Talk:Sonata in C major for piano four-hands, D 812 (Schubert)

Title

We start out talking about a Sonata in C major. Only down below do we tell the story of how it became known as Grand Duo.

I think I'd rather show both Schubert's title and the common title: Sonata in C ("Grand Duo"), or similar.

Thoughts? -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 05:32, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Renaming

See WT:NCM#More examples (Schubert) --Francis Schonken (talk) 05:59, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Update: that talk has in the mean while been archived to: Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (music)/Archive 2#More examples (Schubert). --Francis Schonken (talk) 15:16, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

Article title

I wonder about the article title, Sonata in C major for piano four-hands, D 812 (Schubert). To my understanding, we usually first say what it is, Piano Sonata or here Sonata for Two Pianos, then the key if needed, then a catalogue number if the better disambiguation. We add the composer in brackets for Opus numbers, which is not the case here. This article could simply and uniquely be Sonata for Two Pianos, D 812 (with redirects, of course). The question concerns more than one article, but we need to start somewhere. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:39, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

• Except that it is not a "Sonata for Two Pianos" – it is a "Sonata for piano four-hands", requiring only a single piano (with two pianists) for performance. Other than that, Talk:Wiegenlied, D 498 (Schubert)#Requested moves, and the WP:NCM rules based on that broad RM, would have the article end on "..., D 812 (Schubert)" anyhow (at least a new RM would be needed to deviate from that), and Sonata in B-flat major for piano four-hands, D 617 (Schubert) has the same article title structure, so, changing this one would, as a bare minimum, involve changing the other one too. Anyhow, initiate a WP:RM if you think the article would benefit from a title change (don't forget to make it a multi-RM, also involving the other one in that case). --Francis Schonken (talk) 11:57, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

  Sorry about the two pianos vs. four-hands, my mistake. I have no time for a multiple RM, just wonder why we are so needlessly wordy in this case and others. I see Sonata for Piano Four-hands in C major, K. 521, so think this could be Sonata for Piano Four-hands, D 812. I'll make the redirects I find useful, but won't put more effort into this. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:20, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

  Would need a RM anyhow (for clarity, these moves would not, so performing them while I write this:

  • Sonata for Piano Four-hands in C major, K. 521 → Sonata in C major for piano four-hands, K. 521 or Sonata for Piano Four-Hands in C major, K. 521
  • Sonata for Piano 4 hands in D major, Op. 6 → Sonata in D major for piano four-hands, Op. 6 (Beethoven) or Sonata for Piano Four-Hands in D major, Op. 6 (Beethoven))

  If it came to a RM for the Schubert four-hands sonatas, I'd oppose for reasons given above (and more).

  Also, for the four piano four-hands sonatas that currently seem to exist as separate articles in Wikipedia, *all of them* name the key in the article title (as do all other piano sonatas of these three composers afaik), even if their name can be written unambiguously without the key. So for me, that would be a no-no for leaving the key out of the article title.

  Also, don't understand why it would be "Four-hands" and not "Four-Hands" (putting that expression after the key allows to write it without capitals, avoiding that conundrum – see last two examples of the WP:NCM#Capitalization of generic names section).

  So, as far as I'm concerned it's up to you to start a WP:RM – or not – but talking about options that are against current guidance, without RM, is simply time sink. --Francis Schonken (talk) 12:49, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

  I looked at current guidance now - yes, for the first time - and saw no indication for having the key first and then instruments, nor for "Four-Hands" - isn't that one expression, needing only one capital letter? Excuse my ignorance, - I'm ready to learn. I also looked at Sonata, and all examples given there (which mention a key) first have the instruments and then the key. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:27, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

  Re. "isn't that one expression, needing only one capital letter?" – not sure what you're alluding to (aren't you just inventing rules of English grammar as you go along?), but afaik Nineteen Eighty-Four is the correct spelling, not Nineteen Eighty-four. So, can we please stop this time-sink? And truly, "I looked at current guidance now - yes, for the first time - and saw no indication for having the key first and then instruments" – I gave you section, and exact place in that section – if you still can't find it, I give up: please don't squander your fellow-editor's time, it is worse than impolite. --Francis Schonken (talk) 14:13, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

Merged this new section with the previous one about the article title: see above where a link can be found to the discussion which led to the current article title. --Francis Schonken (talk) 15:16, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

Schubert symphonies

I propose adding this to the list of Schubert's symphonies, though obviously depending on the outcome of the discussion below. As the current "Schubert symphonies" list contains various fragments and sketches such as D615, D708A and D936, it therefore seems logical for it also to include the symphonic version of D 812 which is supported by various composers and musicologists from Schumann and Joachim onwards, and which could otherwise be overlooked. This is referred to both in the "Grand Duo" and "Schubert's symphonies" articles. I accept that this is a bit of a grey area; for example Pictures at an Exhibition (an obvious parallel) is allocated to both piano and orchestral categories even though Mussorgsky never orchestrated it, whereas the orchestral version of Schubert's "Death and the Maiden" is not; however, the latter is a transcription of a piece very clearly intended as a string quartet, which the evidence suggests does not apply to D812. Hyperman 42 (talk) 06:54, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

The theory that this would be some sort of symphony by Schubert is widely discredited in modern scholarship. As it happens, you started to distort the content of the article against WP:NPOV policy. I placed enough tags in the article to make clear where the errors and questionable content are, so please fix the article instead of discussing about a categorisation that is not going to happen. --Francis Schonken (talk) 06:58, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

