Talk:Piano Sonata No. 2 (Chopin)/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: JohnWickTwo (talk · contribs) 19:14, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

Initiating review of article which may take a day or two to complete. Could you indicate when you are ready to start. There is currently a cite error appearing in the Reference section, and there is a red link error in the article to "Tobias" which should be removed prior to starting this review of all sections. JohnWickTwo (talk) 19:14, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

@JohnWickTwo: Hello, and thank you so much! I'm ready whenever you are; the only thing I have to add is a section about "recordings", but I'm working on a separate article in my draftspace,titled "Chopin sonatas discography" or similar, about recordings because so many notable ones exist. In any case, I fixed the cite error, and I think it's better to keep the red link; an article exists on de-wiki about him and he's notable enough to have an article creating about him here anyways. (I might get on it soon, actually...) Regards, Zingarese (talk) 20:26, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

The full review will need another day or two. You should be able to remove the German Wikipedia red link by using the double bracket for the link and reformat it. Also, in the meantime, all of the links in the Lead section need to be moved into the main body of the article since the lead section is intended to only summarize what is already covered in the main body of the article. Once you have transferred the citations into the main body of the article, then they may be removed from the lead section. JohnWickTwo (talk) 20:53, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

I transferred nearly all of the citations to the main body of the article. (I kept the citation for "mature" there because it's most appropriate to introduce the sonata as his first mature one, and it's not mentioned elsewhere in the article.) Also, the link to Haslinger is deliberately enclosed in brackets because Chopin only referred to him in the letter by "Haslinger" instead of his full name. Zingarese (talk) 23:31, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

The last one should be moved out of the lead section as well into the main body, it is uncontroversial. JohnWickTwo (talk) 18:43, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

Sorry about that,  Removed Zingarese talk · contribs 19:39, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

Could you add the artist who did the sketch in the Infobox and its year to the caption. JohnWickTwo (talk) 20:48, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

I apologize, it seems that I overlooked this: now  Done Zingarese talk · contribs 05:39, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

Initiate full review of sections

0 Lead section

It is one of two late piano sonatas by Chopin. The footnote here seems more than is needed for the lead section. If you prefer you may elaborate it in the main body of the article, though preferably not in the lead section. The material on Beethoven seems overdone here, and possibly in the section I shall comment upon below, since there are at least as many music scholars who see the Brahms affinity as the more direct one. See for example Kornel Michałowski and Jim Samson. The sentences on Beethoven need modification. JohnWickTwo (talk) 13:01, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

I removed the footnote. See my comments below in regards to Brahms. Zingarese (talk) 17:10, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

1 Historical background

This is not an article on the "Romantic era of music" and your opening sentence on this sonata should perhaps more directly contextual to this sonata itself. Try to mention the sonata itself in the first sentence here if possible. Fix the link to Tobias or remove the linking and just leave his name. Put it on village pump if you do not know how to link German Wikipedia without a red link. JohnWickTwo (talk) 13:01, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

 Done The opening sentence mentions the sonata itself now. For Haslinger, I just replaced it with a normal (red) link - I will create an article for him soon. Zingarese (talk) 17:10, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

2 Movements

2.1 I. Grave – Doppio movimento

Adequate to section for the moment. JohnWickTwo (talk) 13:01, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

The music example is wrong. Firstly, as can be seen from the English and German first editions, there is no grace note F₁ in b. 3 (left hand). Secondly, the first grace note in the right hand should be a crotchet (and have no stroke through the stem), not a quaver. Thirdly, the accent in the right hand should be on the first chord, not the second. Fourthly, that first chord should be spelt c♯/g♯/c♯¹, not d♭/a♭/d♭¹ as it is spelt now. Fifthly, if the slur in the left hand is going to be represented (it is in the German but not the English first edition), it should continue to the semibreve E₁/E. Sixthly, the slur across the three right-hand chords is in both the German and the English first editions but is missing in this image. Seventhly, Adolf Gutmann's Stichvorlage (he was a pupil of Chopin) shows that the dynamic at the beginning should be f, not p (though the German and the English first editions show no dynamic marking at all). Eighthly, if we are going to discuss the question of the repeat, it seems to me that putting an unqualified repeat sign just before b. 5 is problematic. I would prefer to follow Gutmann's Stichvorlage (which gives a double bar without a repeat sign at this point, drawing attention to the change to Doppio movimento) and leave the discussion to the text. Double sharp (talk) 15:35, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

I have removed the problematic illustration entirely, as the text in Brahms' edition immediately below is accurate (making the problematic illustration redundant anyway), and by marking the double bar without repeat sign at b. 5 still draws attention to the passage in question. Double sharp (talk) 15:39, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

2.1.1 Repeat of the exposition

Your wording "beginning at the very beginning" is awkward and might be modified. JohnWickTwo (talk) 13:01, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

 Changed to "starting at the very beginning" Zingarese (talk) 17:10, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

2.2 II. Scherzo

In the tradition of Beethoven again is overstated for my reading here. There are likely more scholars who see Brahms as the more relevant association for the composition. See my previous note on this. JohnWickTwo (talk) 13:01, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

I don't understand what you're getting at here. If you mean that as this work is more influenced by the music of Brahms than Beethoven, that would make little sense, as Brahms was born just 6 years before the sonata was completed! However, it is probable that the converse, that Brahms' music was influenced by this sonata, is true. If that is the case, it would very, very noteworthy for inclusion in the "reception and legacy" section . I have not read the work by Samson/Michalowski (which is what I assume you are referring to, [1]) and am unable to subscribe as the link to do so is dead. Please enlighten me about the Brahms association/influence. In addition, a simple JSTOR or even Google search yields numerous results for Beethoven's influence on this work, but nothing for Brahms. Zingarese (talk) 17:10, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

See my comments below. Bach and Brahms before Beethoven are the important sources. JohnWickTwo (talk) 18:43, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

2.3 III. Marche funèbre: Lento

There must be more reliable sources on this celebrated movement of Chopin. Can one add the opinions of one or two other writers on this memorable movement. JohnWickTwo (talk) 13:01, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

 Done Added what Liszt and Willeby were quoted as saying. Zingarese (talk) 17:10, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

2.3.1 Title change by Chopin

Not sure that you need a separate section here. JohnWickTwo (talk) 13:01, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

I agree, the section is pretty trivial.  Removed Zingarese (talk) 17:10, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

2.4 IV. Finale: Presto

Chopin does have a winter wind Etude, but is "whirlwind of unremitting" a little overdone in its wording here. JohnWickTwo (talk) 13:01, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

