Talk:Schubert's last sonatas

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Schubert's last sonatas is within the scope of WikiProject Classical music, which aims to improve, expand, cleanup, and maintain all articles related to classical music, that aren't covered by other classical music related projects. Please read the guidelines for writing and maintaining articles. To participate, you can edit this article or visit the project page for more details.
A fact from Schubert's last sonatas appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know? column on November 20, 2007.
Wikipedia

[edit] Is the merged article now too big?

I'm thrilled with all the new content and all the citations, but now the article is 60k long. Its almost asking to be split back up into individual sonata articles again. I haven't read the article closely enough to see how easy or "natural" that would be. What do other editors think? -- DavidRF (talk)

I've given it much thought before deciding on this format. Rather than split everything back to the individual sonata articles, a better option would be to leave the unified article with part of the material, and move the rest to the inidividual sonata articles - but I'm not sure this is necessary or better than the current format. Just to let you know, I plan to further refine the text in the following week or two, so as regards the phrasing, I'd appreciate you being a bit patient with the editing. However, if there's a strong case for splitting, of course it should be done ASAP. Cheers, Gidip (talk) 20:39, 17 November 2007 (UTC).
Sure, no problem. Just a heads up. Thanks. DavidRF (talk) 02:01, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] How splendid!

In Japanese wikipedia , I should rewrite more.The last three sonatas are often called as "Beethoveniana".The A major is a perfect work,and I usually imagine its arrangement for the orchestra.Some people only appreciate Schuberts symphony and the piano sonatas are not so found important.

However it is not right!The beautiful melody should be played by violinists or oboe players.So Schubert has his 21 symphonies written in "Klaviersonate".----Kaori Makube (talk) 01:55, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Additional

And I hope to find the article in also German wikipedia.----Kaori Makube (talk) 02:34, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Additional 2

Schubert has his violin sonatas in A major or so.The title of the article will be "Schubert's last piano sonatas",I guess.----Kaori Makube (talk) 03:33, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

I thought about it. We can continue this line of thought and change the title to "Schubert's three last piano sonatas" - this is even more accurate. These are the last of all his sonatas, including the chamber ones, so I don't see a problem with the title, and I think in this case shorter is better. This title appears in many refernces, for instance Brendel's. Gidip (talk) 09:31, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
Sure. No problem.Thanks.----Kaori Makube (talk) 02:21, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Symphonic form

I couldn't see any reference to the specifically symphonic structure, in form and detail, of these four-movement sonatas. --Wetman (talk) 04:52, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Schubert has his own and independent symphonic structures in his piano sonatas. And we sometimes find them in B minor, too. The sonata form is still remains in his works. Cheers.----Kaori Makube (talk) 06:10, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
Actually, the last sonatas are texturally more intimate and resemble more a string ensemble, as compared to the middle-period sonatas, which are more symphonic. This is discussed in the legacy section. If you don't refer to the texture but rather to the form of these sonatas - I don't no what makes them more 'symphonic' than other sonatas, apart from the 4-movement structure (which is hardly unusual, especially in Schubert). Gidip (talk) 09:31, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
I don't understand the original question either. The "structure" section spells out the forms of the movements and their four-movement sequence. A note could be added to the first sentence saying that this four-movement sequence was common in compositions of this era (symphonies, trios, quartets, etc). Its not necessary, but couldn't hurt. As for the 'texture', I didn't think that is what the question was asking, but its an interesting point that 'symphonic texture' implies something different than symphonic form. DavidRF (talk) 12:42, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
We often hear the Hammerklavier is the sketch for the orchesta.Actually it consists of so huge structures.And Schubert was the devoted fan for Beethoven at the meanings ,I guess.----Kaori Makube (talk) 02:19, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
By "the specifically symphonic structure, in form and detail" I did not mean generic platitudes but specifically, an extended first movement in sonata form, with recapitulations, a slow second movement, followed by a minuet-and-trio or scherzo, with a brisk finale in rondo form. Symphonic structure, whereas "sonata" in the early C19 would naturally suggest a three-movement piece with a different over-all structure. It seems almost too obvious to mention, of course. Just thought it was strange to miss it... No matter. As you were. --Wetman (talk) 05:25, 23 November 2007 (UTC)