This is an archive of past discussions about Franz Schubert. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
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
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 So far the most out-of-date pieces of information involved the "lost" symphony, which has since been found.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
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)
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 · Talk17:56, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
what were the pieces that (FRANZ SCHUBERT) PRODUCED
(from the article) Antandrus 01:45, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)
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 ♬ talk11:06, 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, SqueakBox14:25, 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)
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
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. Alegreen06:39, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
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)
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."
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". Graham8714:22, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
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. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.42.115.230 (talk) 10:20, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
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, SqueakBox19:07, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
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.--141.203.254.6511:36, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
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. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.203.254.65 (talk) 11:36, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
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:
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)
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)
On both Schubert and I believe Mussorgsky (and presumably the other romantic composers), the link to "aokhost.com" is broken. user: Chuffable —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.211.234.228 (talk) 21:21, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
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 ♬ talk16:07, 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)
Franz Liszt did arrange the Wanderer Fantasy for piano and orchestra. It's in 4 movements, and in a way it's concerto-like. It's sometimes played in concerts in place of a concerto, cf. Rachmaninoff's Rhapsody on a Theme of Paganini, or Falla's Nights in the Gardens of Spain, or Franck's Symphonic Variations. It certainly takes a virtuoso to play the piano part with polish but, like those other pieces, it's not a concerto. -- JackofOz (talk) 23:55, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
Composer project review
I've reviewed this article as part of the Composers project review of its B-class articles. This article is B-class; there are some minor holes in the bio, and the musicology section could use some work. My full review is on the comments page; questions and comments should be left here or on my talk page. Magic♪piano18:41, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
Yes, a wide variety of schemes have been proposed and adopted, but "controversy" makes it sound scandalous. A section header and TOC entry, too? This should be discussed on the list of works pages... it shouldn't be mentioned on the composer article.DavidRF (talk) 01:25, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
As far as I know, it's not a "controversy" -- it's the generally agreed-upon numbering system versus an older one that never got traction, and there was some brief disagreement. I reworded some sections and the header. Tweak as desired. Antandrus (talk)02:30, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
Mention on Radio 1
After a discussion on The Chris Moyles Show this morning a reference was made to the fact Franz Schubert had a strange left thumb. The edit that added that fact was from someone at the BBC (132.185.144.120), hope this isn't them messing around. Extols (talk) 16:43, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
Yes, the Chris Moyles show on BBC Radio 1 has had a running joke lately about how much Moyles looks like depictions of Schubert and also something about an injured thumb. The recent spate of vandalism edits seems to have sprung from the jokes. Markhh (talk) 19:03, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
The edits about the dislodged thumb are still happening. Rigaudon (talk) 18:04, 24 May 2009 (UTC) Signature updated, as I have changed my username since posting here. Rigaudon (talk) 17:36, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
We can monitor this. Since the semi-protection I requested expired on the 15th, there have been 5 anon edits, 3 vandal and 2 good faith. The near-parity of these numbers makes me reluctant to ask for protection again at this stage. Should the proportion or frequency of vandals increase one of us can go back to WP:RPP.--Peter cohen (talk) 19:15, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
My relatives have the same name as Schubert and are from Germany. I come from a long line of pianists (many generations) and wish to know if anyone knows if any of Franz's brothers or relatives moved from Austria to Germany. I would find it quite interesting to know that I may be related to him distantly. I am a professional pianist and now my son is very musical and would find this intersting. I am not sure how to go about searching Franz's family tree. Aragorn-04 (talk) 14:30, 18 August 2008 (UTC)Angela
There are a number of descendants of Schubert's brother Ferdinand, but none of them bears the name Schubert. You are certainly not related to them.--Suessmayr (talk) 06:46, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
Contradiction?
In the article, it says he died of typhoid fever. And yet, this article is in the category "Deaths from Syphilis". Now, I'm no expert, but I think syphilis and typhoid fever aren't the same thing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.13.218.224 (talk) 06:14, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
The trouble is, 'typhoid fever' was 1)ambiguous in the language of the time: it could refer to two or three different kinds of malaise, and we don't really know if the wording in the death certificate refers to the illness (the cause) or to a general description of the symptoms, and 2)a useful term if you wanted to hide syphilis which was, for obvious reasons, embarrassing. Newbould discusses this and he tends towards syphilis as the cause of death. The fact that Schubert did have syphilis seems to be near certain. I'll check the references for this. Strausszek (talk) 06:07, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
It's highly likely that syphilis was a contributing factor (if not the actual cause) of his death, which is probably sufficient for use of the category. Given the state of medicine (including, as you say, the vagueness of language used), and the relatively toxic cures attempted (lead and mercury seeming to be frequently mentioned), it's hard to know for certain whether something happened for some actual underlying reason, or was caused by the "cure". Magic♪piano13:23, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
However, we cannot have him in the Deaths from Syphilis category (or any other category, for that matter) without there being something in the article that supports that categorisation. Saying he died of typhoid fever does not do that. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 19:32, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
Of course. Typhoid fever (one of the senses of that designation was a specific illness) isn't the only one that could have been useful as a cover for syphilis! Strausszek (talk) 08:55, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
I'm not sure we're on the same wavelength. The category is "Deaths from syphilis". Putting him in that category is tantamount to saying "Franz Schubert died of syphilis". But is there anything in the article that says unequivocally that he died of syphilis? No, there's not. There's this: He died at the age of 31 of "typhoid fever", a diagnosis which was vague at the time; several scholars suspect the real illness was tertiary syphilis.
So, we have a categorical diagnosis vs. a suspicion. These do not match. The category must go, unless we can come up with a published diagnosis of syphilis - highly unlikely, imo. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 10:26, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
Oh I see, I had nothing to do with adding him to that category - at the end of the page - and nor did I use any list as a source. Delete him from the category if you like, no problem.
The article on syphilis has a list of notable people who died from that disease. Schubert is on it. I'm changing him to "suspected death" there; that list makes a distinction between certified and suspected cases. I'd thought that was the list you were implicitly referring to, categories at the bottom of the page is something I don't normally pay a huge amount of atention to. Sorry! Strausszek (talk) 21:50, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
This unnecessary promotion of sensationalism on Wikipedia is very unfortunate. There is no evidence whatsoever that Schubert died from syphilis, let alone even had the disease. No basis for the "speculation" regarding his sexual orientation. Yet it is impossible to remove this tawdry information from the article because someone can "source" these theories from some book that an author sensationalized hoping to increase the sales of their book. As for the aforementioned list of notable people afflicted with the disease, it includes Eleanor of Toledo. That's an even more ridiculous inclusion, since if I'm not mistaken even modern forensic science has been able to refute that claim. Dr. Dan (talk) 05:17, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
Schubert's "petition to marry Therese Grob"
I've deleted this passage because it's based on a misunderstanding. Steblin never found a petition by Schubert - there is no such petition by the composer - she found the petition of Therese Grob's groom Johann Baptist Bergmann that was submitted in 1820. See Rita Steblin, “Therese Grob - New Documentary Research”, Schubert durch die Brille 28, (Tutzing: Schneider 2002), p.83.--Suessmayr (talk) 12:03, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
Not enough room in the edit summary so: WP:YT has copyright problem; WP:TOPIC site of political polemic ("Marxists permeate every aspect of our lives"); subscription site; a karaoke page. --Old Moonraker (talk) 09:46, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
The portrait by Josef Abel which has been suggested to be of the young Schubert, doesn't really seem to be relevant to this page, at least not without some connecting reference. I'm contemplating removing it.