I think this movement fits the dictionary definition of this phrase. "Whirlwind" meaning energetic or tumultous and "unremitting" meaning perpetual/persistent; it is literally 72 bars of nothing but parallel triplet octaves, before two bars with one half being a rest and the other being triplets, and a low B-flat octave and tonic chord to close it all. Hence, I think this wording is appropriate. Zingarese (talk) 17:10, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

This phrase must be properly attribute as it appears in this source and it must be fully quoted if used on Wikipedia as shown here: [2]. JohnWickTwo (talk) 18:43, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

I just  Removed it and replaced with a far more objective term (perpetuum mobile) Zingarese talk · contribs 20:26, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

I find the bit about the Bach cello suite "influence" unconvincing here. In fact other than the triplets, there's no similarity whatsoever and the shocking impact the finale had in Chopin's time, as well as his own description of it as "gossiping voices" and later descriptions of it as "wind over the graveyard" suggest that this doesn't evoke any thoughts of Bach. We should be able to find some better RS discussion of this movement, of all Chopin's works. SPECIFICO talk 02:41, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

Bach in general was however certainly a significant influence on Chopin and his musical thought, and the monophonic line of the finale of op. 35 certainly implies harmony and counterpoint within itself in exactly the same way a melody by Bach does (as illustrated with musical examples in Rosen's The Romantic Generation). Double sharp (talk) 05:51, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

3 Beethoven’s influence

Brahms and Beethoven at least, though I would prefer this section to probably be "Musical influences", and the reliable sources on Brahms need to be added. The weight of the literature I believe goes in favor of Brahms here. JohnWickTwo (talk) 13:01, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

Per above. Zingarese (talk) 17:10, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

Many issues here. First, it is Bach who is usually discussed as the major early influence on Chopin. Also, the structure of Beethoven's piano sonata compositions are the 3-movement sonata and not the four movements of Chopin. Chopin's emphasis on melody is also substantially different than Beethoven's approach. The top editors on the Chopin biography page are also committed to the reading of the Brahms influences as being the decisive one for this Sonata. You may check on the FA for Chopin and decide if you are going to make changes there on this issue before making the case for this review here. This section needs to cover all of these issues. This link gives the description of the main Brahms source also: [3]. There is also this dissertation from ten years ago studying the contemporaneous Chopin preludes and the influences acting on them discussed on pp33-44 with Beethoven nowhere in sight here: [4]. JohnWickTwo (talk) 18:43, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

I'm very sorry, but this did not clear things up at all. First of all, yes, Bach is Chopin's major early influence. He admired Bach immensely. He always urged his students to play more Bach. Beethoven, obviously, is regarded as the composer Chopin is least influenced by; he couldn't stand much of his music! The article already states, "Of all of the Romantic era composers, Chopin is usually regarded as the one least influenced by Beethoven". Also, the notion that the Beethoven piano sonatas are "3-movement" in structure is completely inaccurate, as the majority of them are actually not: some are also in four movements (Opp. 2, Op. 7, Op. 10 No. 3, Op. 22, Op. 26 (of which the plan of Chopin's almost completely resembles), Op. 27 No. 1, Op. 28, Op. 31 No. 3, Op. 101, Op. 106) and even two movements (Opp. 49, Op. 54, Op. 78, Op. 90, Op. 111). That's over half of his sonatas that are not in three movements :-) Also, about the Brahms influence; in the Chopin article, it states that the Op. 58 Sonata (not this one) is "worthy of Brahms" (which doesn't mean "influenced by Brahms"; it means that its contrapuntal complexites makes it almost Brahmsian in style). The Op. 58 sonata came many years later, and is much, much closer to the German tradition: the Op. 35 sonata wasn't supposed to be a sonata in the first place! Neither of the sources you have provided dicsuss the piano sonatas at all. This particular piece is influenced by Beethoven, which makes it so unique among Chopin's oeuvre. An indirect quotation from Op. 111 in the Grave, and the plan is almostly completely copied from Op. 26. Zingarese talk · contribs 19:39, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

@Zingarese: May I ask that you update the section on the FA for Chopin which by your account here is inaccurate and appears to be out of date and misquoting the Brahms. Ping me when this is done on that page. Also, it is useful to repeat your Bach comments here as a preface to this section. The dissertation on his Preludes gives not a hint of Beethoven, and the atypical nature of a Beethoven influence needs to be stresses. Further, are you applying your Beethoven argument to only one segment in one movement of the sonata alone and in isolation from the rest of the sonata? JohnWickTwo (talk) 20:42, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

@JohnWickTwo: It's not clear what you want me to update. Which specific part of my account is inaccurate? Let me know and I'll update if needed. I just expanded the Beethoven op. 111 allusion, which describes why it is so significant; it influences the rest of the piece. In addition, this sonata's plan is almost completely modeled after Op. 26. Zingarese talk · contribs 21:16, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

@Zingarese: This passage in the Form section of the FA for Chopin, I find has a poorly worded closing sentence (also, you should make sure that everything stated in this quote is dealt with in the article) which states: "The two mature piano sonatas (No. 2, Op. 35, written in 1839 and No. 3, Op. 58, written in 1844) are in four movements. In Op. 35, Chopin was able to combine within a formal large musical structure many elements of his virtuosic piano technique—'a kind of dialogue between the public pianism of the brilliant style and the German sonata principle'. The last movement, a brief (75-bar) perpetuum mobile in which the hands play in unmodified octave unison throughout, was found shocking and unmusical by contemporaries, including Schumann. The Op. 58 sonata is closer to the German tradition, including many passages of complex counterpoint, "worthy of Brahms" according to the music historians Kornel Michałowski and Jim Samson." Please update it or at least refine it, and make sure that all 3 of its footnotes from this passage are dealt with in this Sonata article. JohnWickTwo (talk) 21:42, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

@JohnWickTwo: I'm not sure if it would be suitable for me to touch the last sentence, as I have neither read nor am able to access the source that it cites. I did, however, add information about Beethoven influence to Chopin's article. Regarding the 3 footnotes - 1) I cannot access that source, so it's probably not a good idea to introduce that information here, 2) already mentioned, and 3)not relevant to this topic. I assume you can access/have read that source; could you kindly help me out with 1)? Zingarese talk · contribs 03:42, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

