Talk:Franz Schubert

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:
This article has been reviewed by the Version 1.0 Editorial Team.

Contents

[edit] OCR problems

There are still some OCR mistakes--I don't know what currency the "~ 4" honorarium was in--probably pounds--and I'm guessing that the other sonata was not in Et,. but E#--but encyclopedias aren't made for guessing. We should check over these entries carefully before adding them.

On the contrary. It's much better to have this entry here with obvious OCR errors ready for correction and fact-checking (as long as there's a warning to readers at the top) than to have nothing at all. It'd be even better if we could go through and mark all of the possible OCR glitches and questionable entries in bold type or something. I've already fixed a handful of these by referring to lists of Schubert works online. Some I couldn't resolve, and others I didn't have time to ferret out. -D
E#? That'd be F, wouldn't it? Why would Schubert worry about enharmonics? --Hugh7 03:19, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Names

PS Do classical musicians go under their full name or under their last name only? I notice that the article for Mozart is not under Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart. The Wikipedia page naming conventions imply that that's the right way to do it. I'm not sure I agree with the Naming Conventions, but I'd like some clarification.

Typically if it's an unambiguous last name (not likely), we'd redirect to the one with the full name. I'll move the Mozart one. Koyaanis Qatsi

[edit] Austrian currency

The Austrian currency would be either Kreuzer or Gulden, but I'm not completely sure which. Gulden would be closer to dollars/pounds, I think. - Ortonmc 21:58, 2 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Ok, I went through a bunch of the piece names and cleared them up. A few might remain. So far the most out-of-date pieces of information involved the "lost" symphony, which has since been found. It might be useful to add Deutsch catalog numbers to the pieces, but that's a task for another time. -D

[edit] Where is Ave Maria??

I personally find it absurd that the words "Ave Maria" are not even mentioned in this article. Yes, it is true that the origins of this beautiful song are from the Ellens dritter Gesang, but that isn't mentioned either! Of course his works with Sir Walter Scott were mentioned but how in the world one could extrapolate a connection with Ave Maria (one of the most popular and beautiful sacred musical pieces in existence) is beyond me.

My opinion is that if you want this encyclopedia to be read by the public you must also mention the obvious, most popular, known and loved works by these artists. Perhaps it is difficult for you to imagine the joy one might find to study the biography of the person along with the TRUE history of his most famous, most popular, most played (and possibly most loved) masterpiece.

Nothing stopping you from fixing it. People who work here are all volunteers, and clearly you found the "edit this page" link in order to leave your comment. Antandrus 21:51, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)
I found it in the wierdest place of all, a Hitman game. The best Intro-song ever... Ave Schubert. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 155.232.128.10 (talk) 19:53, 23 January 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Die Schöne Müllerin

There was a reference to the "Müllerlieder" D. 795, but no mention of "Die Schöne Müllerin", which clearly counts as one of the most admired of all of Schubert's works. It turns out that "Die Schöne Müllerin" is D. 795, and (as far as I can tell), "Müllerlieder" was simply another term for this song cycle that was in use back in 1911 (1911, because it comes from a passage imported from the copyright-free 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica). I hope I have this all correctly...

Since I mentioned the 1911 Britannica, could I rant for just a minute?

I wish we had never made use of those 1911 Britannica articles, at least as far as they concern classical music. I think they're turgid, pompous, and POV. They also reflect the rather weird musical taste of an era that was completely focused on Romantic music, and patronized Baroque and Classical work. If anyone ever wants to restart this Schubert article completely, with a simple two-paragraph version free of 1911 Brittanica material, I'd be quite happy. Thanks for listening to my rant. Cheers, Opus33 16:56, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)

[edit] What Kind of superior/inferior is that?

it says: In clarity of style, many judge that he is inferior to Mozart, in power of musical construction far inferior to Beethoven, but in poetic impulse and suggestion he is unsurpassed.