Hmmm, Schubert wrote Die Brugschaft D 435(which is unfinished), Alfonso und Estrella D 732, and Fierabras D 796. Also sketches for Sakuntala D 701, Rudiger D 791, Der Graf von Gleichen D 918, and something unnamed D 982. So yes, five is a wrong number no matter one how slices it. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 18:14, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
Yes, I'm finding the same thing. I also wonder if a one-act singspiel can count as an "opera" (Die Zwillingsbrüder, D 647). The Grout History of Opera breaks it out as sixteen works, including those preserved incomplete, only three of which were performed in his lifetime. Antandrus (talk)18:53, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
Woah, I missed all those Singspiel entries. I count six that aren't listed as unfinished (my list mainly goes by what Deutsch says in his original edition with corrections from online), and another three as unfinished, plus another unifinished AND lost. Hmmm.... ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 19:58, 10 August 2011 (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)
What the hell is important his sexual orientation?He was the best romantic composer and this is important.Somebody obviously wants to use this case for himself.Even though it is more likely that he was straight but very shy.
Odd post. On the one hand, you say it's not important what his sexuality was. I could agree with that. Then you make the unprovable claim that "it is more likely he was straight". You can't have it both ways. Either it's not important, in which case nothing further needs to be said about it; or, if you feel the need to make some statements about it, that suggests you believe it does have some measure of importance. Which is it? -- JackofOz (talk) 07:54, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
The debate about Schubert's sexuality is of course significant. Even if it cannot be proven one way or the other, it should be mentioned. Does anyone think that Schumann's heterosexuality, i.e. his relationship with Clara, is insignificant? In any case, the scholars who argue that Schubert was gay are hardly minor figures. If anyone wants to cite more evidence to challenge this question, they may do so. But to avoid the issue entirely, when an entire issue of a major musicology journal has been devoted to the question, is arbitrary. Galassi, who removed the sentences, is incorrect that no one takes the debate seriously. Zeke8888 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zeke8888 (talk • contribs) 14:27, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
Actually, it doesn't seem to be terribly significant, unless you can cite more recent scholarship. The subject sounds like it was a flash in the pan, based on the sources presented. I don't think Schumann's heterosexuality is important. His relationship with Clara, yes. The fact that that relationship was (a) sexual and (b) hetero is probably of marginal concern; it is the emotional and musical connection that matters. Magic♪piano16:00, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
I'm not crazy about it -- it doesn't seem to add much to the article -- but the topic has, and does receive significant attention. McClary's essay is probably the most notorious; mentioning it among a gathering of musicologists is a quick and reliable way to start an argument. (We had an article on that particular essay once; I believe it was obliterated at AfD.) Antandrus (talk)16:44, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
Dismissing the importance of a great composer's (or any genius's) sexuality is absurd and insulting. The art of biography has always countenanced the full lives of its targets; and you don't hear folks shrilly insisting that listing Herr Schubert's "lifelong friendships" has no business here, being unrelated to his music. When people say, "Schubert's sexuality just doesn't matter," the subtext seems to be "I hate considering the possibility that this person I admire was queer." As Robert Hugill notes, "There is growing consensus that he might have had emotional or physical relationships with men. This causes problems with some commentators who will tolerate Schubert consorting with prostitutes but not with young men." (http://www.mvdaily.com/articles/2004/03/sexuality1.htm)
In ANY case, the article as currently rendered presents Rita Steblen's early 1993 piece "The Peacock's Tale: Schubert's Sexuality Reconsidered" as a definitive deflation of Maynard Solomon's 1989 article ""Franz Schubert and the peacocks of Benvenuto Cellini". But even a cursory review of that debate makes it clear that Dr. Steblen did not, does not, and cannot speak for all scholars on the matter. I call attention to the august Charles Rosen's dismantling of Steblen, one example of which lives here: http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/1994/oct/20/schubert-a-la-mode/Sebum-n-soda (talk) 21:21, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
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)."
Elizabeth Norman McKay (referenced below) notes that Schubert's father recorded his height in January 1818 as 5'1' ' (157cm). However she also explains that Schubert would have hoped his being a composer would also make him exempt under one of the contemporary conscription clauses.[1]—Preceding unsigned comment added by Jlowther91 (talk • contribs) 12:13, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
References
^McKay, E. N 'Franz Schubert: a Biography' (Clarendon Press, Oxford 1996) p. 97
Norman McKay (who is really not acquainted with the primary sources, because she never did archival research in Vienna) is simply wrong here. Schubert's father never recorded his son's height and her claim that "Schubert would have hoped his being a composer would also make him exempt under one of the contemporary conscription clauses" is based on a glaring misunderstanding of the sources and the legal situation in the Biedermeier era. For a list of mistakes and absurdities in McKay's biography of Schubert, see Rita Steblin's review of this book in Music & Letters, Vol. 78, No. 3. (Aug., 1997), pp. 434-437.--Suessmayr (talk) 09:52, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
Infobox? Lack of information on the man's LIFE
Why no infobox? Reading this, I still don't know whether Schubert was ever married or had any children. According to some theories, he had syphilis, but it usually takes years and years for syphilis to cause serious health problems. Did he have a lot of romantic relationships? A mistress? Was she a patron? You have a lengthy section on his death but no section on his relationships. What you do have is hidden amid a discussion of his career when it should clearly be separated out.
There must be dozens of biographies on this composer and I don't understand the reluctance to have sufficient information on his private life since it clearly affects an artist's work. It is standard for other artists or performers to have a separate "Personal life" section and it's mystifying to me why one would be absent here especially considering the extensive discussion of his compositions. People come to an encyclopedia to know only discover what a person has done but to find out who they were. 63.143.226.144 (talk) 18:57, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
Is it true that he was nicked named the "Little Mushroom?" The radio KDFC keeps mentioning this, but this is nowhere to be found in this article. Tony (talk) 18:32, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
The nickname was "Schwämmerl", which Gibbs describes as translating "Tubby" or "Little Mushroom". "Schwammerl" is Austrian (and other) dialect for mushroom; the umlaut makes it a diminutive. It's probably not mentioned here because no one thought it important enough to add. Magic♪piano21:01, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
You are mistaken. The word "Schwämmerl" does not exist. The umlaut does not make it a diminutive, it makes it nonsense. The correct word is "Schwammerl" and what makes it a diminutive is the end syllable "-erl".--178.191.238.45 (talk) 07:41, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
"Unter dem Titel Schwammerl publizierte Rudolf Hans Bartsch 1912 einen biographischen Roman über das Leben des Komponisten Franz Schubert.
Bartsch hatte sich schon mehrfach in Romanen und Novellen mit historischen Sujets versucht. Hier nahm er sich Schuberts Leben frei zum Vorbild und verwendete dessen historisch zwar verbürgten, aber wohl nicht sehr gebräuchlichen Spitznamen „Schwammerl“."
According to this article, the nickname "Schwammerl", title of a popular biographical novel on the life of Schubert, first published in 1912, is historically documented, but was probably not very common.