That looks like a nice edit you made at Chopin. The last sentence is the key one however. Since the two reliable sources mention the "German tradition" in the quote above, then it must be germane that they choose to single out Brahms in this context and not Beethoven. It is significant I think, and I do not have the sheet music in front of me, that you specify how much of the score you are claiming to be influenced by Beethoven, as well as how many of the movements. I find the claim of the opening chords as being reminiscent of Beethoven a little difficult as to plausibility. It needs to be clearly stated here if this point you are making is being stated at the level of an anecdote about Beethoven, or if Chopin is studying the Beethoven manuscripts in order to pay some sort of tribute or homage to Beethoven. When one listens to the Pathetique, the Moonlight, or the Appassionato (the main Beethoven Sonatas), it is very difficult to hear any likeness to this Chopin sonata. Is this a Beethoven anecdote being related or are you trying to say something more here. JohnWickTwo (talk) 04:28, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

@JohnWickTwo: The German tradition and Brahms refers to the third Sonata Op. 58, not this one. This sonata, the No. 2 Op. 35, is far more distant from the German tradition, and does not at all sound like Brahms. The opening of the sonata is not just reminiscent, it is a conspicuous reference to the introduction of Beethoven’s last sonata, as explained in the article. Of course, this sonata is nothing like those three Beethoven piano sonatas you mentioned! It would be silly to think otherwise :-) But I am referring to other very specific works of Beethoven, and not his output in general. The plan of the whole sonata is practically completely modeled after Op. 26 (excepting the first mvt: Beethoven’s is a moderately slow theme and variations while Chopin’s is a fast modified sonata form), it’s well established that the scherzo is reminiscent of the scherzo movements of Beethoven, with its explosive dynamic and rhythmic power, and Op. 111 is quoted in the opening of the Chopin sonata. Regarding anecdote vs tribute or homage, as stated in the article and in many sources, if Chopin were to make a significant contribution to the piano sonata genre, he could not possibly ignore Beethoven’s sonatas. It’s also well-established that the op. 26 sonata was Chopin’s favorite Beethoven sonata; he taught it, played it, and analyzed it more than any other sonata. I truly believe this section is comprehensive enough for the purposes of this article; it indicates that Chopin is regarded as the ROmantic composer least influenced by Beethoven, but in order to make a contribution to the genre, he had to “come to terms” with Beethoven. It also clearly indicates it was influenced by op. 26 and op. 111 and specifically shows the influences of op. 26 and op. 111. Zingarese talk · contribs 06:21, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

@Zingarese: It appears that another editor sees your edit at Chopin as not useful to understanding Chopin at the biographical level and he has reverted your edit. I am inclined to agree. Similarly, the reference to Brahms in the FA for Chopin is to the Op 58 sonata, though you have told me that both sonatas are from the mature period and therefore related to his mature years. This section here looks increasingly anecdotal and it may need to move in the direction of being titled "German romanticism influences" to cover both Beethoven and Brahms, as well as Bach from the German Baroque. Could you comment on this since the revert on the Chopin page is fairly explicit and I am inclined to agree regarding its designation of relevance/irrelevance. JohnWickTwo (talk) 14:20, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

Yes, it was indeed reverted by User:Smerus, although it's still well-established that acknowledging the Beethoven influences is crucial to understanding the piece. I dont agree at all with the notion that this section is anecdotal. The connection with op. 26, for example, is beyond well established: there's concrete proof that Chopin admired, taught, played, deeply analyzed this sonata more than any other sonata of Beethoven. The connection to op. 111 is also striking and vital. This section does not seem to have a trace of wp:or and is neutrally written, and I stand by the content that is already there. About Brahms: Op. 58 was written 5/7 years later and immediately following a period of time where his interest in counterpoint climbed a brand new peak. The contrapuntal complexities is what makes it "worthy of Brahms". Theres no way these sonatas are "influenced BY Brahms" as he was 6/11 years of age when they were written! However, since you mentioned Bach, one of my sources indicate the timbre of the Finale is similar to Bach's cello suites, and a frequently repeated motif of the Prelude of Suite #6 closely resembles the main theme of the first movement. Unless you object, I plan on adding this information to the section, and rename it "Influences". —Zingarese talk · contribs 15:47, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

Going to an Influences section title sounds like a good idea. Aside from adding a paragraph about Bach you could also add a one or two line summary of Bach's influence on a larger scale upon Chopin as well. Some comment should also be made in such a section on the issue of Chopin's originality in general, since many see a good deal of originality in this sonata by Chopin. The Beethoven material in this context ought to be shortened to a shorter mention of this influence. There are at least as many commentators about this sonata who do not mention Beethoven at all in comparison to those that do. I'll look forward to seeing the new Influence section. JohnWickTwo (talk) 16:30, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

"The German tradition and Brahms refers to the third Sonata Op. 58, not this one." I know I'm very late to the discussion, but I have a question and a point to bring up. Is someone saying that Brahms was an influence or possibly a model for Chopin in any of his compositions? This is simply not possible as Chopin was long dead before Brahms had even begun his career as a composer. While it is perfectly fine for historians to freely opine that Chopin's music was 'worthy of Brahms" in one way or another, and some apparently do, it is not possible to establish an influence in this direction. It also smacks of a nationalist prejudice that many people would not agree with. I'd also like to offer that the so-called "German" tradition of the sonata is in fact Viennese, not German, and in that light is culturally appropriative. Brahms was highly conservative in his compositional procedures and methods, and made no innovations in form or harmony during his lifetime. Historians agree on this point; they also agree that Brahms benefited directly from the innovations in chromatic harmony that Chopin and his peers developed in Paris before Brahms came along. They also agree that Brahms' writing for piano was heavily influenced by the textures and techniques Chopin and Liszt practically invented for the instrument, after hearing Paganini. Also, while Brahms was a very capable writer of 19th century free counterpoint, so was Chopin in the places where you find it. You'll need to find a source that somehow can substantiate Brahms as a superior contrapuntalist to Chopin, or it's just a personal opinion and not credible. Laguna greg 02:44, 27 June 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Laguna greg (talk • contribs)

I wasn't aware, when I reverted Zingarese's edit in the main FC article, that the topic was being discussed here. If you think it appropriate to edit the FC article, I believe it would be helpful to raise the issue on that article's talk page (rather than editing it as a 'by-blow' to the work being carried out on this article). Best, --Smerus (talk) 18:26, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

@Smerus: Thanks for your comment. Could you offer a short comment on this Beethoven section here. My feeling is that if something is agreed here, then it might make the transition of material to the Chopin biography page easier and more straightforward. JohnWickTwo (talk) 19:12, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

@JohnWickTwo: I just did a tweak of the Beethoven's influence section, adding information about the Bach cello suite influence and changing the title to a mere "Influences"; please see my recent edit. Thank you so much, Zingarese talk · contribs 19:55, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

