Talk:String Quartet No. 14 (Schubert)

Comment

Schubert? why is the impromptu so significant? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.44.112.222 (talk) 15:37, 12 September 2004 (UTC)

I agree that a page move was overdue, but

to String Quartet No. 14 (Schubert) - uniformity!... (as a person who's done a lot of work on this page, mea culpa?) Schissel : bowl listen 14:35, Jun 10, 2005 (UTC)

Schubert versus Beethoven

• I was listening to the Grosse Fuge and Death and the Maiden came to mind. Has anybody compared the two?--user:hillgentleman ([[user talk:hillgentleman|talk])] 13:38, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Second movement theme

The article implies that the entire theme in the second movement comes from the lied. If i remember correctly, eight of its twenty-four bars are new material. I'll try to look it up and post sources tomorrow. NeverWorker (talk) 07:40, 16 July 2009 (UTC) It's in the liner notes to the Emerson Quartets recording of the late Schubert Quartets. How do I cite that?
-NeverWorker (talk) 17:22, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

re: Inspiration

I'd always assumed that the title was inspired by the Greek myth about Hades' kidnapping Persephone and taking her to the underworld. No? Ifnkovhg (talk) 22:35, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

I have never seen that in anything written about the quartet. The subject of Death and the Maiden runs through literary and artistic history, certainly since the Persephone myth, but I don't think that myth had any specific influence on Schubert. It was Claudius's poem that Schubert set to music that was the direct inspiration. --Ravpapa (talk) 06:32, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Overuse of copyrighted material

I believe that this concern is misplaced. The material - specifically, clips from a recording of the quartet - is not exactly copyrighted material. It is material that is licensed under a Creative Commons 3.0 license with a noncommercial use clause. License can be read here.

Normally, I would have uploaded the entire recording to the commons, and then done the excerpting. But because of the noncommercial use clause, the recording cannot be included in the commons.

However, to suggest that this is overuse of copyrighted material is unquestionably misinterpreting the CC 3.0 license, and is certainly contrary to the intent of the Gardner Museum, which published the recording.

• The problem with this is that Wikipedia allows its content to be freely reused. This means that, from our perspective, a CC-NC license is treated as the same thing as any copyrighted work. At the point where we consider it a non-free work, we ought to start looking for replacements. The music is certainly old enough. (ESkog)^(Talk) 16:09, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

• • Yes, I recognize that the recording in its entirety cannot be freely reused. But the excerpts can certainly be freely reused. So from that point of view there should be no problem with using the excerpts.

Your initial concern - that I had abused the fair use doctrine by using a lot of excerpts - would be correct if the recording was copyrighted. But since the recording is made freely available under a CC license, fair use has not been violated (the truth is that fair use is in this sense inapplicable, since there is no copyright to violate).

As for a free recording, your belief that one exists is extremely optimistic. I am familiar with many, many recordings of this work, and have also searched for a free one. No one has published a public domain recording of this work, and none of the old recordings are old enough for copyright to have expired. --Ravpapa (talk) 17:07, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

A month later: It seems my argument about the use of copyrighted material, when refering to material which is licensed under a CC license, has been accepted. I am removing the tag. --Ravpapa (talk) 08:21, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

• Umm, CC-NC license. There is a difference. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:09, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

