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 --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 * Update: that talk has in the mean while been archived to: Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (music)/Archive 2. --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) 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)
 * 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), 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 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)

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: --Francis Schonken (talk) 08:46, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Brown 1958 pp. 187–188 (the first of these pages is already linked directly from the Brown 1985 1958 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.


 * 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)

Just to round this off, on the basis of the excellent additional information added by others regarding the symphony theory (also see below), I withdraw my original suggestion that this should be included in the list of Schubert symphonies. Hyperman 42 (talk) 16:56, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Re. "... by others ..." – well, one editor afaik, your interlocutor in this talk page section, i.e. yours truly. --Francis Schonken (talk) 08:47, 2 October 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)

Interesting to see the considerable expansion in the article since these comments were originally made, which gives a great deal of additional valuable information. Kudos to all those who have dug out this information. Hyperman 42 (talk) 16:53, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

Closed access redundant URL
What's the point of that URL? Nemo 14:43, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
 * In this case, the DOI and the JSTOR don't lead to the same page. The JSTOR is likely the more accessible one, thus the url parameter holds the likely more broadly accessible external link. --Francis Schonken (talk) 15:05, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what you're talking about. The JSTOR identifier leads to the same place as the JSTOR URL for the same identifier. Nemo 15:20, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Re. "The JSTOR identifier leads to the same place as the JSTOR URL" – indeed, that was understood. --Francis Schonken (talk) 15:51, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
 * So why are you talking about the DOI? What's the point of adding the URL and under what policy or guideline do you think that's warranted? Nemo 18:20, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Not sure whether I understand your question. Yes, I was comparing the DOI link with the JSTOR link, I said so in my first reply above. --Francis Schonken (talk) 21:53, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
 * In your recent edit summaries you wrote "... addition of link against policy" and "Verifiability and related guidelines"  – Afaik nor this policy, nor its related guidelines, mandate removal of an url link such as to a JSTOR page (as is the case here). Could you explain where you think such policy would mandate such removal?
 * Other than that, I suppose this disagreement follows from the current disparity between Template:Citation Style documentation and consensus formed via RfC, so I propose to continue this conversation at Help talk:Citation Style 1/Archive 71, which I initiated precisely to get that sorted. --Francis Schonken (talk) 05:28, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Your suppositions may be wrong. You asked me to comment on the talk page, and that's what I'm doing. If I need to do it on multiple talk pages, we can do it. The alternative was to discuss on your user talk page, but you refused.
 * I never claimed that policies "mandate" the removal of the URL. Removing the redundant and useless URL is merely recommended. Given you re-inserted multiple times without explanation, I'm still missing an explanation on why you're adding it. Reinstating an edit without explaining your reasons is uncooperative behaviour. Nemo 13:15, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

Peer review
If this article heads for PR and FAC, I suggest that detailed analysis of the music - as given by Charles Rosen, Renate Wieland and Jürgen Uhde, and probably others - be added. Best right now, because it's going to be presented on the Main page. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:29, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Re. "Charles Rosen, Renate Wieland and Jürgen Uhde" – can you please provide publication specifics (title, ISBN, and/or whatever else that helps to locate these publications), and page numbers where their analyses of this composition are given? Tx. --Francis Schonken (talk) 10:47, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
 * No, I'm not the expert, - the book by Wieland and Uhde is linked from there articles, Rosen wrote the Cambridge Companion to Schubert. This is such a pinnacle piece - there must be more. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:43, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Re. "I'm not the expert", on the contrary, you appear to be, when you know that Wieland & Uhde's very specialist book (not in any way "popular" literature: it is not even mentioned at Google Books afaics), issued by a music publisher rather known for sheet music than for prose books, contains a description of the Sonata, and when you know that it is precisely Rosen's contribution to the Cambridge Companion (afaics his only contribution to any of the books of that series and also afaics his only publication on Schubert) that contains some material on precisely this Sonata, and further know that Rosen's essay is a pinnacle piece about the Sonata (I couldn't find a confirmation of that information anywhere) . Anyhow, I still found some other specialist literature mentioning the Sonata, and added all of that to a new "Further reading" section in the article, awaiting someone to pick any of these up for referenced article content.
 * PS, Re. "you don't have to link to the DYK" (in this edit summary): 1. Don't discuss via edit summaries please; 2. the DYK will likely not be transcluded on this page forever, so I link to where the suggestion can be found to which I replied. The suggestion should not have been on that page to begin with, but that has already been said more than once as far as I can remember. --Francis Schonken (talk) 13:53, 3 March 2021 (UTC); updated 05:05, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
 * The DYK will be here until someone removes it. I remove it for articles where I made the nomination when the DYK credit comes, because it has a link to it. - I didn't want to say Rosen's work was a pinnacle, but this Schubert composition. Some days, English seems hard, sorry. - I'm not an expert on sources for Schubert, but an expert was blocked. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:08, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
 * There's anyhow not a reason not to link to the DYK when one replies here to one of its comments. I retracted my comment on "pinnacle" as I apparently misunderstood. Please do the same with your "... made it to GA without covering the music" comment, as it is an even more obvious error. But sure, you're without doubt an expert on sources for this Schubert composition. --Francis Schonken (talk) 05:05, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Score examples
Taking up some of 's suggestions (posted at the DYK page):
 * 1) Something specific for four-hands piano pieces is that they aren't published as scores, but as "Secondo" and "Primo" performance parts printed on alternating pages of the sheet music, so copy-pasting (cropped?) images from such publications (i.e., those who are no longer under copyright) does not usually lead to something that is easy to parse for a human reader of the encyclopedia (even for those who read Western music notation). For that reason I chose the music incipit of Joachim's arrangement score (currently showing in the "Reception" section while the arrangement was of course part of the reception of Schubert's piano piece): it does at least show the melody lines one under the other, in a normal score arrangement.
 * 2) Re. "the score extension being disabled doesn't help" – true. Below I point to some publications which are still under copyright (so copy-pasting their score images to Wikipedia would only be allowed under "fair use" – I don't think there is any habit whatsoever to insert "fair use" music examples in GA articles) – converting such examples (or combined excerpts of published Secondo/Primo parts) to wiki-score would be possible copyright-wise, but is currently hampered by the extension being disabled. Now, Wikipedia has been producing GAs (and FAs) about musical compositions without any of such score examples, from times immemorial, even before the score extension existed. To give you an example, the BWV 243a and BWV 243 articles were GA-promoted around the same time (several years ago): neither had a single "score extension" type of music example at the time (don't know whether the score extension already existed at the time, but anyway it wasn't used in either article). The first of these two articles still doesn't have a single music example (neither an image nor one realized with the score extension). For the second, which already had a few "image"-type music notation examples when the article was GA-promoted, I added two "extension"-type music examples in 2015 (with some help of others!) immediately after I was made aware the extension existed. In sum: the score extension was helpful when it was operational, but its present nonoperational state does not (or at least: should not) prevent GA-promotion, either with or without examples in music notation. Here are score excerpts (i.e. not in the Secondo/Primo format) of Schubert's composition in published sources:
 * 3) Brown 1958, p. 188 (1st and 2nd subject of the first movement: the first subject is already shown in the current Wikipedia article, via Joachim's arrangement score, see above).
 * 4) Deutsch et al. 1978, p. 509 (incipits, without information about musical themes etc)
 * 5) Rosen 1997, pp. 81, 82, 84, 85–86, 88–89 (all from the first movement, except for the last example, pp. 88–89, from the fourth movement).
 * 6) Guez 2018, pp. 29, 31, 33 (all first movement, all of these score examples thoroughly edited to illustrate the points the author is making in the prose)
 * These are the only such music examples I know of (believe me, I searched). If you know of any other such examples, especially if they would be available in publications without copyright restrictions, please share the information.