It would nice to hear from Smerus on this and to hear if it is of possible use on the Chopin biography page. Separately, the image you add here of the Beethoven score, I think, might look better as a double image with the Chopin score side-by-side which your sources assert are quoting Beethoven. JohnWickTwo (talk) 20:17, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

Hi, I've now made an edit in the FC article to reflect the issues here as far as appears relevant to me - do take a look, and comment if you like on the talk page there.--Smerus (talk) 09:07, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

@Smerus: Thanks for your edits there. I have made two short edits on the FA for Chopin to update the joint influence of Bach and Beethoven on the Sonata No. 2. Also I updated the Brahms reference to Sonata No. 3 as being symbolic due to Brahms's age at the time. Modify them as needed in your nice article on Chopin. JohnWickTwo (talk) 14:34, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

I honestly don't see what was wrong with the original wording, though. (I noticed this because I watch the Chopin article, though not this one.) Saying that the contrapuntal complexities are "worthy of Brahms" does not imply that they were inspired by Brahms, and I would never have interpreted this passage that way. To me it simply implies that Brahms is a sort of benchmark, known for contrapuntal complexity in his works, and that these Chopin passages match that benchmark. This may be because I am familiar with the chronology involved and therefore reading it as Brahms influencing Chopin would have seemed too absurd to really consider for me, but there is nothing "symbolic" about this sentence; it says exactly what it means without the intermediary of symbols. If clarification is necessary, I would favour instead noting that Brahms postdated Chopin and indeed studied many of his works: to link it to op. 58 directly, it might be worth noting instead that Brahms edited Chopin's sonatas for the Breitkopf & Härtel complete edition. Double sharp (talk) 15:15, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

@Double sharp: The direct association with Brahms's name looks a little odd to people familiar with these composers relative ages. Your eloquent wording here is better than my one word version 'symbolic' and possibly some happier median can be found rather than a full deletion without replacement of 'symbolic' in the FA for Chopin. Can you offer a better adjectival phrase than the one word 'symbolic' to better describe this? JohnWickTwo (talk) 15:37, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

@JohnWickTwo: Well, it doesn't seem odd to me, and I think that's not in spite of but because of my familiarity with the composers' relative ages: with this familiarity the reading that Brahms influenced Chopin here seems immediately absurd. I'm sorry not to be able to offer a better adjectival phrase, chiefly because everything I can think of either changes the quote and/or its meaning (e.g. 'prophetic of Brahms' or something similar) or goes into a long excursus to force a reading that already ought to be the only one possible if you are familiar with the composers' relative ages. So I think that the sentence was fine as it was beforehand (and I see SPECIFICO has already reverted to that version), though if I do come up with something I will certainly post it here for your consideration. Double sharp (talk) 15:51, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

"worthy of" denotes merit, not direct influence or even similarity. I don't know whether it adds anything to the article in a way. It's the sort of thing folks write about music without intending the meaning to be entirely specific or detailed. Come to think of it, why hold Brahms up as an example of contrapuntal writing? The choice of Brahms may have been to suggest some direct association, which I agree would be undue. By the way, the suggestion of the descending minor sixth as a similarity between Beethoven and Chopin also strikes me as rather meaningless. What are we supposed to make of that? SPECIFICO talk 16:39, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

FWIW, Brahms certainly did study Chopin in detail (the early E-flat minor scherzo should make that obvious), and he edited Chopin's sonatas for the Breitkopf & Härtel Gesamtausgabe. So this may be something more than trivia, though to prove that we should have to see if there is something in Brahms' œuvre that points to Chopin's op. 35 as clearly as the E-flat minor scherzo of Brahms points to the B-flat minor and C-sharp minor scherzi of Chopin – something like the reference to Wagner's Ring that now appears later in the article, in short. As for the descending diminished seventh that opens both works: the fact that both open their respective works in introductions, in bare octaves in the left hand, does make a connexion plausible (although Chopin does not harmonise it with a diminished seventh chord, but through a more exotic enharmonic chromatic mediant: ♭iii leading to V). Personally I find the Pathétique a stronger connexion: it is also subject to the same dispute as to whether the repeat should go back to the start or the Allegro, and likewise the theme of the introduction appears in the development (though it is not integrated as much as it is in the Chopin). But we would have to find a source noting this connexion to include it, of course. Double sharp (talk) 05:45, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

4 Reception and legacy

Your wording here I think can be enhanced a little. You state "it confused the critics" which could be rendered more usefully as "it initially confused the critics", or something like that. You have previously indicated your desire to add a section on existing recordings and their relative merits which would be a worthwhile addition. JohnWickTwo (talk) 13:01, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

I  Changed it to "it initially confused the critics" among other enhancements/changes. Zingarese (talk) 17:10, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

The only edit conflict done was my slight addition: "why there needs to be a section devoted to just that [as in the Beethoven influence]" Zingarese talk · contribs 21:19, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

5 Legacy

A legacy section is being promised and this is very important. Performances by Rachmaninov, Horowitz and Kissin are all available and recorded. There is a high quality video performance from last year at the Cliburn competition which is worthy of mention also, etc. JohnWickTwo (talk) 18:43, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

Are you referring to Tony Yang? ALthough the Cliburn performance is definitely worth a mention, his Chopin Competition performance of the sonata is available on CD and even more worthy of mentioning! However, i think it will be more appropriate to include that in my article that I'm working on in my draftspace, "Chopin sonatas discography". (You can help me out if you wish: User:Zingarese/Chopin sonatas discography: it will be in table format with the columns being Year, Pianist, Label, and notes :-)) However, I will create a paragraph about recordings now; however, it will be short and will only merely talk about the most notable recordings. (Piano Concerto No. 24 (Mozart), a FA, doesn't mention recordings at all!) Zingarese talk · contribs 19:39, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

@Zingarese: Such a Legacy section should also mention something about the influence of Chopin and this piece on the composers and pianists following Chopin as well. Rachmaninov felt it important to keep this piece in his performing repertoire well into the 20th century, and Horowitz recorded at least 3 versions of it with the 1962 version in Stereo as I recall. Can some of this be mentioned in this section in some form. JohnWickTwo (talk) 16:30, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

I would also be interested in the nineteenth-century reaction. As The Cambridge Companion to Chopin notes on pp. 213–4, Chopin's sonatas were actually performed very rarely until the turn of the century, with the striking exception of the Funeral March from the op. 35 sonata. Of course the most musically astute minds of the century must have admired them and been influenced by them, so their influence is not negligible here either: Rosen in The Romantic Generation notes a similarity of technique between the development of the first movement of Chopin's op. 35 and Wagner's use of leitmotifs in the Ring. Double sharp (talk) 15:25, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