• The recording can't be hosted on Commons because Commons hosts only free content. Wikipedia makes no distinction between NC and copyrighted. If it's NC, it is treated as non-free because we do allow commercial uses of our material, and NC material is incompatible with that. This is regardless of Gardner Museum's intent. They meant non-commercial use only. Therefore, NC material MUST be used under terms of our Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria. As to whether excerpts can be freely used or not; no, they can not. The entire work exists under an NC license. Therefore, I am not free to produce a derivative work that contains excerpts from the work and then sell it for a profit. That would violate their license. Since I can't do that, again, we must use the content under terms of Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria. Whether something is "fair use" in this case is really irrelevant. The point is the material must be used under our NFCC policy.
• Now, as to whether a public domain or free license recording of a performance of this work exists; maybe, maybe not. That too is irrelevant. Why? Because the original work was created by Schubert, who died nearly 200 years ago. The original manuscript is free of copyright by age. As one of the (quoting the article) "pillars of the chamber music repertoire", this piece receives considerable attention. A free license performance version of this work could be created. I note that the Franz Schubert contains 20 excerpts of performances of his work, and all of them are free licensed. Therefore, all of the excerpts that exists under this NC license could be replaced by a freely licensed version. Since that is the case, all of the excerpts fail NFCC #1 "Non-free content is used only where no free equivalent is available, or could be created" (emphasis mine). All of these excerpts will have to go from this article. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:04, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Hammersoft is completely correct here. This piece of music is in the public domain, so, a file uploaded merely to show what it sounds like when performed (as opposed to a piece uploaded to show what a specific recording sounded like) must be free (and anything under a NC license is non-free, as far as the Foundation and the English Wikipedia is concerned- there's not actually any debate about that. If you disagree, you're simply wrong.) I am removing the files, and I must ask you not to reinstate them. J Milburn (talk) 15:56, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
    • Related; I'm also concerned about the external links to non-free performances of this work. See the two pink boxes on the right, in the first two subsections of the article. --Hammersoft (talk) 16:56, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
      • External links should be avoided in the article body, but, unless the performance in question is being hosted in violation of copyright, it shouldn't be a problem (for instance, a song uploaded to YouTube by the copyright holder of said song is often a suitable external link). J Milburn (talk) 16:59, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
        • Yeah, my concerns in this regard are a fraction of the concerns about the excerpts being hosted here. I was thinking more that the Gardner Museum collection could be put in "External links" (actually already is). Including the links within the prose of the article feels dirty (from a free content perspective), for lack of a better term, and I think works to discourage someone finding free alternatives. I looked at WP:EL and can't find anything against this usage. Just expressing a feeling here. Nothing concrete. --Hammersoft (talk) 17:02, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Title

Death and the Maiden Quartet?

Surely "Death and the Maiden" Quartet, no? -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 10:47, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Actually, if we want to be real pinheads about it, the title should be "String Quartet No. 14 (Schubert)" and "Death and the Maiden Quartet" (with or without quotation marks) should be a redirect. I can't get terribly worked up about this, though I know many on the classical music project are sticklers and consider laxity in these matters to be unprofessional.

I am much more upset about the copyright vultures taking away my music samples. Now I will have to record the quartet myself, and my quartet will not play it nearly as well as it deserves. --Ravpapa (talk) 15:29, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Then please don't do that. Or, if you do record it with your own quartet, keep it for your own pleasure or lack thereof. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 22:30, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

No consensus to move. Vegaswikian (talk) 02:44, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Death and the Maiden Quartet → String Quartet No. 14 (Schubert) – It seems that the name of every other chamber music piece I have ever seen on wikipedia has the title formatted this way. It's clearer. --Violarulez (talk) 04:30, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

1. Oppose. Currently, String Quartet No. 14 (Schubert) redirects to this article. The only impact of this move would be to change the title as it appears at the top of the article. Since the string quartet is much better known as the Death and the Maiden Quartet, it makes sense that that should appear at the top of the article. The proposed move sacrifices clarity for consistency. It is a step backward. I oppose. --Ravpapa (talk) 07:54, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
2. Oppose. The alleged consistency is imaginary; few pieces of chamber music have common names other than opus number, but see Youth (wind sextet) (by Janacek) and Four Seasons (Vivaldi).Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:29, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
3. Oppose. Per Septentrionalis and adding the Trout Quintet by Schubert to the list of a well-established common names for pieces of chamber music. Favonian (talk) 21:31, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Cite needed - "is one of the pillars of the chamber music repertoire"

I hate "citation needed" tags, so I'm putting this here. The statement in the lead "...is one of the pillars of the chamber music repertoire" seems a bit POV, so a citation would be useful. Ditto for the claim "... it is Schubert's testament to death". Manning (talk) 08:22, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

I believe these statements are amply supported by citations in the body of the article - for example, the quote from Robert Schumann, the other citations and facts in the "Reception" section. As for the "testament to death", it is extensively supported by citations of the numerous analysts in the Analysis section and in the Inspiration section. It seems a bit artificial to add a citation for a general thesis-type statement in the lead which is merely a summary of the entire article.