As explained above, "Schwammerl" is in fact a diminutive of "Schwamm", which means "sponge" in Standard German and additionally "mushroom" in Bavarian and Austrian German. The diminutive "Schwammerl" is, at least today, the more usual form and means simply "mushroom", not specifically "little mushroom". http://www.duden.de/rechtschreibung/Schwammerl
A dialect form "Schwämmerl" can perhaps not be completely excluded but is rather improbable. Diminutive forms with umlaut are usual in Standard German ("Schwämmchen", meaning "little sponge") and also in some dialects (e.g. "Schwämmle" in Alemannic), but as far as I can judge not in combination with the suffix -erl used in the variety of Austria. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bhes13 (talk • contribs) 23:04, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
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). 70.53.128.11208:47, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
Yes, it's the second one, as you surmised. Even if Schubert junior wasn't well known until after his death, certainly not outside of Vienna, he was still getting a large number of his pieces performed and printed, and had connections in the professional musical world. At his death his list of published opuses - some of them a dozen pieces - was near 80 (I've read somewhere that the G Major piano sonata, written in 1826, was being published as he died; it's op.78). His father didn't have music as his main occupation, never composed as far as we know, certainly didn't try to get anything printed, but knew and practiced some basic skills: singing, playing the violin, reading music. It's a bit difficult to rephrase this in a manner that doesn't sound disparaging to Schubert's father but I changed to "He was not a musician of fame or with formal training, but he taught his son some elements of music." I don't think we should suppose Schubert learnt a huge amount from just his father, he must have picked up a good deal from other people around the family and around his father's school - and then, of course, from Salieri and the Stadtkovikt years. Strausszek (talk) 02:28, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
There is a drawing of "The Young Franz Schubert"; please see it at this Google page. It would be good if that drawing, or some version of it, could be added to the Franz Schubert article. Mksword (talk) 20:12, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Franz Schubert/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.
Comment(s)
Press [show] to view →
;Composers Project Assessment of Franz Schubert: 2009-02-2
CAVEAT: I've done a lot of work on this fantastic :-) article.
If an article is well-cited, the reviewer is assuming that the article reflects reasonably current scholarship, and deficiencies in the historical record that are documented in a particular area will be appropriately scored. If insufficient inline citations are present, the reviewer will assume that deficiencies in that area may be cured, and that area may be scored down.
Adherence to overall Wikipedia standards (WP:MOS, WP:WIAGA, WP:WIAFA) are the reviewer's opinion, and are not a substitute for the Wikipedia's processes for awarding Good Article or Featured Article status.
Origins/family background/studies
Does the article reflect what is known about the composer's background and childhood? If s/he received musical training as a child, who from, is the experience and nature of the early teachers' influences described?
Good.
Early career
Does the article indicate when s/he started composing, discuss early style, success/failure? Are other pedagogic and personal influences from this time on his/her music discussed?
Good, but it is unclear when his earliest compositions appear, and what they are.
Mature career
Does the article discuss his/her adult life and composition history? Are other pedagogic and personal influences from this time on his/her music discussed?
ok, but more on how he might have gotten syphilis would be good.
List(s) of works
Are lists of the composer's works in WP, linked from this article? If there are special catalogs (e.g. Köchel for Mozart, Hoboken for Haydn), are they used? If the composer has written more than 20-30 works, any exhaustive listing should be placed in a separate article.
good
Critical appreciation
Does the article discuss his/her style, reception by critics and the public (both during his/her life, and over time)?
good
Illustrations and sound clips
Does the article contain images of its subject, birthplace, gravesite or other memorials, important residences, manuscript pages, museums, etc? Does it contain samples of the composer's work (as composer and/or performer, if appropriate)? (Note that since many 20th-century works are copyrighted, it may not be possible to acquire more than brief fair use samples of those works, but efforts should be made to do so.) If an article is of high enough quality, do its images and media comply with image use policy and non-free content policy? (Adherence to these is needed for Good Article or Featured Article consideration, and is apparently a common reason for nominations being quick-failed.)
good
References, sources and bibliography
Does the article contain a suitable number of references? Does it contain sufficient inline citations? (For an article to pass Good Article nomination, every paragraph possibly excepting those in the lead, and every direct quotation, should have at least one footnote.) If appropriate, does it include Further Reading or Bibliography beyond the cited references?
Article has references; mostly inline cited.
Structure and compliance with WP
MOS
Does the article comply with Wikipedia style and layout guidelines, especially WP:MOS, WP:LEAD, WP:LAYOUT, and possibly WP:SIZE? (Article length is not generally significant, although Featured Articles Candidates may be questioned for excessive length.)
good
Things that may be necessary to pass a Good Article review
Article has fact tags
Article prose needs work (WP:MOS) (too much passive voice)
Summary
As mentioned above, I've worked on this article, so I'll try to be harsh. The article does give a pretty good picture of his life. There are a few small holes -- how might he have gotten syphilis, and more on his relationship with Beethoven. There are sometimes too many works just thrown out as "this is when he wrote them".
There could be a more robust musical discussion (possibly meriting separate article(s)) of his musical style. While 20th-century critical commentary is given, a better notion of the popular reception (both 19th and 20th century) could be given.
Last edited at 15:33, 26 March 2011 (UTC).
Substituted at 15:31, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Franz Schubert. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).
If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
From a first perusal, for spelling etc, commendably few points stand out:
Spelling
Except within quotations, you need to standardise on either English or American spelling: at present we have both ("neighbouring", "instalments", "travellers" but "favorite" and "watercolor"). Strictly, you should find out which was used first when the article was new, and stick with that, but in this article there are so few words in question that I think you can reasonably take a de minimis view and go for whichever of BrE or AmE you prefer.
I think BrE is preferable. Other composers of Western art music (Frédéric Chopin, Felix Mendelssohn) use BrE. Fixed, let me know if I forgot anything
We need a single version of the plural of Schubertiade: at the moment we have both Schubertiaden and Schubertiades. I suggest the latter, but it's your call as long as you're consistent.
It should be Schubertiad/Schubertiads: most sources and texts have it spelled this way. Fixed
Mozartean – a perfectly reasonable coinage, and it can be seen in eleven articles in Grove – as opposed to 95 incidences of "Mozartian" – but is not recognised by the OED or Chambers Dictionary. I recommend "Mozartian" here.
I also believe Mozartian is preferable. Fixed
Punctuation
"the Great C major Symphony" or "the 'Great' C Major Symphony"? – we have both at present.
Authors' names in the Notes: Firstname Secondname or Secondname, Firstname? We have a mixture. Erich Benedikt and Arthur Hutchings, but Horton, Julian and Plantinga, Leon – and so on.
It should be Secondname, Firstname. Will fix. Fixed
Why do some books have the year shown – e.g. Gammond (1982) – but others don't, such as Schonberg, Emmons etc? And McKay is sometimes McKay (1996) and at others just McKay.
All of the inline citations should have the year shown. Will fix. Fixed, please let me know if I missed any of them.
Three have slipped through:
Smith & Carlson, p. 78
Schonberg, p. 130
Plantinga, pp. 107–117
Fixed
References
You are inconsistent about adding authorlinks. See the 19th- and early 20th-century scholarship section: you give Fuller Maitland a link, but not Henry Chisholm (or Dvořák for that matter). In Modern scholarship you don't link Peter Gammond, Brian Newbould or Liszt. Elizabeth Norman McKay is not linked in the Modern scholarship section but is linked from Additional sources, three sections later. These examples are not an exhaustive list: if you're going include authorlinks for some writers you should check all the authors' names to see if there is a WP article to link to.
Publishers' locations: you sometimes add the location ("Vancouver: Read Books", "London: Methuen") and sometimes don't ("W. W. Norton", "Vintage Books")
All published works should include the location (if it is known), which is the case for both W. W. Norton and Vintage Books. Will fix. Fixed
Further reading
It is not clear what, if anything, is the difference between "Further reading" and "Additional sources".