I  Added both of those picces of information into the article. I think we have different page numbers; my ed. of Cambridge contains the 19th century reception information on pp.229-230. Zingarese talk · contribs 17:33, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

General comments

@Zingarese: That should get things started. Ping me when you are ready to continue or if any clarifications are needed. JohnWickTwo (talk) 13:01, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

@JohnWickTwo: Thank you so much for your observations. Please read my comments above. Zingarese (talk) 17:12, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

@Zingarese: My responses above. Ping me ready to continue. JohnWickTwo (talk) 18:45, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

@JohnWickTwo: Ready; please read my comments in regards to Beethoven influence above Zingarese talk · contribs 20:26, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

@Zingarese: Could you remember to update the lead section based on the joint influence of Bach and Beethoven on this sonata. Also, I have made a comment that normally when a quoted passage is indicated it is customary to show the score for each of the composers and not just the quoted one. See my added Legacy comment above also. JohnWickTwo (talk) 14:36, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

I updated the lead section. I will upload and add image of the Chopin grave soon. Zingarese talk · contribs 17:33, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

Could you shorten this which is currently in the lede section: "..but the sonata is especially noted for being influenced by works by Beethoven, a composer whose music Chopin generally disliked, namely his Piano Sonata No. 12 in A♭ major, Op. 26 (the third movement of which is also a funeral march) and his Piano Sonata No. 32 in C minor, Op. 111." Editors at Wikipedia are generally discouraged from using words like 'especially' in the lede section and elsewhere as over-stated. Half the length of this is all that's needed in the lede. JohnWickTwo (talk) 20:53, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

@JohnWickTwo: Which guideline states that the use of words like "especially" in the lead is discouraged? Zingarese talk · contribs 21:29, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

You can't I think say that Beethoven was "a composer whose music Chopin generally disliked" - the sources you give are allegations or third-party interpretations, we don't I think have anything directly attributable to Chopin to this effect. Moreover, these are references to two pieces only, which can't support the notion that he "generally disliked" Beethoven. You could perhaps say "a composer of whom, it has been claimed, Chopin was sometimes critical", but I don't see any authority for saying more than this.--Smerus (talk) 21:32, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

Also, is it just me or does this bit about Op. 35 being "influenced by works of Beethoven" sound like the kind of paid prose one reads on program notes rather than any substantial reference to Chopin's sketches, letters, or any other testimony that would elevate this above either coincidence or trivia? SPECIFICO talk 21:43, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

@Zingarese: Agreement with both Smerus and SPECIFICO on this, and please adjust both the lede and associated text in the main body to account for both of their comments. Your question to me about the Wikipedia policy on the use of superlatives and superlative phrases is at WP:Puffery. No puffery in Wikipedia articles. Ping me when you are ready to continue. JohnWickTwo (talk) 22:52, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

@JohnWickTwo: I don't believe that is what puffery is, but I just adjusted the lead to reflect that Chopin's dislike of Beethoven is alleged rather than concrete. In addition, i changed "carries influences" to "shows influences" in both cases because it is strictly an interpretation. Zingarese talk · contribs 01:49, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

The lede is currently redundant in the second paragraph and should read something like: "...but the sonata is noted as an exception to Chopin's usual artistic preferences for being influenced by works of Beethoven." Or a similar, shorter version than the one now in use. @SPECIFICO and Smerus: Could you glance at the article to see if your concerns from above have been met? I am planning a final read-through over the next 2-3 days for final assessment if you might have any comments to add for the article and its enhancement. JohnWickTwo (talk) 02:14, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

Chopin did, in fact, explicitly criticise Beethoven. In the journal of Eugène Delacroix he is credited as saying that Beethoven turned "his back on eternal principles" and that Mozart did not. Double sharp (talk) 05:34, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

• I rewrote the three paragraphs of the article's intro. For instance, I don't think the "first movement's exposition" should have been mentioned before mentioning the only movement of the sonata that has a redirect to this page. Also, I don't see why Châteauroux would be mentioned in connection to Nohant but not George Sand, nor her house in that village (where Chopin was staying at the time). Etc. I hope this doesn't cause too much administrative issues in the review procedure, and would kindly like to ask JohnWickTwo to redo his review of the lead section, if possible. Thanks. --Francis Schonken (talk) 10:17, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Dear @Francis Schonken: Thank you so much, it is indeed a great improvement from before. However, I restored the information about the length of the sonata and how it relates to the repetition of the first movement's exposition or lack thereof: it is now mentioned after the Marche funebre. I also added, in parentheses, the two other mature sonatas; and the fact that the march was played at the composer's own funeral. Zingarese talk · contribs 16:15, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

My appreciation to the separate editors for responding here. @Zingarese: If you are comfortable with the edits and changes to the lede by FS, then I'll ask that you update the language in the newly titled Influence section to using the word "reminiscences" rather than "influenced by" which given the statements made by the other editors seems more accurate. As the reviewing editor I need to ask you if you could confirm to me that in reviewing your reliable sources that you have made an adequate review of the many reliable sources that have written on this sonata and that you are representing a consensus opinion among the many different reliable sources. There is a difference between selectively choosing your favorite reliable sources as separate from fairly represented the aggregate opinion. For example, if half of the many reviews of this Chopin sonata do not mention the Beethoven influence at all then that fact should be represented in this section. Similarly for the Bach passage. The other responding editors have challenged the degree of usefulness of your mention of either Bach or Beethoven. JohnWickTwo (talk) 16:46, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

It seems to me the central point about the 4th movement is not whatever it has in common with earlier works but rather that since the time of its composition it's been cited as startling and, with the benefit of hindsight, forward-looking. There must be some good sources about this movement. SPECIFICO talk 17:58, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

@JohnWickTwo: I also feel allusions/reminiscences are better choices of word than "influences"; there is concrete evidence that Beethoven's op. 26 influenced this sonata, but not as concrete for the other two works. I added an introductory phrase to the section, "Scholars have noted..." and for the not-so-aggregate conclusions (in particular the allusion to op 111) I modified the text to reflect it was the findings of one particular scholar. I expanded the Op 111 information; Petty continues writing that Chopin's Revolutionary Etude and Polonaise-fantasy also strongly allude to op 111, so strongly they border on quotations of it. In addition, I did remove the fourth movement having the timbre of a solo cello, because I'm not really sold on this notion either. Zingarese talk · contribs 04:47, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