I read JS Bach, Mozart, Beethoven, Liszt, Chopin, Debussy, and no article says that FOOman is superior or inferior to others. I wonder who are these 'many' that judge that in clarity of style he's inferior to Mozart for example. I'm not a super duper extra fan of Schubert to be idiot and to say these things, but I really wonder WHY and by WHOM is Schubert said to be inferior, and anyways what's the point of WikiPedia reproducing such idiot ideas

(above added by User:Nkour)

You may remove the section you quote above as being baseless, post on the talk page, as you have done, and request that sources or citations be found for that point-of-view. Hyacinth 20:52, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)
The Schubert article, as well as several other large articles on composers and general "classical" music topics, is mostly copied from the 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica. If you look at the comment right before yours from Opus33, you'll see that we have been discussing how to deal with the EB's relentless, heavy, and pompous POV. Feel free to edit them yourself -- I for one just haven't gotten around to dealing with the Schubert article yet, but I'm trying to rewrite most of the 1911 music articles that are still in Wikipedia, for the same reasons you mention. Antandrus 20:56, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I see a lot of righteous indignation and not enough editing. I removed the entire last paragraph save the statement attributed to Liszt as an unsourced, subjective evaluation of Schubert by a Britannica editor who can't be held attributable. "The standpoint from which to judge him", indeed. Mind you, I just skimmed the article; I'm sure there's lots more of this in the main body. JRM · Talk 17:56, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] what were the peices that (FRANZ SCHUBERT) PRODUCED

[edit] Lists of works

(from the article) Antandrus 01:45, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Assession (sic)

I intended to rewrite the following paragraph; however in the end it has defeated me so I removed it to here for discussion. While it contains partial truth, it seems to me to be problematic, full of unsubstantiated assertions and personal opinion.

Schubert's history in music remains equivocal; he spans the bridge between the Classical and the Romantic worlds. In his symphonies, piano sonatas and the great string quartets, he is described as the heir of Beethovenian classicism, but in the invaluable treasury of songs and song cycles, over 600 in all, Schubert is truly the Romantic artist, imbuing all his works with a captivating, indeed ethereal, lyricism that has never been surpassed by any other composer. It is with the utmost justification that Franz Liszt declared Schubert "the most poetic musician ever".

"He spans the bridge between the Classical and the Romantic worlds" has a certain amount of truth, but it is an uncomfortable phrase, and could be interpreted that he was responsible for the transition. The Beethoven influence is simply asserted, and the whole section talks up the Beethoven influence while ignoring the significant Mozart influence. Schubert is certainly not described as the heir of Beethovenian classicism "in" the pieces. Are all of Schubert's 600+ songs unequivocally "romantic"? "Never been surpassed…" is opinion and unencyclopedic, while "captivating" is a personal response. The word "Romantic" is here used as a term of praise, inappropriatly implying that romanticism somehow surpasses classicism. Is Schubert's lyricism "ethereal? On the contrary, I find it full of life and substance. The Liszt quote needs a reference. And the word "assession" - the title of the section - means, I think, "sitting beside or near". Was I right to take it as a malapropism for "assessment"? Any other thoughts? Can anyone else rescue it with references? --RobertG ♬ talk 11:06, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

Looks highly original to me, but whether it is or not it is extreme POV, no more deserving of a place here than the (undoubtedly common view) that his music (and all classical music) is rubbish, so IMO you did the right thing. We should not try to assess Schubert's work, and only mention broadly general views of his music that are well accepted, SqueakBox 14:25, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

Most of this article is still from the 1911 Britannica, mildly edited by hosts of passing editors (I think, but am not entirely certain, that it was originally written by Donald Francis Tovey). Sooner or later some brave soul could rewrite the whole thing from scratch, and I for one would be happy to see it happen. It's very difficult to pull all that 1911 POV out of it without completely rewriting it. Antandrus (talk) 16:10, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
Nah, I was wrong, it was William Henry Hadow (Tovey is a better writer). Antandrus (talk) 16:12, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] The Unfinished Symphonie deserves its own page

If someone could take the time... -- Fplay 23:18, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