Will merge the two. Merged
Additional sources
The second link to Hans-Joachim Hinrichsen is dead.
Will attempt to fix. Removed, unable to rescue
External links
To borrow the stock question from FAC: what makes Bart Berman a reliable source?
I will look into this.
As his website appears to be self-published, it would not suitable as a reliable source for information in the text of the article; however I think it may be OK as an external link.
"The Piano Quintet … and Winterreise are some of his most important works". I don't dispute it, but the lead should reflect the text, and I don't see anything that would justify singling out these seven works from all the rest. I'd tone this down, and just make this "Among his works are…." which speaks for itself.
That is true, but other GA/FA articles of composers, such as Felix Mendelssohn, list most important/best-known works in the lead.
I Changed to "His works include", but also included examples of his operas and incidental music.
The second paragraph starts with a dangling modifier: it was Schubert, not his gifts, that was born to immigrant parents.
Fixed
Early life and education
"According to Holzer, Schubert would already know anything that he tried to teach him, and did not give him any real instruction" – this says the opposite of what I think it is meant to say. It says that Schubert did not give Holzer any real instruction, rather than the other way round.
Fixed Is now "According to Holzer, he did not give him any real instruction as Schubert would already know anything that he tried to teach him"
"with a friendly joiner's apprentice" – was it the joiner or the apprentice who was friendly? If the latter, "a friendly apprentice joiner" would avoid ambiguity.
The latter indeed. Fixed
"Schubert could practice" – just flagging up that if you are going for BrE the verb is "practise". If you go for AmE "practice" is fine, I believe.
Fixed
"an important Lieder composer" – I'm a bit unsure about this. We wouldn't say "an important songs composer", and so should this be "an important Lied composer"? (or perhaps safer "an important composer of Lieder"?)
Changed to "an important composer of Lieder"
"In the meantime, his genius" – the last person named as a subject was Spaun. Better to switch the pronoun here and the "Schubert" in the next sentence.
Done
Teacher at his father's school
"resounding indifference" – what a strange phrase! Can indifference resound?
I'll think of a better way to phrase this. That was not how it was worded in the source given.
Removed the phrase
"(despite being agnostic[22][23])" – citations after the closing bracket, please (MoS).
Fixed
"enough money to his basic needs" – unexpected preposition. Do you mean "for"?
Of course Fixed
"This was likely Schubert's first visit" – if you are going for BrE I'd make "likely" "probably". For some reason the construction as here is rarely seen in BrE.
Done
Support from friends
"although he also continued to write Lieder (songs)" – it's a bit late to be telling us what "Lieder" means, after using the word three times already.
Fixed
"He also met Joseph Hüttenbrenner" – who is "he" – Schubert or Vogl?
Schubert Fixed
Musical maturity
"Of most notable interest …" – says who?
Removed
"penurious royalties" – he may have been penurious, but his royalties weren't. I think perhaps you mean parsimonious.
Fixed
"in the fall of 1823" – the Manual of Style bids us avoid dating things by season, as Europe's spring is Australia's summer and so on. Better to use the month or just "towards the end of …".
I just Replaced with "In 1823" and expanded it on circumstances of the opera's failure
"Die Verschworenen is a bright attractive comedy, and Rosamunde contains some of the most charming music that Schubert ever composed." Says who?
"It has been said that he held a hopeless passion for his pupil, the Countess Karoline Esterházy" – could do with a citation: as you cite Newbould 1999 for the latter part of the sentence, that book (p. 260) would do for this purpose.
Done
"The Lady of the Lake" – you could, and perhaps should, link the title
Done
"are now frequently substituted by the full text" – I struggled with this and concluded it was intended to mean that the words of the Ave Maria are frequently substituted for the original words. Changing "substituted" to "replaced" would make the meaning clear.
Done
"as it is widely, though mistakenly, thought" – the words "though mistakenly" are unneeded. The statement needs a citation, too – more for the mistake aspect than for the substitution per se.
Rephrased
The second sentence of the fifth para of this section is a fairly flagrant expression of someone's personal opinion, and unless there is reliable authority for "comparatively uninteresting" it will have to go.
I agree, and so do most scholarly texts: Done
"The compositions themselves are a sufficient biography." – Rather flowery writing and, worse, uncited.
"a colossal peak in art song ("remarkable" was the way it was described at the Schubertiads)" – citations needed for the statements before and after the opening bracket.
wp:OR to me - all of his Lieder truly set a peak in art song, not just Winterreise - Removed
"This collection, while not a true song cycle" – I think you should either explain in the text or in an explanatory footnote why this isn't a true cycle, or else omit the comment.
Done
"which had rarely been plumbed by any composer in the century preceding it." – says who?
Removed - and I also removed the "touching depths of tragedy and of the morbidly supernatural", reads like wp:SYNTHESIS to me.
"Six of these" – of these what? Songs in Schwanengesang presumably. And surely they are not set to words: they are settings of the words.
Of the songs - and I also Clarified and expanded to include Seidl and Rellstab as well
"The Symphony in C major (D. 944)" – another different way of referring to the work.
Fixed
Does Gibbs 1997 p. 202 say everything here from "The Symphony in C major (D. 944) is dated 1828 … to declared "unplayable" by a Viennese orchestra"?
Not the last sentence - Fixed to include what the text actually says
The last paragraph of this section is crammed with WP:OR. It needs drastic pruning, and citations for any conclusions.
I Removed it and expanded upon the music of his last two years in paragarphs above.
"his very last two months" – as opposed to his slightly last two months? I'd lose the adverb.
Done
Note 70 –reference to the Hyperion recording of what?
Linked
Final illness and death
"the composer saw court physician Ernst Rinna" – I had been nodding in approval until this point at the absence of clunky false titles from the article. This isolated lapse can be cured with the aid of a definite article and a pair of commas.
I just changed it to "physician"
"including the tertiary stage of syphilis" – why link syphilis again here?
Fixed
Music
"a relatively large set of works" – relative to what?
Removed "relative"
Style
"urging of friend" – missing a "his" before "friend"?
Fixed
"molds" – moulds if in BrE
Fixed
Instrumental music, stage works and church music
I haven't gone on about stylistic points in this review. For GAN the prose does not have to be stellar (it will be another matter at FAC if you eventually go there), but I really did boggle at "manifests itself" twice in two sentences here.
Last sentence of first para: citation, please.
"While he was clearly influenced" – careful with "while". If as here you mean "although" it’s prudent to avoid "while", which can lead one into all sorts of temporal confusion on the lines of "Miss A sang Bach while Mr B played Beethoven".
Changed to "although"
Second para – is there a source for calling the Fifth more Mozartian than the other early symphonies? (Irrelevant personal aside: the slow movement always reminds me of Haydn – Symphony 88 – rather than Mozart.)
I couldn't find one, and the earlier symphonies, such as the Third, also remind me of Haydn more than Mozart. Removed
Last sentence of second para needs a citation.
I just Removed it; I'm not hooked on the notion that it was an "innovation" of Schubert's.
"It was in the genre of the Lied, however, that Schubert made his most indelible mark". – Why "however"? If you can't recast a sentence with "but" in place of "however" there is no reason to include the latter.
Removed
"a myriad of poets" – the OED defines myriad as "a countless number". I think Herr Deutsch and others have counted the poets. A less flowery "numerous" or, better, "more than 20/50/100 poets" would be preferable, I think.
