Talk:Symphony No. 10 (Schubert)

This whole article seems to explain mostly Newbold's viewpoint. As far as I know, Newbold's is a very controversial viewpoint. It would be great if someone could add some other perspective. Also, currently, the article is very POV.--24.86.252.26 03:32, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Seeing as how this article seems to be nothing more than Newbold's "sleeve note" should it just be deleted until or if more research on this subject is utilized? There is far too much emphasis on his so-called 'completion' and not enough on the existing piano sketch.98.67.184.7 (talk) 05:38, 6 December 2010 (UTC)HammerFilmFan


 * The orchestration by Peter Gülke should probably also be mentioned. Double sharp (talk) 07:50, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

How Newbould's completion relates to the piano sketch
Going by the page numbers from the IMSLP .pdf. "System" means "two staves in the manuscript connected by braces". "Reference" means "a mark (e.g. asterisk) occurs here; it occurs elsewhere too, indicating that the music should go to the other place where this mark is visible". Newbould's completion is not as conjectural as the article seems to say!

First movement: Begins on p.3, second system (Allegro maestoso, though this marking appears on the deleted top of p.1: marked Anfang to avoid confusion). On seventh system there is a note referencing the second subject on p.1, last system. This continues until the seventh bar on the last system of p.2, which goes to the last system on p.3. The development then starts on p.4 (Andante), leading up to the antepenultimate bar of the third system. The recapitulation was composed by Newbould, following the exposition closely. The transition from the end of the recapitulation (corresponding to the end of p.3) to the coda incorporates pretty exactly bb.8–11, 19–28 from Schubert's development section. The coda is actually pretty sequential in Schubert's sketch, although the asterisks get a little confusing: last two bars of third system on p.4 onwards, until just after the first two bars of the sixth system. Then the first insertion (the leftmost entry of the seventh system). Two more bars from the sixth system, then the two further insertions on the seventh system. Calling the top one A and the bottom one B, the sequence is B A B. Then the sixth system resumes from the sixth bar to conclude the piece. (The fifth bar isn't played.)

Second movement: Just as in Schubert's sketch (going from the last two bars of the first system on p.5: before that are some exercises). There's the insertion near the end of the exposition (referencing the bottom two systems of p.10), mentioned in the article. The second violin part from the F♯ minor statement of the theme is actually written out by Schubert at the bottom staff of p.5. After the eighth bar of the sixth system on p.6, Newbould inserts the p.10 theme in B major, before seguing into the coda that Schubert deleted (from the ninth bar of that system onwards). (Doubtless Schubert would have written another coda if he had lived a little longer, but sadly he did not. So why compose your own coda when there's already a pretty good one? :-D)

Third movement: Schubert's sketch is in sequence from p.11 to p.12. The end of p.12 references a section starting from the second system of p.10, which breaks off at the sixth system. Since it breaks off on V7 of A minor, Newbould segues into the only A minor section Schubert wrote for this piece (p.9; there's arguably another one at the fifth system of p.8, but (1) it's written in D minor and Schubert put a note saying "in A minor" and (2) it begins so similarly to the one on p.9, so its function was probably overtaken by that one). This continues without break until the first system of p.10, which is the ending pictured in the article.

Material from pp.1–6, 9–12 of the sketch's twelve pages (pp.13–14 of the IMSLP .pdf are blank) was used in Newbould's completion. p.7 is the one that contains the counterpoint exercises, as well as an overtaken section in B♭ major (a key already reached in p.11 in an episode, so there is no reason to go there again). p.8 contains two overtaken sections (though the second seems more like a draft as it is so similar to another section). The top one is in G major, a key that is never reached in the rest of the rondo (so there is no way to incorporate it without transposition, which Schubert never indicated). The bottom one is written in D minor, but Schubert marks "in A minor". It is very similar to the passage beginning at the top of p.9, which suggests (to me at least!) that it was a first version of that section.

In short: the symphony is actually complete in piano score in the manuscript, and deserves a number (#10) more than the D.2b, D.615 and D.708a incomplete sketches. (As an added bonus, no shuffling is needed to fit it into a chronological numbering sequence. As Newbould says in Schubert: the Music and the Man, "Schubert had come close to the stage at which sketching was completed and scoring could begin when death intervened.": in fact, all he had to do was compose a new coda for the second movement!) I have not heard Bartholomée's version, though.
 * P.P.S. Now I have. I still prefer Newbould, though. Double sharp (talk) 08:09, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

P.S. If you're looking for a good recording of Newbould's completion, may I suggest Mackerras' instead of Marriner's. Not only does Marriner take the first movement too quickly and not quite understand the second movement IMHO, but he also inexplicably omits the A insertion from the end of the first movement. Now, he may have had thought the result more effective (I also think so?), but IMHO there's no really compelling musical reason to omit it, which is a must if you're looking to cut material that Schubert did not cancel himself! Double sharp (talk) 07:25, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Snippet from the 3rd movement pictured
The last two chords on the top should be g2-a2-c♯3 and f♯2-a2-d3 instead. Double sharp (talk) 08:25, 22 February 2021 (UTC)