I'd be glad some additional music notation material was included in this article, so would be open to all kinds of practical suggestions. --Francis Schonken (talk) 10:33, 3 March 2021 (UTC); Updated, i.e. added 2.3 05:21, 4 March 2021 (UTC); +2.4 05:52, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
 * 1) Whenever possible, I try to include an image of the composer's manuscript of the composition in an article about that composition. In this case, afaik (believe me, I have searched), no part of any manuscript of the composition has ever been published, neither scan nor facsimile. Schubert's original manuscript is conserved at the Bodleian, and last time I looked the (extensive!) Bodleian website didn't even mention that the composer's original manuscript of this composition is conserved in their libraries. Whatever information they have on the Margaret Deneke Mendelssohn collection (to which that original score belongs) doesn't even mention there's a Schubert manuscript in that collection conserved at their libraries.
 * I know what a four-hand piano composition looks like as far as parts are concerned; hence why I was specifically referring to main themes and ideas. An example of what I was thinking might be Symphony_No._9_(Beethoven) (once you scroll past the table). I don't know if the scores on IMSLP are high quality enough for these purposes (they all seem to be well past PD; and in any case the musical text (if not any specific engravement), being that of the composer, is certainly PD). The other option, as I said, is to take a musical editing program (whichever you are most comfortable with - you can even do it on lilypond and set it to make .svg files, so no screenshotting required) and transcribe the relevant bits.
 * Can't help about the Bodleian, but that's something that would best be solved by contacting them directly. Too bad this isn't Bach, then I'd point you to you know which site. Nothing about the quotes? RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 14:33, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Re. "main themes and ideas" – I know what these are, but one needs a secondary source to identify them in the composition (otherwise this would be WP:OR). E.g., in # 2.1 above I indicate what Brown 1958 calls the "1st and 2nd subject of the first movement". Neither you nor I can do the same for any other movement in the Wikipedia article, unless a reference to a reliable source would identify a musical phrase as a "1st subject" or "2nd subject" or a "main theme" or an "idea".
 * Re. Symphony_No._9_(Beethoven): afaics the music examples in that section were made with the score extension, which afaik does not work currently for the creation of new such examples (the images of the old ones, that is before it was disabled, can still be called, but not even modified, nor new ones created, afaik)
 * Re. IMSLP – I know the site: I harvested the music incipit of Joachim's arrangement score (already mentioned above) from it. That's about all I see at the site for practical use in the Wikipedia article on the composition. But feel free to find more IMSLP material that may be eligible for the Wikipedia article, and add such images to Commons:Category:D 812 – Sonata in C major for piano four-hands ("Grand Duo"), Op. 140.
 * Re. musical editing programs & Lilypond: you don't need anyone's permission to use them.
 * Re. contacting Bodleian: feel free to do so, but that's way beyond basing a Wikipedia article on published reliable sources. --Francis Schonken (talk) 15:12, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
 * PS, re. "you know which site", yes I do (Bach Digital). Something similar, called schubertdigital.net, is under development for Schubert, see this flyer – seems like the web page for it is online since 2019, but the site has no content yet. --Francis Schonken (talk) 16:02, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Added 2.3 in my OP of this section, based on a suggestion made in above. --Francis Schonken (talk) 05:21, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Added 2.4. --Francis Schonken (talk) 05:52, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

No infobox?
No infobox? † Encyclopædius  18:41, 21 March 2021 (UTC)