@Zingarese, SPECIFICO, and Double sharp: Overnight I did read the liner notes for 4-5 releases of the sonata each of which does not mention Beethoven or Bach as relevant to their commentary on this composition. I then listened to the Arrau performance of the Beethoven followed by the Kissin performance of the Chopin back-to-back and need to say that the artistic temperament for each of these composition is highly different and independent from the one to the other. That the liner notes are consistently omitting all mention of Bach and Beethoven is becoming a concern for this article as presently written. JohnWickTwo (talk) 12:53, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

I think there's plenty of written commentary on the Sonata that discusses it breaking loose of classical norms and pointing forward to late romantic nascent expressionism in the first 2 movements and impressionism in the final movement. All composers of the 19th century had the past masters in their heads but I feel that it's UNDUE to draw specific parallels without some clue from the composers themselves or without universal agreement on the influence. Also I see nothing cello-like or Bach-like in the tone or texture of the final movement. It's more like the texture of the second movement of the Bartok Quartet 2. That's the real significance of this movement. It was 100 years "ahead of its time". SPECIFICO talk 13:11, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

Here's a useful comment by Garrick Ohlsson, whom I find more insightful and credible than academic commentators [5] SPECIFICO talk 14:03, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

It appears you are referring to the Jennifer Foster quote: “It’s extraordinary, because he’s written the weirdest movement (the 4th) he’s ever written in his whole life... something which really and truly looks to the 20th century and post-romanticism and atonality… It’s very hard to figure out what’s going on. It just sort of mutters and murmurs, it seems directionless. It’s got no theme, it’s got no accompaniment, it’s got no rhythm.” JohnWickTwo (talk) 14:20, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

Yes, but it only seems so. It is correct that the tone and texture of the finale are revolutionary, but we shall never get anywhere by saying that Chopin was so far ahead of his time that he came up with this finale in a vacuum, and resigning ourselves to programmatic explanations (which Chopin would never have accepted, as Liszt understood) and all but copying Schumann and saying that it isn't music. It is also correct that everything in this finale is a logical outgrowth of Baroque and Classical practice, but we shall never get anywhere either by saying that Chopin was working in that tradition without saying why the result of his extending it was so disconcerting to almost everybody. The finale is conservative in construction but not conservative in how it sounds, and that is why both its influences and its influence are worth discussing. It is in sonata form without development, a perfectly normal form, but the speed, the continuous pianissimo, and the chromaticism makes this difficult to hear; and the way Chopin implies triadic harmony from a single line is a logical extension how Bach does the same, but the speed, the continuous pianissimo and the chromaticism again makes this difficult to hear. And this difficulty of hearing what is going on is exactly what is so Romantic about it, because it gives the music a constant high intensity – though this is, again, also a logical consequence of Bach and Handel's practice. In short, Chopin completely transforms his models. That does not mean that all the academic commentators are barking up the wrong tree; they are simply engaging in analysis, in order to understand how Chopin created this effect and why it makes sense within the classical tradition. They do not need analysis to understand that he created this effect, because we can all hear it even if we have had no training in music theory. Rosen's The Romantic Generation (pp. 294–302) contains a discussion of this that I would suggest citing and using. Double sharp (talk) 14:46, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

I think Ohlsson's "how it seems" description, when widespread and enduring, is significant and helps present and explain the piece to our (non-technical) readers. As to formal analysis, there's not likely a more insightful discussion than Rosen's and a brief summary of his views would be helpful. The other stuff from less notable folks, who I daresay are less familiar with the music, is UNDUE. SPECIFICO talk 16:18, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

@SPECIFICO: Absolutely! Double sharp (talk) 03:57, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

Possibly also of use is Rachmaninoff's comment to von Riesmann on Anton Rubenstein's performance of the piece where Rachmaninoff states: " Once he (Rubenstein) repeated the whole finale of [Chopin's] Sonata in B minor, perhaps he had not succeeded in the short crescendo at the end as he would have wished. One listened entranced, and could have heard the passage over and over again, so unique was the beauty of tone." Rachmaninoff then added the Chopin to his own repertoire until his own final days. JohnWickTwo (talk) 03:37, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

There are versions of this remark that refer to each of the sonatas, but the it appears most likely that he was in fact referring to the B minor not this one, which 1- has no crescendo at the end and 2- doesn't have so long a finale that a repeat would be all that remarkable. SPECIFICO talk 16:31, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

Also, there is the comment by Norris in his Rachmaninoff biography concerning: "His (Rachmaninoff's) last recital, which had occurred on 17 February (1943) at the Alumni Gymnasium at the University of Tennessee in Knoxville, Tennessee, included Piano Sonata No. 2 by Chopin which contains a funeral march.". JohnWickTwo (talk) 16:41, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

Reception

A general thought on reception: the reception of Chopin's second piano sonata has two main dimensions:

1. The reception of the four-movement piano composition
2. The reception of the "Marche funèbre" movement, most often separated from the three other movements of the sonata, and far beyond a piano piece.

The second dimension is at least as important as the first dimension, and I'm sure there's enough material for a separate article on that dimension.

Examples of compositions with a movement that started to lead a life on its own, where that movement got a separate Wikipedia article:

• Adagio for Strings, split from String Quartet (Barber)
• Ride of the Valkyries, split from Der Ring des Nibelungen

Not split, e.g.:

• "Alla turca", third movement of Piano Sonata No. 11 (Mozart)
• "Ciaccona", fifth movement of Partita for Violin No. 2 (Bach)

I'm indifferent whether the split or no-split approach is applied for the Chopin composition. Just assessing the fact that currently it is "no split" (Funeral March (Chopin), Marche funèbre (Chopin) and Chopin's Funeral March are redirects to this page). For that approach, however, there's imho as yet too little attention for the "Marche funèbre" dimension, for the article too work as a whole (compare Bach's "Ciaccona": more than half of the Partita's page is about this movement). A stub split-off of the March aspect might be possible, but as is (that is the March without separate article and with underdeveloped bandwidth in the sonata article) I see this as an impediment for GA status. --Francis Schonken (talk) 08:36, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

The comments of SPECIFICO in the previous section on the influence of the 4th movement on subsequent generations looks significant. It is historically strongly established that Chopin's originality was a distinct influence on composers such as Scriabin and Rachmaninov, which is only to start a very long list. Did the Chopin's Sonatas influence them and others? Are there reliable sources? Similarly for the funeral march since the article at present is too short for substantial splits, and there appears to be room for more development in this article. Chopinesque is only a small part of it. Your account of Schumann seems anecdotal at present since the two composers actually had some admiration of each other not mentioned in this article at any length. Possibly SPECIFICO could share his citations for the historical influence of the 4th movement. JohnWickTwo (talk) 12:53, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

Can we please stop talking about "influence" (I mean, in this talk page subsection, and by extension in the Bach/Beethoven context)? I'm talking about "reception" which mostly works with another parameter set than "influence".

