Talk:Trout Quintet

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Trout Quintet is within the scope of WikiProject Classical music, which aims to improve, expand, cleanup, and maintain all articles related to classical music, that aren't covered by other classical music related projects. Please read the guidelines for writing and maintaining articles. To participate, you can edit this article or visit the project page for more details.

[edit] Recent copy-edit

I removed the following, which appear somewhat questionable or which could do with references to avoid looking like original research.

  • First movement: [Schubert's harmonic language is] more colourful: more colourful than what? Who says it's colourful?
  • Second movement: [three themes,] the second of which is noted for its poignancy. Noted by whom?
  • Second movement: This tonal structure [the chromatic ascent] is revolutionary to the harmonic concept of Classical composers such as Mozart and Beethoven.
  • Fourth movement: Schubert's innovation and originality lies in the fifth variation
  • Fourth movement: Schubert repeated this unique harmonic structure…, so it's not unique?
  • Fourth movement: [sixth variation and original Lied accompaniment is] based on a musical motif picturing the trout appearing and disappearing in the water (depicted by rising and falling notes, respectively). Whose interpretation?
  • Fifth movement: Since a repeat sign is written for the first section, if one adheres meticulously to the score, the movement consists solely of three lengthy, almost identical repeats of the same musical material - a feature that some performers and listeners may find boring. Therefore… implies that you're sadistic (or masochistic) to take the repeat, an idea which I would like to repudiate.
  • Fifth movement: [ending the exposition in the subdominant is] contradictory to the aesthethics of the Classical musical style: reads like an accusation! - isn't it an extension of those aesthetics? - Schubert idolised Mozart and admired Beethoven. I'm going to check in the cited books by Rosen.

I also removed the bit about Waiting for God theme music: it's significance for the subject was not stated. --RobertG ♬ talk 15:45, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

LOL. It seems Gidip requires Wikipedia to propagate this stuff. Never mind. Sorry, I thought at first glance it was a straight revert. I should have checked more thoroughly. I still think saying the repeat is omitted because it's "boring" is somewhat strange, no matter on what authority. --RobertG ♬ talk 17:03, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
The writing of a standard repeat sign does not necessarily mean that Schubert 'asks' for the exposition to be repeated. He inserts it in every sonata-form first movement without exceptions. It is impossible to decide whether he merely continued a convention or truly felt the repeat as necessary. There's a lot of written debate on this stuff. To cite just the side which chooses to dismiss the repeat sign, the best reference is Alfred Brendel's essay "Schubert's last sonatas". Gidip (talk) 17:51, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
And since the repeat sign appears in every sonata-form first movement by Schubert, mentioning it here is superfluous, hence the deletion. Gidip (talk) 17:57, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
That old chestnut! Well, performers can think they know better than the composer if they like. Schubert was certainly quite capable of not asking for the repeat (and he did actually take his pen and write the repeat signs). Brendel also argues against taking the repeat in D.960, even though Schubert went to the bother of composing an extensive lead-back. Beethoven also mostly writes repeats: but to ignore them is to ignore Op. 110. So I retire from this article, because I find contributing to it uncongenial. --RobertG ♬ talk 23:29, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
Ignoring a repeat sign does not necessarily mean that you think you know better than the composer (although this may be the reason, and Brendel indeed dislikes Schubert's prima volta in D. 960). In many instances, the issue is whether the notational limitations truly represent the composer's intentions; in other words, the question is, which is holier, the exact notation, or the composer's true intentions, not necessarily inherent in the notation? Brahms, when conducting, ignored his own repeat sign in his third symphony; he said he only needed it in the premiere, and once the work was familiar enough, he could do without it. If Schubert had written a repeat sign and added the word 'optional', I guess that would have solved the problem, wouldn't it? Gidip (talk) 11:34, 6 December 2007 (UTC)