It's here Symphony No. 8 (Schubert). Looks like it could use minor cleanup and moderate expansion. Antandrus (talk) 23:51, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Ave Maria sung by Caruso removed (NOT Schubert's)

The composer of the Ave Maria sung by Enrico Caruso is Percy B. (Percival Benedict) Kahn, 1880-1968. Caruso is accompanied by Kahn on the piano, and by Mischa Elman on violin. The piece was recorded 20 March 1913 (matrix: C-13004-1 Victor Cat: 89065). I have removed it from the Schubert Media section. Sj (talk) 20:54, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Schubert vs. military service

"At the end of 1813 he left the Convict, and, to avoid military service, entered his father's school as teacher of the lowest class."

In my music history text "History à la Carte" (2004 Longbow Publishing) the author notes: "It is often assumed that Schubert became a school teacher to avoid conscription, but in fact Schubert was too short - he was smaller than the minimum height of five feet, thus he avoided the mandatory military conscription for Austrian citizens."

I don't know how tall Schubert actually stood, nor if the Austrian military had such a requirement; however, it is not clear that his reason for taking up teaching was truly to avoid military service.

-- (from another editor) I'm not sure about that. The text I'm using, Richard Rickett's "Music and Musicians in Vienna" mentions "One cannot imagine that Franz Schubert would have made a very good soldier, with his short sight and diminutive stature (five feet two inches)."

The conscription record of the Vienna Magistrate definitely states that Schubert was too short for the military.--131.130.135.193 12:08, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] MPr

An MPR blogger mentions this article as needing improvement: [1] -Ravedave (help name my baby) 18:26, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Links

Hi! I've removed a commercial site and a white page. I've added a free resource for MIDI as searched from: http://www.google.it/search?hl=it&safe=off&rls=GGLD%2CGGLD%3A2005-26%2CGGLD%3Ait&q=schubert+midi&meta= (the first one) that contains a lot of good files.

I noticed that a link to pianopublicdomain is continuously added. But it really seems to be a commercial site instead. Please evaluate to remove it on all wiki if present. Alegreen 06:39, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] POV problems

From the final line of section titled "Last Years and Masterworks": "Schubert still left a vast corpus of truly wonderful music, almost more than the world has time to know and hear."

That is annoyingly subjective. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.103.14.228 (talk) 21:49, 11 March 2007 (UTC).

Feel free to fix it. :) This article still has a lot of material from the original 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica text dump, which is written in a highly opinionated style. It's very, very gradually transforming into an NPOV article--looks like we've been discussing it for years. Antandrus (talk) 21:51, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
I remember reading the article a couple of years ago and that text wasn't in there. Doing a history check, I found that it was added in this edit. I've copyedited the whole section and removed POV statements like "exceedingly beautiful". Graham87 14:22, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] How many Schubert children?

In the biography section, it was noted that Schubert was one of 15 children, ten of which died in infancy and four surviving. To my little mind, that doesn't add up. I'd fix it, but I don't know whether 11 died or five survived. Can anyone clarify this? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 130.221.37.208 (talk) 18:34, 27 March 2007 (UTC).Sorry, meant to sign this, Stephanie Barr.

Schubert's parents had sixteen children of whom Schubert was the 13th. See: Rita Steblin, "Franz Schubert - das dreizehnte Kind", Wiener Geschichtsblätter, 3/2001, pp. 245-65.--141.203.254.65 11:36, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Little Bear - Canadian TV cartoon (1995-2000)

Can somebody add a paragraph on how schubert's composition is adapted to be the theme song of "Little Bear", a popular Canadian TV cartoon aired in 1995-2000, by NickJr (Cartoon Company). Thanks! Susan Fong.

[edit] Forces

I know classical music and I have never heard this word forces used in this context, please source or it will be removed as nonsense. And BTW commenting on the editor in the edit summary is frowned upon, SqueakBox 19:07, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The wrong picture by Kupelwieser again!

