00:27, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Music#Accidentals

For some reason or another someone changed the key signature indications so that they no longer conform to Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Music#Accidentals, can that be repaired? --Francis Schonken (talk) 08:39, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

I've restored all the recent changes, but fixed the accidentals, both manually and using search and replace. I knew there was a guideline about this, but I couldn't find it, so I didn't take any action. Graham87 14:05, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Tx! --Francis Schonken (talk) 14:07, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Use in films

The exposition of the slow, dirge-like second movement of the B flat Major sonata is prominently featured in the soundtrack of the film Copenhagen, though embroidered a little and fleshed out with light strings. Werner Heisenberg, played by Daniel Craig, is seen sitting at the piano and playing/improvising over the tune, as a guest of Niels Bohr, but the theme also returns in other scenes of the film, out in the open. 195.67.149.171 (talk) 11:17, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

Words in bold

Are (some) (partially) technical words in the analysis sections meant to be in bold? I find it unnecessary--U.A.— 07:31, 11 August 2020 (UTC)