Talk:Sonatas, duos and fantasies by Franz Schubert

"NSA appends a discarded version of the nth movement"
But if they are discarded, they would seem to be irrelevant, as Schubert would have explicitly rejected them from the final version. We do not for example mention in the analogous articles for Mozart works that Mozart discarded the original finale for KV 464, for instance, though the NMA includes it as well. So how is this different? Double sharp (talk) 14:28, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't think there is a general rule. Sometimes a discarded composition gets a separate Wikipedia article, e.g. Symphony No. 8 (Sibelius), sometimes it is left unmentioned as in the Mozart example above. Violin Concerto No. 5 (Mozart) has however "Mozart later composed the Adagio in E for Violin and Orchestra, K. 261, as a substitute slow movement for this concerto": yet another treatment for a similar thing: in this case the original ("discarded") movement is kept with the main article, and the replacement movement gets its separate Köchel number... and Wikipedia article.
 * In Schubert's case, some incomplete and discarded piano sonata movements get a separate Deutsch number, D comes to mind. In general Schubert is probably the composer that got the most attention for whatever he discarded. AFAIK it all started with his most famous symphony, "discarded" and never completed after starting to write its discarded 3rd movment.
 * In this case I'm not sure what we should do with D 's "NSA also appends a discarded 1st version of the second movement": I have no prejudice in whether it should be mentioned or not. --Francis Schonken (talk) 10:27, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

The floating movements attached to various sonatas
Do these assignments come from us, the Deutsch catalogue, or are they just a mish-mash of everything that has ever been proposed? Because, for example, Paul and Eva Badura-Skoda do not insert D 600/610 into D 613, while we do.

There are also some internal problems with this. D 279 and D 566, like D 157, are three-movement works that end with a minuet in the wrong key. So why is it that D 279 and D 566 need finales while D 157 doesn't need one? While I can raise no objections for D 346 as a finale (other than that the brusque sendoff of the Minuet of D 279 is analogous to that of D 157), attaching D 506 as a finale to D 566 is almost pleonastic as it shares the same meter (2/4) and tempo (Allegretto) as the "slow" second movement. Given that Schubert copied out the first movement alone of D 566, one might almost speculate (following Arrebola) that he intended only a two-movement sonata, following Beethoven's op.90 with its Schubertian second movement. As for the fragment D 459, Paul Badura-Skoda has persisted in liner notes in considering it a five-movement sonata, despite the evidence amassed against this. And if the remaining three pieces have nothing to do with the sonata D 459, why are we including them here? (This scepticism concerning the movement assignments is also shared by Arrebola.)

It takes some audacity to claim a minuet for D 567 when its autograph does not include one. It also takes some audacity to claim that the fragments supposedly for the F-sharp minor sonata belong together, when they are not even written on the same paper-type. Pace Paul Badura-Skoda, IIRC only D 604 is written on the reverse side of sketches for other works. D 571 has a weird portrait format and is oddly labelled "Sonate V". D 570 admittedly lacks such a label, but its Allegro precedes its Scherzo, so it would make more sense as the beginning of another drafted sonata in F-sharp minor, as Einstein has it. Thus the four movements may not necessarily belong together. The justification that D 604 makes sense only in an F♯ minor context, by beginning with V-vi in that key (despite being in A major) makes little sense to me. As such we could claim that the finale to Haydn's 62nd symphony must belong to an E minor work, because it begins with a V-i in that key!

In sharp contrast to this argument for tonal unity is the inclusion of the C-sharp minor Minuet D 600 in the C major(!) sonata D 613. This is patently ridiculous. For starters, its date of 1814 is at odds with the 1818 date of the rest of the sonata (just look at the childish roundness of the handwriting of the autograph!) Furthermore, no one seems to have realised that the Trio D 610 cannot possibly belong to it, for one simple reason: D 610 has an upbeat, while D 600 does not. And astonishingly, it is claimed that the D 604 must be a sonata movement as it is not separately dated, while D 612 could still be one (despite its separate dating) because as the only finished movement, it could be published. How can one have it both ways?

At least for the D 625 sonata we are on terra firma bibliographically, as at least Ferdinand Schubert's thematic catalogue is said to proclaim that D 505 is the slow movement that Einstein felt was missing. Of course, one wonders why his manuscript copy of D 625 does not include the Adagio D 505 in that case. (It also strikes me as slightly strange why he should have had one made of an unmarketable unfinished work. Did he not state that the sonata D 566 would be valuable if the finale was present?)

I am short on time, so I wrote this comment from memory: thus a few details might be off. Nevertheless, I do not expect that too much is. It strikes me that it would be better to leave all the questionable additions (D 277A, D 346, etc.) to one side, and only discuss which sonatas they might belong to on their entries; not on the sonata entries. Double sharp (talk) 14:51, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Generally the problem with the current version of this article is lack of references. Seems like unavoidable to slap a Refimprove template on it. The above suggestions surely should be combined with the current content of the article... when also these additional suggestions can be properly referenced. A good start would probably be Litschauer's introduction to NSE VII/2/1 ( – in German and English). --Francis Schonken (talk) 07:16, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you so much for the link! I don't suppose the introduction to VII/2/2 would also be online? Double sharp (talk) 11:38, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

Early numbering(s) of piano sonatas
In view of combining the content proposed at Talk:Piano Sonata in B major, D 575 (Schubert) with the Sonatas, duos and fantasies article I'll comment here (not there).
 * 1) Re. Sonata No. 3 (first publication numbering): D first published as No. 3 (Deutsch 1978 p. 330)
 * 2) Re. "Original numbering" – note that "first publication numbering" (the numbering listed by Double sharp) is not actually the "original numbering" (by the composer): e.g. D is actually No. 4 on the composer's manuscript (Deutsch 1978 p. 563). Information regarding the composer and first publication numberings is given in Deutsch 1978 p. 313, pp. 328–331, etc. Schubert's numbering(s?) is/are not chronological in order of composition, neither is/are the early publisher's numbering(s) in order of publication. In other words the mess with the numbering systems started some two centuries ago, before the first piano sonata was published. --Francis Schonken (talk) 07:16, 25 May 2016 (UTC)