Changed to numerous
"being the top three most frequent" – or in short "the three most frequent"?
"among many others" – "among the others"?
"Also of particular note" – according to whom?
"His last song cycle" – but you say earlier it isn't a song cycle
The Dvořák quote at the end of the section is rather odd. What do you suppose "which the romantic school has preferably cultivated" means?
Publication – catalogue
George Grove wasn't yet Sir at the time.
"Autumn of 1876" – as above, we avoid seasons where possible. You can just say "October" here. (Grove and Sullivan left London on 26 Sept and arrived in Vienna on 5 Oct. Sullivan left for Prague on 12 Oct and Grove followed five days later. Citation available for dates if wanted.)
Later addition: On re-reading, I pause to query the statement that Grove and Sullivan "rescued from oblivion seven symphonies, the Rosamunde incidental music, some of the masses and operas, several chamber works, and a vast quantity of miscellaneous pieces and songs." There are two objections to this:
By Grove's account in the cited source, they got to see the manuscripts or fair copies of symphonies 1-4 and 6 chez Schubert's nephew, Dr Schneider; they also got to see the score of the Fifth, held by the Musikverein, which had been publicly performed as early as 1841. But they were only allowed to copy the Fourth and Sixth. Grove was later sent (by Mendelssohn's brother) the manuscript of the incomplete Seventh in E, but that is not regarded as canonical.
The second objection is about what else the two men rescued. The missing bits of the Rosamunde score, certainly, plus the overture to Die Freunde von Salamanka, but although they were allowed to inspect the original MSS. of the Teufels Lustschloss, Fernando, Der vierjahrige Posten, the Mass in F, and "several other works", the only non-symphonic work apart from Rosamunde that they got to copy was the Overture to Die Freunde von Salamanka.
So, I think, the most we can say of the symphonies is that Grove and Sullivan rescued two symphonies during their trip to Vienna, and brought the existence of four other completed symphonies to the attention of the musical world. Likewise with the other music. They rescued very little, but nevertheless made the public aware of the existence of many more scores. Tim riley talk10:51, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
Tributes by other musicians
"composers such as Anton Webern, Benjamin Britten, Richard Strauss, George Crumb and Hans Zender" – I'm wondering why the composers are listed in this order, which is neither alphabetical or chronological.
Just my opinion, but I think the one-sentence second para of the section comes under the heading of trivial, as does the table in "Filmography". In my view – which you are wholly free to ignore – the article would be better for their removal.
Duplicate links
The MoS bids us ration blue links to one per topic in the lead and a maximum of one per topic in the main text. There has grown up, quite unofficially, a convention that for Life and Works article it is useful to have a link in both sections. But that apart, there are duplicate links to Beethoven (twice), Franz von Schober, Symphony No 9 and Schubertiad in the Life section, and later Robert Schumann (twice).
I think that's all at this stage. I'll look in again to see how matters progress. As you are so quick off the mark I shan't put the review on formal hold (unless you wish me to). It's all shaping up very well so far. Onwards and upwards! – Tim riley talk08:47, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
@Tim riley: Thank you so much for giving this article such a detailed review - I greatly appreciate it! Of course, I would like to continue working on this article to get it to a FA. Before I started doing work on it, it was full of problems - some weird claims which weren’t remotely backed up by any reputable scholarly text, no lead at all, some incorrect facts, etc. Currently, it is much better. I should be able to finish addressing the remainder of the points you brought up in the next two days, and look forward to this article’s promotion to a GA! —Zingarese (talk) 05:29, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
@Tim riley: I think I addressed almost all of your concerns, and also did additional cleanup and slight expansion. (I was in the process of confirming "Done" on each point but I don't feel that's really time efficient or necessary at this stage.) Please let me know what you think! Thanks again, Zingarese (talk) 20:08, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
Good. We're almost there. Just one last point. I'm sorry to go one about this, but I think your revised text still doesn't accurately reflect what Grove wrote about his and Sullivan's discoveries in Vienna. There is nothing in his account to justify "seven symphonies" or "several chamber works, and a vast quantity of miscellaneous pieces and songs". They unearthed six symphonies (copying two of them), the Rosamunde score, the original MSS of the Teufels Lustschloss, Fernando, Die vierjährige Posten, Die Freunde von Salamanka and "several other works". Once that point is addressed, I think we can proceed to the ribbon-cutting ceremony. – Tim riley talk08:02, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
Good! Well, I think I can get out the silver-plated scissors and cut the ribbon. It gives me extravagant pleasure to be able to promote the article to GA. There are a few minor ragged edges in the references still, but nothing to detain us at GAN level (FAC will be another matter). The article seems to me a potential FA, and I hope you will take it to WP:PR and then to FAC in due course. But meanwhile:
A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
Well illustrated.
B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
Well illustrated.
Overall:
Pass or Fail:
It has been a pleasure to be part of this review, and I send warmest congratulations to the nominator. Now, on to PR and FAC, please. Tim riley talk20:17, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
Further reading
This seems to be a random listing, without rationale. It includes a number of works in German, a number of rather specialist books, and some not especially notable books which are 40 to 80 years old. Half of the works cited are by the scholar-swindler Ernst Hilmar (and are all in German). I propose to delete this unless it can be justified and/or rationalized.--Smerus (talk) 17:34, 29 July 2018 (UTC)
Hi @Smerus: I hadn't realized you left a note here before I undid your recent edit (although the main reason I did so was because at least one of the sources removed (Duncan) was actually cited numerous times in the article). I actually do support removing of this section; wikipedia should not serve as a catalogue for all publications about Schubert that exist in the world. If there isn't significant opposition against doing so in the next several days, I think I will move to delete the section. Zingaresetalk · contribs19:01, 29 July 2018 (UTC)
Hi.Sorry about Duncan, but I am pretty sure the others are uncited - perhaps you would check. I will recheck. WP standards are that works should not be included in sources if they are not cited - that's regularly mentioned in reviews for GA and FA articles. As this article has been made a GA, these standards should apply.Smerus (talk) 19:11, 29 July 2018 (UTC)
Since there has been no opposition to do so I have removed the section. It will always be preserved in the edit history in case there is good reason to restore it in the future. --Zingaresetalk · contribs15:14, 23 August 2018 (UTC)
There are indeed eleven Schubert sonatas where every movement is complete from start to finish and that end in the same key that they started in (D 537, 568, 575, 664, 784, 845, 850, 894, 958, 959, 960). These eleven are complete by any definition.
But there are also three where every movement is complete from start to finish but end in a different key that they started in, which led to speculations that they are really unfinished with missing finales that would return to the home key (D 157, 557, 566). (There are some Schubert songs from around this period that start and end in different keys, such as D 226 Erster Verlust and D 553 Auf der Donau, so it is not completely out of the question that these sonatas really are complete.) There has been a suggestion that D 506 is really the missing finale for D 566 (which I personally do not believe because it is too close in character to the slow movement – both are 2/4 Allegrettos in E major), but since it is also a finished movement, this doesn't move its status downwards on this list.
There is also another one such where the search for a finale may have been successful (D 279, where the suggested finales are D 309A and D 346), except that both possible finales were left unfinished. (The first three movements are considered under D 279 and are all complete, but the first is in C major, the second in F major, and the third in A minor, creating a situation similar to D 157.)