The picture "Schubert at the age of 16 does not show the composer, but the physician Dr. Karl Josef Hartmann from Wels, a friend of Schubert. This notorious misattribution has been corrected in the literature some time ago, but people simply refuse to do their reading. A short list of the relevant articles:

  • Rita Steblin, "Die Atzenbrugger Gästelisten - neu entdeckt", Schubert durch die Brille 9 (Mitteilungen des Internationalen Franz Schubert Instituts 9), June 1992, Schneider Tutzing 1992, p. 65ff.
  • Steblin, "Nochmals die Atzenbrugger Gästelisten", Schubert durch die Brille 10, January 1993, Schneider Tutzing 1993, p. 35ff.
  • Elmar Worgull, "Zwei Fehlzuschreibungen in der Schubert-Ikonographie", Schubert durch die Brille 16/17, January 1996, Schneider Tutzing 1996.
  • Worgull, "Kunsthistorische Untersuchungsmethoden als ein interdisziplinärer Aspekt in der Schubert-Ikonographie", Eva Badura-Skoda (ed.), Schubert und seine Freunde, Böhlau, Vienna 1999.
  • Worgull, "Schuberts unbekannter Nachbar in Kupelwiesers Aquarell 'Der Sündenfall'", Schubert durch die Brille 26, January 2001, Schneider Tutzing 2001, pp. 101-108.
  • Michael Lorenz, "Erwiderung auf Elmar Worgulls Replik", Schubert durch die Brille 26, January 2001, Schneider Tutzing 2001, p. 109-10.

[edit] Redirect

I noticed that the Schubert page no longer redirected here, but that it had been overwritten with the text from Schubert (disambiguation). I have posted a note at Talk:Schubert (disambiguation) about this. Thanks. --RobertG ♬ talk 07:11, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Not Famous Father?

Could someone clarify what is meant by the intro paragraph's claim that "[Schubert's father] was not a famous musician, but he taught his son what he could of music."? But, according to the article, neither was Schubert. So are we to understand that his father was an complished muscian, but lacked notoriety (as was Schubert until death) or was it that his father was simply just a man with a basic to moderate understanding of music (which is what I inferred, but should be explicitly made clear in this context). 70.53.128.112 08:47, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "Further reading"

Why are Rita Steblin's two articles included in this short bibliographic list? These are part of ongoing discussions about Schubert and sexuality, but they represent an extreme position that is obsessed with "proving" Schubert's heterosexuality at all costs. Her arguments and interpretations have been challenged, and the articles should only be listed here if all sides of this particular issue are represented, both the original article (Maynard Solomon) that Steblin was responding to, and subsequent statements by Susan McClary, Kristina Muxfeldt, and others. But arguably, all of this discussion is marginal to the basic material in the Schubert article, and the Steblin references should simply be deleted. Including them here implies endorsement of her position, which is not in fact widely shared among musicologists. 129.170.202.202 (talk) 03:32, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Your statement proves that you have not read the articles in question. The topic of the two articles is not Schubert's sexuality and the rather boring discussion about Schubert "hunting peacocks", but a list of the visitors at Atzenbrugg castle, a source of huge importance that proves that Leopold Kupelwieser's drawing shows Dr. Joseph Karl Hartmann from Wels. All this is purely iconographic research and has absolutely no relation to the musings of Solomon, McClary or Muxfeldt about Schubert's and Beethoven's sexuality. The discussion about Schubert's sex life is not "ongoing", but was a phenomenon of the 1990s that has long died down as the followers of Maynard Solomon had to realize that they had been fooled by his countless mistranslations and misinterpretation. The whole tiresome topic of Schubert's sexuality has lost its relevance even among musicologists. Being totally unaware of the recent scholarly literature on Kupelwieser's portrait of Dr. Hartmann, you are in no position to judge its authenticity. You will have to accept published results of scholarship in full accordance with Wikipedia's content criteria.--Suessmayr (talk) 20:31, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
This is really embarrassing. Do you really think that Steblin only published two articles? You obviously don't know a thing about her scholarly work and her research on Schubert portraits.--141.203.254.65 (talk) 14:07, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
Wow, these responses to my original post several months ago are really interesting. I mean, since the Wikipedia article on Schubert (as it currently stands) doesn't even seem to make any mention of this iconographic research, Dr. Hartmann, Kupelwieser's portrait -- though I see it's debated here on the discussion page -- it still seems extremely odd that articles addressing this issue of supposed "huge importance" are deemed central or even worthy of inclusion in the very short primary bibliography on the composer.--129.170.110.204
Why should this seem odd? As long as the false "Schubert portrait" [2] by Kupelwieser keeps popping up on the web, these articles are very important. Schubert doesn't deserve being mixed up with Dr. Hartmann, it's as simple as that.--Suessmayr (talk) 08:14, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] "True Bohemian generosity"...

