Talk:Symphony, D 708A (Schubert)

References and stuff

This is a really interesting milestone in Schubert's symphonic output, for the really unusual tonal scheme of the first movement and what seems to be the initial inspiration for the scherzo of D.944 in the third movement. Typically you will hear (in the Marriner and Mackerras recordings) a less substantial "completion" (i.e. orchestration of the fragments without completing them), also by Newbould. Newbould seems to have later made a true completion (like those he made for the seventh and tenth). This completion has been performed by the BBC Philharmonic under Juanjo Mena, and it has been labelled as Schubert's "seventh" symphony. I suppose that now recreates Grove's original numbering scheme, where the Unfinished is #9 and the Great is #10 (with the D.729 and D.936a now being #8 and #11). Double sharp (talk) 13:16, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Sources for Newbould's completion: [1] [2] [3] Double sharp (talk) 13:20, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Potential DYK hook: something about how it was abandoned due to problems of orchestration (R8R, I need you!) Basically the problem is the climax in the finale (the brass and percussion are needed but can't play) and also Schubert vacillating on whether to include trombones during the final movement. Eventual structure of this article should be like the one on the D.936a (should honestly be D.965b!) sketch. Double sharp (talk) 13:29, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Newbould speaks. :-) Double sharp (talk) 16:33, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

I can hardly help, but I'll try

It's not like I understand a lot in classical music, but let's see. My first intention when I opened the article was to listen to the symphony, but I had to google it (it's very easy to google). Why not include a link to somewhere you can listen to it? Moreover, you can upload it to Wiki (-media?), since copyright should be no problem.

I'm not sure about the copyright – I think the performers get the copyright to their own performance (or something like that), so that performance wouldn't be OK here. Double sharp (talk) 08:10, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

About the hook. Honestly, I'm not sure I can make a good one. (It's easier to tell if a book is good than to write a good one, but I'll try anyway). Anyway, maybe I can help. Let's see.

(I have to write an essay about this.)

Okay, I have a few questions about the article (a few moments I don't understand. It could be a good idea to spell out things for non-pros like me in the article as well. If I don't understand something not due to music jargon, but due to my poor language knowledge, then (sure) you can leave as is. (I have a dictionary, just in case.))

"survives in a piano sketch" maybe this is normal language (is it? I can't tell), but I don't understand what the phrase could mean.

It is, but I clarified it further. Basically it means he sketched it as if it were for piano.

was confused about the word "survives," but I get the point now :)--R8R (talk 13:25, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

"orchestrated by Brian Newbould" (editor notes: when for the first time? of what nationaly is this Newbold? state it.) also, what is "orchestration"? I read en.w and ru.w articles, and I realized it is approximately "writing music down the way it could be played." okay, then how was music written if it couldn't be played (what did Schubert do?) explain it to me, please. I don't understand, sadly :( It could be important. I mean, why did it take over a century between these two steps?

Aha, further reading makes things clear. Schubert made a sketch, Newbould finished it and worked on details. Hmm. Why did Schubert not complete it by himself? Wasn't he satisfied with it? Was ill? Had better ideas? (could be a good fact for the article)

(My attempt at explanation) He wrote the melody lines, with some small hints at accompaniment. He also stopped each movement before reaching the end. Thus it can't be played. Unlike the other unfinished Schubert symphonies (#7, #8, #10), there is a lot of missing material, and therefore Newbould didn't attempt the completion in the 1990s (which he did for #7, #8, and #10). He did it now because he got commissioned by the BBC to do so.

Schubert didn't finish it because of problems with orchestration. Brass and percussion instruments were limited in his time and couldn't do everything he needed them to do with his ending. Also he was wavering on whether he was going to use trombones or not, until finally he abandoned work on this and started #7 (using trombones from the start). (He didn't finish that one either...) Double sharp (talk) 11:10, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

"conjectural completion" I again have no idea what this could be

"performed, published, and recorded" not performed, recorded, and published? (also broadcasted, say that too)

I'll read the rest and see what I can do (apparently not a lot)--R8R (talk 09:05, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Reading the reference. Just in case, I don't think anything can make a worthy hook, but if there is one, I believe it can be found there.--R8R (talk 09:24, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Theses from there (for self):

Known at least since c. 1900 (found in Vienna Library)

Sketches could imply they were for two symphonies rather than one

A 1978 study implies three periods were represented: 1818, 1821, 1828 (later revised to 1825 with final touch in 1826), three symphonies

Hmm

The easy suggestion would be "...that even almost two centuries after his death, Schubert keeps premiering" or smth like that (in good English). Not sure if it's that good, but not awful (I hope) Then you should add info about the 2012 premiere and maybe call Newbound a leading Schubert authority. (do it anyway)

Or maybe "...that a Schubert's symphony took circa 80 years to find it, another 80 to complete, and 25 more to finally perform?"