And there is yet another that has typically been published in a complete version, only Schubert's manuscript breaks off in the middle of the second movement, and it is not clear if the rest of that movement is Schubert or was completed by the publisher of the first edition (D 459). The third, fourth, and fifth movements may have been assembled by the publisher to complete a sonata. The last movement, in fact, is followed up in the autograph immediately afterwards by D 349 (an incomplete slow movement), which suggests also that this may have been originally another incomplete sonata.
After that we have the sonatas that are not complete by any definition. There are four sonatas where fragments exist of multiple movements (D 571, D 613, D 625, D 840). These fragments usually end just before the recapitulation, so it does not take much effort to make them performable (the exception being the finale of D 840). In the cases of D 571, D 613, and D 625, it is somewhat accepted which other pieces belong to the sonatas, so you will sometimes find these listed as D 571/604/570, D 613/612, and D 625/505.
There are also two more isolated first-movement fragments (D 655, D 769A) which are not really performable (D 655 only has an exposition, and D 769A doesn't even get as far as a second subject).
Finally we have some early versions of other sonatas. D 567 is an early version of D 568 in D-flat major instead of E-flat major (it also breaks off very close to the end of the third movement, so perhaps this really was finished and the last page simply went missing; it is a simple matter to resupply it from the later version). D 154 is an early version of the first movement of D 157; it ends just before the recapitulation. D 277A is an early version of the Minuet from D 279 with a different trio.
I suspect the "fourteen" figure includes D 157, 557, and 566 along with the eleven sure ones; the maximum figure would be sixteen if you count D 279 and D 459 as well, although these are more uncertain. So you have eleven that are surely complete; six that are surely incomplete; and five (six, depending on whether D 459 is counted as one or two sonatas) unclear cases in between, not to mention three early drafts. Nonetheless, the situation is complex enough that I would favour being a little more vague about the number. I like Javier Arrebola's use of the word "approximately" when counting them in his introduction (this is a great study on Schubert's unfinished piano sonatas, BTW). Double sharp (talk) 04:24, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
Sonatas, duos and fantasies by Franz Schubert includes the statement "Twenty-four extant sonatas and sonata fragments are listed in the 1978 version of the Deutsch catalogue." This may be the best one could do without risking being misleading. I also in a way like the use of "approximately" but in an encyclopaedia that raises as many, or more, questions as it might settle. Many thanks btw for the link to the Arrebola. --Smerus (talk) 14:08, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
Dear @Double sharp and Smerus: Thank you very much for this information I've found and taken a look at the cited David Ewen source - it states that Schubert's principal works include "more than fifteen sonatas", so "fourteen" must have came from somewhere else, but I don't know where... I would favor including the figure of eleven complete sonatas with a footnote explaining why D 157, 279, 459, 557, 566 are not counted. The Wiener Urtext edition of the Schubert sonatas orders the sonatas chronologically throughout its three volumes and doesn't add anything to 157, 279, etc.- it only completes unfinished movements. The Henle edition on the other hand divides the 11 objectively completed sonatas between two volumes and dedicates a third to the others... Unlike Wiener, they add finales to D 279 and 566 (D 346 and 506 respectively), but they leave D 157 and 557 alone. I suspect their reasoning is because they couldn't find anything by Schubert that could possibly complete them.. I would appreciate your view on what figure would be best to include! Thank you also for sharing Arrebola's study Zingaresetalk · contribs18:21, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
@Zingarese: To be honest I'm not sure we can do better than simply saying "eleven incontrovertibly complete sonatas and at least nine more in varying states of completion", if we want to give a figure. A footnote would certainly help to explain what is going on. As for the figure of 15: the old Breitkopf & Härtel Gesamtausgabe printed fifteen sonatas (the eleven, D 157, D 279, D 557, and D 566/i; the other movements of D 566 had not yet been published). D 459 was put together with the individual piano pieces like the Impromptus, as were the single completed movements (apart from the original version of D 505 which was only printed in the critical report); the unfinished fragments (except D 769A, which was not included) were printed as-is in a supplementary volume. Since the sonatas and the individual piano pieces as the AGA published them are easily available in Dover reprints the figure of 15 could easily have spread. Double sharp (talk) 06:24, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
@Double sharp: I'm so sorry for this delayed response. Yes, I agree that we should say including eleven incontrovertibly completed sonatas and at least nine more in varying states of completion, and a footnote explaining what the "varying states of completion" are. However, I think we need to do that without going into too much detail. ..Maybe we can add a fairly detailed explanation on such an article as List of solo piano compositions by Franz Schubert and have the footnote refer readers to that article (or whichever is better)? Zingaresetalk · contribs14:25, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
@Double sharp: No need to apologise – I've taken even longer myself on some occasions. I've replaced the number and tried to add a footnote to explain the situation without going into too much detail: it lists Deutsch numbers (to show readers where the figures are coming from), and then just mentions "many other possible sonata fragments and isolated movements possibly associated with some of the above-listed sonatas." I suppose maybe "nine" should be "eleven" because of D 655 and D 769A, which were surely labelled by Schubert as "sonatas" even if they don't get past the exposition (D 769A doesn't even get to a second subject group), Eva Badura-Skoda doesn't number them in her review in Nineteenth-Century Piano Music and her husband left them to the appendices of the Henle Urtext edition he edited – but if something is ≥11 it's surely also ≥9, so I guess it's not such a big deal. (Not to mention that not having a complete exposition never stopped Maximilian Stadler from completing KV 372 and KV 442/i.) Double sharp (talk) 15:36, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
"(...) His last song cycle published in 1828 after his death, Schwanengesang, is also (...)"
So, is Schwanengesang a song cycle or not?
Martin (talk) 21:07, 07/06/2013 (UTC)
I'd say not, not in the sense of a "story". Is Stabat Mater (Dvořák) a cantata? an oratorio? or what? How to express its character as religious but not church music, to readers who don't know already what the Latin means and what it stands for. The question came up in the GA review, - asnwer here, or on the other talk, or in the review, please. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:53, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
Nothing at all about his social life or sex life? Did he have kids? Was he gay?
A digital sculpture of Schubert (see File:Franz Schubert Digital sculpture.jpg) was recently added to this article. I don't find this image suitable to the article (or at least the lead) and I don't believe that Wikipedia has adopted the practice of using reconstructed portraits of historical personalities, even though those exist. Comments from other editors are welcome. Toccata quarta (talk) 10:19, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
I greatly admire the fascinating reconstructions made by Hadi Karimi (who probably deserves a WP article in his own right - take a look here) but I agree that that sort of thing doesn't belong in composer articles. And in any case there is no evidence of the CC licence claimed for the image.--Smerus (talk) 11:12, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
Agree -- the reconstructions are brilliant, but I cannot find any evidence of the image being released under CC. I think we should stick with contemporary portraiture (as contemporary as possible) for the lead images. I would not oppose using this image later in the article but only if license can be unambiguously determined. Antandrus(talk)14:43, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
Thank you for interfering and responding guys, I am a Wiki Rookie. I think that there is no difference in using the digital sculpture image as well as the painting made by Wilhelm August Reider 50 years after the composers death.