Re. "Your..." – who are you replying to? I did not present an account of Schumann; In the 3rd paragraph of the intro I rephrased:

"Some critics, including Robert Schumann, argued that the work suffered from structural inferiority, and that Chopin “could not quite handle sonata form”. However, recent commentaries suggest that these notions are becoming less accepted."

to:

"Robert Schumann, among other critics, argued that the work was structurally inferior[,] and that Chopin "could not quite handle sonata form", a criticism that did not withstand time."

... which afaics did not alter the account given, only its wording (mostly for WP:WTW-related reasons).

On the ground of the matter (account of Schumann's critical reception):

"The first major written criticism of Chopin's sonata opus 35 was that of Robert Schumann, which appeared in 1841. Known, inter alia, for commenting on the works of his contemporaries, Schumann was unreserved in giving his opinion. His criticism of this sonata is legendary, and is referred to in almost any general discussion of this sonata in the literature. It became the catalyst for a chain reaction of countless other writings on the subject. Other critics often referred to Schumann when presenting their views on opus 35; many agreed with him, others questioned his opinions, while some even tried to read between the lines and offer different interpretations of his critique. Seeing that this review had such far-reaching consequences as far as the reception of the B flat Minor sonata is concerned, the complete review, translated from the original German, has been included in this dissertation" (pp. 8–9 of the source I added to a new "Further reading" section this morning adding my emphasis)

--Francis Schonken (talk) 13:45, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

@Smerus: This is the useful passage from the FA for Chopin on Schumann from the "Influence and reception" section: "Chopin's qualities as a pianist and composer were recognized by many of his fellow musicians. Schumann named a piece for him in his suite Carnaval, and Chopin later dedicated his Ballade No. 2 in F major to Schumann." JohnWickTwo (talk) 14:15, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

Chopin and Schumann might have had some mutual respect for each other, but there was certainly a lot of mutual incomprehension of each other's works as well, and given that Schumann's review of Chopin's op. 35 is one manifestation of this it seems worth mentioning that Chopin's attitude towards the works of his contemporaries was generally negative. He after all returned Schumann's favour by stating that Carnaval was not music, although perhaps his appearance in it influenced this opinion. ^_^ Double sharp (talk) 14:54, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

@JohnWickTwo:

• I restored the indentation of my first post on this page, and that of the first reply to it, indentations which you had modified for no apparent reason, unless in an attempt to make unclear who replied what to which post (my first post on this page was not a reply to any post in particular, and you shouldn't have made it appear as if it was).
• It remains unclear to which post you replied in your last contribution on this page: you indent it after a comment I wrote, thus it appears as if it is a reply to something I wrote, but then you start the reply with a ping to someone else (who did not even write in this subsection, and who did not write about Schumann, not in any section on this page, while your reply was about Schumann.
• On content: somewhat WP:OR-ish (WP:SYNTH) what you seem to suggest: the content in the FA seems not to be backed by clear reliable sources (the first footnote after that content is an unidentified "Walker (1988)" who does not appear in the literature list at the bottom of that article). And no indication these issues are mentioned, by reliable sources, in the context of Chopin's second piano sonata. Schumann's criticism, on the other hand: see emphasised text in the quote I gave above.

--Francis Schonken (talk) 15:54, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

There is no WP:OR here in any manner whatsoever. The Schumann quote is directly from the FA biography article for Chopin where Smerus is listed as a top editor. You may update the material on Schumann in the Chopin biography if you believe your edit is valid. JohnWickTwo (talk) 16:07, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

Not really. See WP:CIRCULAR. Surprised that such core content policy principles would need an explanation in a FA procedure. The content has no reliable source in the other article: under such circumstances it should not be used here. It should rather be removed there with a WP:CHALLENGE: it seems to have slipped through the cracks, whatever the status of the article or its principal contributors. Inadequate referencing aside, there are more layers to how Chopin and Schumann thought about one another than Wikipedia's Chopin bio would make us believe. The sonata article is hardly the place to disentangle that: if Schumann's criticism of the sonata "is referred to in almost any general discussion of this sonata in the literature" (see above), then Wikipedia's article on the sonata should follow suit. If virtually no general discussion of the sonata in reliable sources mentions other aspects of the complex Schumann–Chopin interactions, then Wikipedia's article on the sonata should follow suit too, per WP:SYNTH (or: per WP:BALASPS, another core content policy principle that would yield the same result here). --Francis Schonken (talk) 05:26, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

@Zingarese: Nearly a dozen edit comments for you over the last day or two. Any plans for your editing over the week-end? This phrase in the article needs attention: "addition, the sonata's opening bars allude to the opening". JohnWickTwo (talk) 14:51, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

7/13 response from Zingarese

Thank you to everyone who has commented on the article. @JohnWickTwo: I do plan on working on the article throughout the weekend; although I will be a little bit busy, I do anticipate being able to address all of the raised concerns and get the article ready for final review, at the latest, by the end of the weekend. Please feel free to make further suggestions if needed :-) Zingarese talk · contribs 17:18, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

Request to place on hold or perform final review

@JohnWickTwo: I had less time than anticipated to work on the article this weekend, although I got some work done. If you feel it doesn’t meet the good article criteria, I am asking if you could kindly place the article on hold? I think I would then be able to get it ready within a few days, maybe even one or two. Regardless, please let me express my opinion that I think the article already meets all of the good article criteria - I think the coverage is “broad” enough, with already plenty of material about the Funeral March’s legacy (“broad” is not the same as “comprehensive”, although I have already started expanding the information pertaining to Funeral March and will continue to do so in the coming days) and I think the article is definitely MOS-compliant, verifiable with no OR, and neutrally written (still determining if the op. 111 allusion is WP:UNDUE, although two other sources I’ve read have mentioned it). It is a far cry from featured criteria, but I feel it already passes the good criteria. Of course, you may certainly disagree; in that case, please just put it on hold instead. Regards, Zingarese talk · contribs 06:41, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

@Zingarese: If you are looking for a short check list for a quick final review then I can list one below. Your article benefits from having had a large number of editors making many useful suggestions bringing the article close to peer review quality.

(1) The Beethoven influences section has caused concerns not only because of WP:UNDUE, but, @SPECIFICO: and other editors have expressed concern for WP:BALASPS and have commented that, "...the suggestion of the descending minor sixth as a similarity between Beethoven and Chopin also strikes me as rather meaningless." One suggestion here is to reduce your Beethoven material to some highly abridged form and fully preface it with the comment that the prevailing consensus among reviewers of this sonata is not to mention your Beethoven material. Although you can find isolated opinions supporting you here, there is the prevailing consensus among many scholars which supports not mentioning it.