Evidence please. I have also added a separate section above where this specific aspect can be discussed. I agree that should be resolved first. I would be happy to see a balanced point of view giving objections to the symphony theory. However, statements like "it is widely discredited" and "this is against NPOV" are POV themselves. Hyperman 42 (talk) 07:18, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

Moved to below. Deutsch catalogue for starters. The Brown 1958 source, linked from the article. Brian Newbould (awaiting a source being provided). Etc. --Francis Schonken (talk) 07:24, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

Fine, if you can give a page reference for Brown that would be helpful (although it is not significantly more "modern" than Tovey or Shore). Does the Deutsch catalogue actually discuss this aspect in detail? I think it will be helpful to have a record of both opposing viewpoints in the article. Hyperman 42 (talk) 08:03, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

By point:

• Brown 1958 pp. 187–188 (the first of these pages is already linked directly from the Brown 19851958 footnote in the article).
• Brown 1958 comments on (and rejects) Tovey's 1935 "symphony" theory, so more modern. Shore is, afaik, not so much "scholarship" (rather first-hand experience as performer), so he probably repeats what he heard elsewhere as far as the theories go. And this source is anyhow also older than Brown, thus less modern.
• The original English-language Deutsch catalogue (1951) used to be partly accessible via Google books, but that is no longer the case afaics, so I have no further information on what it contained on the subject. The second, German-language, version of the catalogue (1978) gives extensive information on the related works (still keeping the Gmunden-Gastein symphony as a separate number, but further rejecting the notion it would be different from the 9th), linking to various research and publications on the topic. In that version of the catalogue the rejection of the 4-hands Sonata being connected to the 1724 symphony is handled without much ado (p. 510), primarily based on Schubert's own letters: the 1724 symphony and the 4-hands Sonata are both mentioned in these letters, but separately, so that, at least in Schubert's mind, there was no confusion that these were separate works. That means that even in the remote possibility that the Gmunden-Gastein and 9th symphonies would not be identical, the former symphony is still certainly not identical to the 4-hands Sonata, and should, in that unlikely scenario, be considered lost (note that there is still another extant composition by Schubert that at some point in time was thought to be a version of the Gmunden-Gastein, and although also that one was rejected as being a version of the 1724 symphony, it would still make more chance to be that work than the 4-hands Sonata).
• All in all, the article should give *less* weight to all these theories: much more has been written about the Grand Duo, so the rejected theories, and their rejection in scholarship, should over-all get less weight than other content about the Sonata.

--Francis Schonken (talk) 08:46, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

Thank you, the Brown reference and link are especially helpful. On this evidence, I'd agree that I have unbalanced the article, so I will amend it and remove most of my additions on to this talk page which is a more appropriate repository. Hyperman 42 (talk) 09:52, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

The main article has now been edited. If you feel this is now acceptable, hopefully you will feel able to remove the "issues" box.

Incidentally I would not reject Shore's viewpoint altogether, because although he is coming from a different perspective, nevertheless he was a highly experienced orchestral performer and knew what music seemed effective in orchestral terms and what did not. His comments contrasting Elgar's and Richard Strauss' orchestral writing, for example, are most revealing. Hyperman 42 (talk) 10:42, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

Symphony theory

The "symphony theory" has been challenged, and some references have been given supporting it, so it would be useful to have any references opposing it. Note that there are various forms of the symphony theory, and some are now discredited (e.g. identification with the Gastein symphony, as noted in the article) whereas others, based on style, are very much alive. So any references would need to be relevant to the specific grounds for objection. Personally I would say that the work sounds highly convincing in its symphonic format (Joachim or others). Hyperman 42 (talk) 07:16, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

"broadly rejected in modern scholarship" is a correct qualification of the theory. --Francis Schonken (talk) 07:24, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

Yes, the weight of evidence (in section above) suggests that it is certainly not the Gastein symphony and that it is not a piano transcription of a previously written symphony. This leaves the possibility that Schubert conceived it, intentionally or accidentally, on symphonic lines, given that he was in his search to write a "grand symphony" which culminated in the Great C major. He had the opportunity to write piano duet music and hear it performed, which was not possible for him for a large-scale symphony; and this was an era when symphonies were commonly available in four-hand arrangements (indeed many Haydn symphonies were primarily available in this form until well into the 20th century). It seems clear that Schubert's manuscript was definitely written for piano four-hands, as the title shows.

I had included the following text in the main article, but I accept the point that it unbalances the article and gives undue weight to the symphony theory, and am therefore moving it to here:

However, numerous other musicians over the years, including Tovey and Shore, have considered that the work is written in symphonic style (though Brian Newbould disagrees), and is probably based on a full-length sketch for a symphony, like that for the Symphony No. 7, D729. Another possibility is that Schubert, in his long-standing desire to write a "grand symphony" which culminated in No. 9, was unconsciously writing in symphonic style. Tovey stated:

An arrangement of Beethoven's Fifth Symphony would hardly make the players feel more as if they were trying to play cricket with ping-pong bats. From beginning to end there is not a trace of pianoforte style in the work.

Hopefully this now gives a more acceptable balance. Hyperman 42 (talk) 10:33, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

Just to complete the background evidence, Shore referred to the orchestrated version as an "unquestionable symphony", and Tovey that "the Grand Duo proved, when orchestrated by Joachim, to be essentially one of the most important symphonies in the classical repertoire." These would not conflict, however, with the primacy of the piano duet version. And, as pointed out, Brown feels the opposite, that it is "unconvincing" in orchestral form. Hyperman 42 (talk) 11:03, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

References

Closed access redundant URL

What's the point of that URL? Nemo 14:43, 20 September 2020 (UTC)