The render is an evidence for our modern technologies usefulness. There is a CC-licensed image uploaded on Wiki Commons called "Schub-CC.jpg" that can be used. Edward Ansari (talk) 15:06, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
The other image referred to by Edward Ansari is indeed correctly licensed. I would still agree with Toccata quarta that it is not appropriate to use it in the article, certainly in the lead. I would be more easy about using it elsewhere in the article, but it would need to be carefully described as to its sources and creation. The fact that it is evidence of the capacity of modern technology is not, however, in itself a justification for including it in an article on Schubert.--Smerus (talk) 15:23, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
That this painting shows the young Schubert was nothing but one of Rita Steblin's many wild and unfounded hypotheses. The man on th painting doesn't look like Schubert and there's absolutely no proof that it is Schubert. Why are people so hopelessly gullible?--2A02:8388:8180:B000:CD07:D331:374C:2358 (talk) 10:25, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
Unsinnsgesellschaft
An editor is seeking to include in the article a statement that Schubert was a member of a club called the 'Unsinnsgesellschaft'. I have twice removed this as there is no contemporary evidence that he was a member; nor, even if he were, does any authority on Schubert indicate that it had any bearing on his life or work. I have also removed a picture of a party held by the club, at which there is no evidence that Schubert attended. As this is a GA article I believe we need to be careful about relevant content. Editors' opinions are invited. Smerus (talk) 09:35, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
Some background. The 'Unsinnsgesellschaft' was a young men's club in Vienna active in 1817-1818. (Article in German Wikipedia). There is no contemporary evidence that Schubert was a member, only a comment in the memoirs of Heinrich Anschutz, published in 1866, that Schubert had been an active member and had met Anschutz's brothers there. There is no evidence or record that Heinrich Anschutz himself was a member of the club. No authority on Schubert has to my knowledge ever suggested that Schubert was a member or had any connections with the club. No authoritiative source on Schubert has suggested that his life or work were in any way affected by the club. The mention of the club in an an article on Schubert is therefore inappropriate and WP:UNDUE.--Smerus (talk) 09:46, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
Don‘t you know this one either?
Schubert and the Draisine: An Odd Couple in the Archiv des Menschlichen Unsinns
Comment. I do see that there were German-language citations to the statement that you also deleted and that they seemingly referred to his membership. Are they incorrect? Unfortunately my German is very, very poor. Qflib, aka KeeYou Flib (talk) 19:36, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
Thank you User:Qflib. One citation was to Heinrich Anschutz's autobiography, which as I state, appeared some 50 years after the club closed and is the only document to link Schubert with the club. The other was a reference to a book by Rita Steblin published in 1998, Die Unsinnsgesellschaft : Franz Schubert, Leopold Kupelwieser und ihr Freundeskreis. The only 'evidence' this book offers for the association of Schubert with the club is the autobiography of Heinrich Anschutz, who in his book makes it clear that he first met Schubert in 1821 (three years after the club closed down). I have not found any citation, from Steblin or anyone else, proving that Schubert was a member of the club, nor that the club had any effect on his personal or artistic development. If no such reliable citation can be provided, clearly any mention of the club is WP:UNDUE in the WP article. Steblin published several rambling articles claiming that she had made sensational discoveries about Schubert but all of them are (to put it mildly) lacking in supportive documentary evidence. As the article on Steblin in Wikipedia makes clear, she was an 'independent researcher' not linked to any academic body. A review of her book on the Unsinssgesellschaft in the "Modern Languages Review" by Peter Branscombe notes: " Schubert's name does not appear in the list of members [of the club], though he had close connections with several men who were [....] Steblin's ingenuity is not in doubt, but her arguments for identifying [as] Schubert the nickname 'Ritter Cimbal' strike me as interesting rather than convincing [...] the author's attempt to bolster her thesis by attempting to make him a member of the group, and writing works specifically for it, is where she seems to pass the bounds of probability." The reviewer notes that the vast majority of the book is devoted to biographies of the club's known members and to its records (which do not mention Schubert). Steblin does not demonstrate anywhere in the book that the club may have had any effect on Schubert's life or works. No authorities on Schubert have made any such claims in this respect, so far as I am aware. I hope this information is helpful to you. With best regards,--Smerus (talk) 21:06, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
Remove. I see. To tell the truth, I would have chalked this up to an editor simply disagreeing with someone else's scholarship had you not also noted the Branscombe citation, which does support removing the statement in question. Qflib, aka KeeYou Flib (talk) 00:39, 31 January 2023 (UTC)
In addition, I agree with other editors who have commented since that even if this were true, it's not very important as far as I can tell, as per WP:NOTEVERYTHING, although added in good faith. If it were shown to be important, I'm also unsure that including it but mentioning that there is controversy as to whether or not it is true would make sense as per WP:BALANCE, but am open to that possibility. I think the devil would be in the details there. Qflib, aka KeeYou Flib (talk) 16:39, 2 February 2023 (UTC)
Remove per WP:NOTTRIVIA. It seems clear from the above contributions that the sources for this edit lack verifiability, but even if they were verifiable, the edit doesn't enhance our knowledge of the subject.Pistongrinder (talk) 20:15, 31 January 2023 (UTC)
Keep: The quotation is clear and reliable, Heinrich Anschütz was the brother of Eduard and Gustav (and of course it doesn‘t matter if he was a member). For all who don‘t understand german, this is the translation:
″Franz Schubert was one of the most active members of the former merry nonsense society. There, my brothers had been associating with him in the most intimate way for years and through my siblings he also came to my house.“[2]
This is not only the opinion of Rita Steblin, the result of her research and a conclusion of her 500 pages book about it,[3] but also of other recognised scholars such as Ilija Dürhammer, who wrote f.e. this authoritiative source on Schubert. There are also detailed parts about Schubert and the Unsinnsgesellschaft in it, and in this context he mentions the drawing ″Kaleidoskop und die Draisine″ (16.7.1818 in the magazine of the Unsinnsgesellschaft)[4] by the member Leopold Kupelwieser, which shows Schubert and Kupelwieser and which is already part of the wiki-article.[5]
And: Instead, which authoritiative source on Schubert can give a solid evidence, that he was NOT a member, which would justify to omit this information?Chip-chip-2020 (talk) 20:42, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
Tina Frühauf is a professor at Columbia University of New York, she confirms: Among the most prominent members were the painter Leopold Kupelwieser and Franz Schubert, the only musician in the society. Although Schuberťs name does not appear on the members' list, he is referred to in a coded way as musician and schoolteacher. In documents of the Unsinnsgesellschaft Schubert is also spoofed as Don Juan, Juan de la Cimbala (the Don Juan of the cembalo), and Ritter Cimbal.[6]Chip-chip-2020 (talk) 10:13, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
In response (and avoiding capitals and bold typeface): If you (and others) trouble to read Fruehauf's article, you will see that she herself states that it is almost entirely based on Steblin's book (notes 1, 4, and 5, p. 119), that Fruehauf demurs from asserting that she has carried out any research on the matter, and that her article (which is only two pages of text) adds absolutely no evidence to substantiate Steblin's speculation.
To your question "which authoritiative source on Schubert can give a [sic] solid evidence, that he [Schubert] was NOT a member" , the answer is simply: Wikipedia exists to provide to readers substantiated facts, not to list any speculations which cannot be disproved. To believe otherwise is to militate against the very principles of Wikipedia. We cannot prove that Schubert was not a Martian, but that does not mean that, if anyone got the mind to assert that he was, it should be given space here. And, let me repeat, even if Steblin's speculation were to be proved, no evidence had been provided that Schubert's supposed membership of the Unsinnsgesellschaft has any bearing on his life or work - the whole issue therefore would be, as others have pointed out here, WP:UNDUE, even if true. --Smerus (talk) 17:17, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
Frühauf wouldn‘t publish and confirm it in an article if she wouldn‘t agree. Scholars normally don’t do that, do they?