Here is a quote from this article: "but his friends came to his aid with true Bohemian generosity".

Disregarding the fact that it is not clear whether the term "Bohemian" refers to members of the artistic community (what the French would call "la boheme") or perhaps to Czech people (= from "Bohemia"), I find this statement all too subjective in its tone.

I am not at all an enemy of enthusiastic writing, even in encyclopedias - but there are expressions that simply cannot find a place in encyclopedic writing: "true XXX generosity" is one such expression. Besides, any subjective-sounding statement absolutely requires an explanation, a means of verification, a reference - "proof", if you will.

I would suggest that the statement is rephrased thusly:

"but his friends came to his aid", or "helped him", or even "generously helped him". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.142.50.88 (talk) 13:23, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree and I would lean towards your third suggestion.
This snippet is a stark example of the whole article's need for more specific references. Michael Bednarek (talk) 00:54, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
Most of the article is still a copy-paste from the 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica (I wish, I wish, in the early days of Wikipedia, that we had never used this: it is so hard to rewrite that barbed-wire-tangle POV from that great, but Wiki-incompatible work). Feel free to rewrite; it may be easier than trying to second-guess what William Henry Hadow (Newcastle-on-Tyne) was deriving his writing from. Good luck; I've considered re-writing the whole article from scratch, a big project indeed. Antandrus (talk) 01:35, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Schubert's Alleged Homosexuality?

Doesn't the long debate over Schubert's sexual orientation and the nature of his relationship with his old friend and "room mate" Franz Schober deserve mention? It's a widely recognized argument. Example resource(1). Example resource (2). SShifter (talk) 13:29, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't say widely.Galassi (talk) 16:43, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
Schober had a legendary reputation as being a notorious womanizer. Schubert surely must have been very jealous ;) !--Suessmayr (talk) 14:04, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
A debate has indeed arisen about this subject. I would say it deserves a brief mention - the debate, that is - without attempting to take sides one way or another. Because it will never be proven one way or another, unless some evidence emerges about his actual sexual habits, which is imo extremely unlikely. -- JackofOz (talk) 03:52, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
This debate pretty much fizzled out. Nobody takes it seriously anymore.Galassi (talk) 11:38, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Who is "Spaun"...

in the "Supported by friends" section? Perhaps the first mention of this person was deleted in an older version. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.101.153.145 (talk) 13:03, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Joseph von Spaun expanded slightly. Well spotted! --Old Moonraker (talk) 13:13, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Pronunciation

Could someone write the IPA? --Adoniscik (talk) 01:46, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Concerto

Schubert did compose a concerto in his lifetime - but nowhere on this page is the word concerto even mentioned! Does anyone know about Schubert's one concerto? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.109.13.135 (talk) 15:29, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

On what are you basing your assertion that Schubert "composed a concerto", please? Do you mean his D.345? --RobertG ♬ talk 16:07, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

I always thought that Schubert was the only great composer (ie. Bach, Beethoven, Mozart etc.) who did not write a concerto. He only wrote a Rondo for Violin and String Orchestra, and that would be the closest he got to a concerto Rudolf Ondrich (talk) 08:48, 16 May 2008 (UTC)