(2) The influence of the Sonata still in the 19th century upon Rubinstein and Rachmaninoff, I think is worthy of mention. Both were ardent supporters of it, and for Rachmaninoff it was also included as part of his last concert before his death.

(3) If the editors reviewing here were to start to list all of the piano works which start with 2-3 descending octaves, then I do not think that such an exhaustive list would be useful to your article. Is the gain for your article sufficient to justify your adding your graphics of the scores proving that there are 2-3 descending octaves which start this composition.

I'll await your reply. I welcome other editors to comment here. JohnWickTwo (talk) 13:05, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

Article returned to active status and final edits

Last call for final comments and edits before ending this assessment. At present the article has been found to be deficient in the characterization from Rosen as noted by @Double sharp: with which I agree; the addition of a short one sentence edit seems light on this count and might be extended. Regarding the Beethoven material then @SPECIFICO and Francis Schonken: have indicated that the material seems overstated in the article; again with which viewpoint I agree. @Zingarese: The material on Rosen should be extended it appears, and the Beethoven material abridged by half; a significantly large number of reliable sources who have written on this Sonata feel the Beethoven influence is not even worthy of any mention at all. JohnWickTwo (talk) 02:48, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

@JohnWickTwo: Please note that Double sharp was referring to the Finale, where Rosen was discussing the Finale in detail, especially how it was revolutionary in that Chopin was able to achieve new heights in giving polyphonic life to a single, monochromatic line (I added some material related to that in the article just now); even further so than Bach. He was not doing a formal analysis on the entire sonata; his book, after all, is about the Romantic era and some of its uppermost output . (He barely writes anything about the slow movement.) There is also a very detailed, illustrated discussion about the form & harmonic aspects on the pages 294-298: it would be too much to include that on Wikipedia, but I added a note about those pages. Re the Beethoven material: why do you want me to abridge it by half? Why not three-quarters? Why not seven-eighths? Actually, why abridge it at all? I already shortened it quite a bit in the past week; I determined that the prose about Chopin not being able to "ignore Beethoven's sonatas" and the "invent a new future for Beethoven" wp:undue, and removed it. However, many academic researchers and musicologists have established with compelling evidence that the Op. 26 was one of Chopin's favorite Beethoven sonatas , which he taught, played, and analyzed in detail for his students more than any other sonata. The influence to Op. 111 is not mentioned as much, but even James Huneker,who wrote one of the most influential Chopin biographies, mentions the striking similarity between the opening of Chopin's sonata and the introduction of 111. It is indisputably the case that the opening bars of the two sonatas are harmonically identical. Also, we don't know why the other academics who have written about this sonata didn't mention it: maybe they didn't think about it at all. For example, the openings of Schubert's C minor piano sonata (D 958) and Beethoven's Variations in the same key (WoO 80) are strikingly similar to the point of quotation, (even more so than the Chopin 35 and Beethoven 111 connection), but several writings of the Schubert sonata don't mention that either! Finally, there was an earlier concern of the third movement not having enough information about its reception; I have expanded that and there is enough information now of the movement, its most notable orchestrations, its reception (including its most noteworthy reviews), and its influence on later musical works, to satisfy "broad coverage" of the GA criteria. Possibly not "comprehensive" enough (but that's a FA criterion) but definitely broad. Zingarese talk · contribs 21:40, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

It must be clear to you that you do not really have much support for your Beethoven edit, and none of the other editors appear to be supporting you on this Beethoven point. Yes, reducing it to 1-2 sentences is all that you need. If you continue with your isolated enthusiasm for what appears to be a Chopin anecdote about his mentioning this one Beethoven piece to students, then the result will be uninteresting and unprofitable to your article. Reduce it to 1-2 sentences. Thank you for again asking me to compare an E-flat octave descending to a F-sharp octave in the one piece, as compared to a D-flat octave descending to a repeated E octave in the other piece. The material on Beethoven needs to be reduced to 1-2 sentences at most. JohnWickTwo (talk) 23:42, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

If I continue with my "isolated enthusiasm"? Excuse me, but no editor who has commented here opposed the material related to Op. 26. It's well established that Chopin greatly admired this sonata; he did not just merely "mention" it to his students. Zingarese talk · contribs 00:36, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

@Zingarese: I'm afraid you seem to misunderstand. It's not about what the Wikipedia editor named Zingarese (or any of the other Wikipedia editors) thinks important. The applicable policy (instead of basing oneself on editor preferences) is WP:BALASPS. Currently, there are around 25 paragraphs in the article. Two of its largest paragraphs, let's say around 10% of the article content, is about the Bach-and-Beethoven comparisons. If that would be a good, WP:BALASPS-conform, reflection of scholarship (and other reliable publications) about the sonata, that would mean that in real life around 10% of what has been published about the sonata in such publications is about these analogies. That is most certainly not the case. I haven't read all commentaries on the sonata, thus my estimate is tentative, but I'm sure Bach-and-Beethoven material in reliable publications on Chopin's second sonata are nearer to 1% than to 10% of the bandwidth. So JohnWickTwo is right to ask that this material would be further reduced in the Wikipedia article. --Francis Schonken (talk) 01:26, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

Yes, it appears that I have misunderstood. My apologies. And you are right, it is closer to 1% on average than 10%. I have made some drastic pruning; perhaps it can be expanded back to what it was before at a later time. Zingarese talk · contribs 02:48, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

That was quite a useful interchange between the two of you overnight and editing at the article. JohnWickTwo (talk) 12:39, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

Closing assessment and comments

There has been a useful exchange between two of the editors overnight which has enhanced the article. This assessment of the article has had the benefit of a significant number of other interested editors who helped to accelerate the upgrading of this article in a constructive direction. The article also benefits from a reformulated lead section which improves the article. Because of the popularity of this piece, there are many subjective comments which may be added to this article with some potential edits being more useful than others. For example, although this reviewing editor is partial to the fact that Anton Rubinstein adopted this Sonata into his performing repertoire in the 19th century, the nominating editor has decided to leave this out of the article. If the article is eventually nominated towards a featured article, then some care might be applied to distinguishing between subjective possible edits for this article and those which make the article more useful for a general community of readers. The article in its current form is well-researched and written well. The images check out along with some of the useful scores which are quoted in the article. The bibliography is fully formatted and all of the boxes for this assessment appear to be checked. The article passes this assessment for peer review evaluation. JohnWickTwo (talk) 12:39, 26 July 2018 (UTC)