(About facts: There are unsubstantiated speculations in the article now, f.e. in the episode about Therese Grob.)
The reliability of a source depends on context. Each source must be carefully weighed to judge whether it is reliable for the statement being made in the Wikipedia article and is an appropriate source for that content. - There is ample reasons expressed above as to why this source is not reliable in this context. Smerus above summarizes them quite well. --(loopback)ping/whereis10:50, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
Maybe, but it can't be kept in its original form. It's clear that this is controversy (cf. Branscombe); the controversy would need to be covered in a balanced way somehow. Open to suggestions. Qflib, aka KeeYou Flib (talk) 18:36, 11 February 2023 (UTC)
… other very positive and confirming reviews of Steblin‘s work on this topic, by Barbara Reul and Lisa Feurzeig (both acknowledged professors of musicology). Sure, we could write something like „most scholars agree that Schubert was a member of Unsinnsgesellschaft“ and add the draisine watercolour (Branscombe btw. seems to represent a minority opinion). Chip-chip-2020 (talk) 00:09, 14 February 2023 (UTC)
The majority of reliable sources appear to accept that Schubert was a member or likely a member of the Unsinnsgesellschaft. Franz Schubert and His World (2013) is an important recent scholarly work on Schubert. The book is 363 pages long and discussion of his membership in the nonsense club is allocated the first 38 pages of the book. How the club membership is included in the article is up to the editors who are interested in this article. Here is a preface quote from the book:
"There remain large gaps to fill, facts to find, and secrets to solve, a project this book seeks to advance. The order of the chapters presented here combines the roughly chronological with the thematic. The first three in various ways consider Schubert’s social sphere, his famous “circle of friends.” In some of the book’s essays, scholars revisit, revise, and expand their own earlier work. Twenty years ago Rita Steblin, a Canadian scholar living in Vienna whose formidable archival work on Schubert and Beethoven has yielded fascinating finds (and sometimes controversial interpretations), discovered newsletters of the so-called Unsinnsgesellschaft (Nonsense Society). Schubert participated in this secret society, made up largely of artists and poets, along with some familiar friends, notably Leopold and Josef Kupelwieser, but also with individuals previously not known to have had any contact with him. The Unsinnsgesellschaft was active from April 1817 to December 1818, when Schubert was in his very early twenties. The surviving newsletters—the Archive of Human Nonsense—reveal a subculture in which code names, secrets, playfulness, and irreverence were paramount values. They shed new light on some of Schubert’s compositions and contain marvelous illustrations, a few included here, that add to the limited supply of contemporaneous images of the composer." pg. ix-x — Christopher H. Gibbs
Gibbs does not qualify his statement about Schubert's membership in the club. There are other quotes by other essay authors in the book in regards to his likely membership in the nonsense club. So, I recommend those editors interested in Schubert get the book and glance through it. --Guest2625 (talk) 08:00, 15 February 2023 (UTC)
Dear CC20; 'most' (which implies more than 50%) would be incorrect. Nor do any of these scholatrs seem to assert Schubert as an 'active' member of the club - to say that he 'participated' is not the same as being active. As the Kupfellweiser brohers are irrelevant , and insignificant in terms of Schubert's life, it might be accurate - even if imo WP:UNDUE - to include a sentence "Some scholars assert that Schubert was an active member of the so-called Unsinnsgesellschaft (Nonsense-Society)." If such a sentence were included , that would not justify however including the picture you propose, which has nothing to do with Schubert. Wikeipedia is not a picture gallery. Smerus (talk) 10:17, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
I agree with Smerus that this image does not belong on this page. I also agree with Smerus that saying "most" is not appropriate, since it's impossible to prove or disprove. I might go a little more gently and say that "Several scholars have argued that Schubert was an active member of the so-called Unsinnsgesellschaft (Nonsense-Society).", supported with citations. Qflib, aka KeeYou Flib (talk) 21:58, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
Typhus vs typhoid fever in the Robert L Rold article
I corrected a reference to "indeed typhus" in this article. (In context: "gastrointestinal symptoms (namely vomiting), led Robert L. Rold to argue that his final illness was a gastrointestinal one, such as salmonella or indeed typhus." This "indeed" seems to refer back to the official cause of death, which was the GI disease "typhoid fever" -- which confusingly, is called "typhus" in German -- but typhoid fever is a completely different disease from typhus, which is not a GI disease at all. I cannot read the Rold article itself, due to paywall, but the context all suggests this was a simple edit error of confusing the 2 similarly named illnesses. If I am wrong and somebody who read the Rold article confirms Rold meant "indeed" the fever/rash lice-born disease "typhus", not the GI disease "typhoid fever", then please correct my edit. David Couch (talk) 07:22, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
I have since acquired access to the Rold article, and Rold never referred to what in English is called "typhus". He mentioned the original diagnosis of "Bauchtyphus" (which is literally German for "belly typhus" or "typhoid fever", not typhus). Rold wrote: "'Bauchtyphus' which Frank Walker has interpreted as typhoid fever [a reference was provided]. That, or a salmonella variant, was probably the terminal illness." Rold's final sentence is: "His death was from typhoid, not syphilis" [in other words, this is all about typhoid FEVER not typhus] David Couch (talk) 08:02, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
I think it would be suitable to add in the context of Unsinnsgesellschaft the famous watercolor ″Kaleidoskop und die Draisine″ (16.7.1818 in the magazine of the Unsinnsgesellschaft)[1] by the member Leopold Kupelwieser,
MOS:CREDITS discourages crediting the artist in infoboxes. I've also thought that that caption is quite wordy, I'd suggest getting rid of it completely and expanding the details on the image description page (MOS:CAPSUCCINCT). As for the birth and death locations, I have no idea why more detailed ones are getting reverted. Ligaturama (talk) 09:44, 1 February 2024 (UTC)
Yes, discourages, but not prohibits? I guess we are unlikely to get a whole new article for that painting (as we did for the lead image at Beethoven). But I honestly think the linked name of the artist with a date would be more useful. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:19, 1 February 2024 (UTC)
Hi everyone. I think adding an infobox to this article would be wonderful, now that they are more in fashion compared to many years ago. Would anyone strongly oppose this? Zingaresetalk · contribs (please mention me on reply; thanks!) 03:59, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
Fixed, let me know if I forgot anything
Changed to numerous
I've found and taken a look at the cited David Ewen source - it states that Schubert's principal works include "more than fifteen sonatas", so "fourteen" must have came from somewhere else, but I don't know where... I would favor including the figure of eleven complete sonatas with a footnote explaining why D 157, 279, 459, 557, 566 are not counted. The Wiener Urtext edition of the Schubert sonatas orders the sonatas chronologically throughout its three volumes and doesn't add anything to 157, 279, etc.- it only completes unfinished movements. The Henle edition on the other hand divides the 11 objectively completed sonatas between two volumes and dedicates a third to the others... Unlike Wiener, they add finales to D 279 and 566 (D 346 and 506 respectively), but they leave D 157 and 557 alone. I suspect their reasoning is because they couldn't find anything by Schubert that could possibly complete them.. I would appreciate your view on what figure would be best to include! Thank you also for sharing Arrebola's study 
![[2]](http://rogerbourland.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2007/03/schubert_4.jpg){kind=link}
mention me on reply; thanks!) 03:59, 29 June 2024 (UTC)