(In ru.wiki, this could be represented like approximately "...that being dead for two centuries would not keep a true music genius from premiering") (I'm exaggerating, but still)

Feeling unsatisfied. Will try to think about this more. Also in some other directions. I'll tell if I can come up with anything good.--R8R (talk 09:55, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

The article is okay, maybe except not concerning music details, which I don't understand and thus can't tell if they're good, because I'm unsure if this may be made easily understandable. Not a GA candidate yet (that would require not that much work, I think, maybe a few more days, but you really need to get someone who understands music to see if it's so), but good enough for DYK (that is, you won't be ashamed of this DYK later :)

Re hook, I don't know. There is a feeling inside of me that a really good hook would not pass, i.e. it would, but it would change during the process and wouldn't be as good afterwards :( I actually tried to find out why en.wiki's DYK was so uninteresting and basically that is because that helps new editors get along, because they feel praised, getting the award. This has its ups (I see one up, just mentioned) and downs (basically making Wiki less appealing for readers than it could be). I think the down is more important than the up, given DYK articles aren't a big cut of all new articles, even given a few (just a few) DYK editors may later become GA/FA generators (and they will most likely to be writing articles with 5-10 hits a day). The bad thing is, these mediocre-quality hooks became the standard (exceptions apply, but very randomly, because of "human factor") If I were you, just for interest, I would try the already mentioned "...that being dead for nearly two centuries would not keep a true music genius from premiering?", just for interest. I realize you're not me and if you don't like it (and confirm it), I'll try to suggest something else tomorrow, but don't expect much.

Oh, I also suggest you lose the comma in the title, but this baby is yours, so I won't be messing myself. You may also want to lose the whitespace in "D. 708a," because you don't use it in the article, where the symphony is referred to as "D.708a."--R8R (talk) 02:10, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Inconsistency is fun, isn't it? :-P

I've seen "D 615", "D.615", "D. 615", "DV 615" all as formats. (The last is more of a German thing.) I'll probably change it to be consistent: though I'm not sure which one I want to change it to! (Looks for an official WikiProject position on this.) Double sharp (talk) 14:53, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Do you think it's possible to bring D. 615 into this as well? ("...that even after nearly two centuries, material from one of two pieces of evidence of a crisis in Schubert's symphonic output proved to be fertile?") (Newbould's word, if you're curious.) A bit more info-saturated, but still not quite satisfied with it myself?! Double sharp (talk) 14:10, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

It is possible (but hard), yet the current wording is not so great (took me a while to understand what was meant). Also notice a sequence of "of"s (one of two pieces of evidence of a crisis). Also (in my opinion) less "wow" effect: it could be thousands of years, years is not the main point, for this "fertility." (offtopic: DYK Google is an English-English dictionary too? fertile). I'll think about it.--R8R (talk) 14:58, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

How about "...an inspiration crisis delayed completion of a Schubert's work for 191 years?" (doesn't involve the second one, though.)--R8R (talk) 16:31, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

(How would anyone characterize the crisis in one word?)

From D.589 and D.615, and leading up to what he achieved in D.759 and D.944, I think it's a directional crisis in his work. Not so much inspiration – Schubert rarely seems to lack that! (Although the sketch for the 3rd movement of D.759 makes me wonder...)

Hmmm...it is kinda hard to involve D.615. Argh...Newbould, why you no complete it? It's not that bad IMO. The finale is gorgeous. I can understand though that it's probably not what Schubert was aiming for.

..."a directional symphonic crisis delayed completion of a Schubert work for 191 years?" I can kinda give up on putting D.615 in, because nobody ever really completed it.

Argh, if I can't think of a good one by tomorrow I'll have to grab GA instead. (Although come to think of it GA'ing all thirteen of the Schubert symphonies is not a bad idea. Well, twelve probably, since D.2b's article will probably never be long enough for GA.) Double sharp (talk) 14:53, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Okay, I'd rather say you can go with what you have. It might be not really brilliant, but it's not all that lame either (compare with the now-displaying "... that Aeroflot Flight 3519 crashed in 1984, killing 110 people?"), and, to be honest, there isn't much else to talk about in a hook. I'd cut the word "symphonic," just to keep it shorter and "hookier." "... that a directional crisis delayed completion of a Schubert work for 191 years?" That's my opinion.--R8R (talk) 09:58, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Title

Why is there a comma?--R8R (talk 13:21, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Because Symphony, K. 16a (Mozart) had one and I copied the title format. I don't really feel strongly for either version. Double sharp (talk) 13:44, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Wiegenlied, D. 498 (Schubert) which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 21:30, 15 September 2014 (UTC)