For someone familiar with the subject matter - even to the extent of having read the article - these statements are no more POV than the lead of the article on John Lennon: "John Winston Lennon (9 October 1940 – 8 December 1980) was an English musician and singer-songwriter who rose to worldwide fame as one of the founding members of The Beatles." --Ravpapa (talk) 10:36, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Article lead

Anonymous editor 86.130.235.148 has twice removed a statement in the lead that Schubert's quartet is a testament to death. This statement is supported by numerous quotations throughout the article. Please, Mr. Anonymous, if you want to remove this sentence, please discuss it first on the talk page. Thank you, --Ravpapa (talk) 06:38, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

may have missed it on the page, but-

I only see mention in HMB of (two) publications in 1868 (Bartholf Senff and CF Peters) (and later of course, but not earlier that I notice...) - but nothing as early as 1831. Who published the quartet in 1831 and how do we know this? (Yes, I know HMB hardly lists everything- relying on it I got the "earliest" date of publication of a work 20 years too late by forgetting to check similar French publications, etc. ...) Schissel | Sound the Note! 23:36, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

You missed it in the text. It was published in 1831 by Diabelli. See last paragraph of section "Composition". Regards,--Ravpapa (talk) 18:40, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Ah, thanks. (I do see note of a performance of it in AMZ, 5 April 1833, p.258, and of a lot of other works of his published around that general time (the D major piano sonata, e.g.), but haven't found a notice yet (in some contemporary publication) of the Diabelli or a scanned-in copy (with plate numbers, etc.) of the first edition (which would be neat :) ). But that's useful information... Schissel | Sound the Note! 00:56, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Re HMB, my mistake- HMB 1831, page 53. The key is given as F major, so I missed it - I forgot such key mishaps (key key mishaps :) ) were, sigh, not uncommon (were, and are.) Schissel | Sound the Note! 01:24, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Translation of the poem

We have an issue about translation. The translation of Claudius's poem is quite free, and is, in fact, the translation that I have seen around. But BFolkman, quite justifiably, felt a literal translation would be better, which he did himself.

In my youth, many years ago, I remember reading a guideline about translations, but, for the life of me, I can't find it. Are original translations considered original research? Are they preferable to published translations which take freedoms? Do original translations (if allowed at all) have to be attributed to the translator? Ravpapa (talk) 16:54, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

If a translation is substantial then it is considered a derivative work and is considered to have its own new copyright. It's one of the reasons publishers come up with new translations of Dante and Dostoevsky, etc. Each translation into English has its own copyright period and protections, even when based on a work in the public domain. An "Original Research" translation is less in the public domain than one from the distant past. A translation shouldn't be assumed to be in the public domain, even if the source is. ____ E L A Q U E A T E 08:59, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

I'll add that a new translation here is definitely Original Research, as we have to rely on the idea that the editor is a reasonable source for their translation, when the editor is anonymous. There's no way to evaluate against any other source or expert opinion. __ E L A Q U E A T E 09:07, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

"a quote from another song of Schubert's, Der Erlkönig"

Notwithstanding the fact that Schubert's D minor quartet is not a song (it just references the song "Death and the Maiden", which I think is the intention behind this sentence), it probably ought to be noted that the melody (occurring in the song at "Du liebes Kind") is altered in the quartet. The rhythm is the same, but instead of beginning G-A-F-C (transposed), it is permuted to become F-G-C-A. Double sharp (talk) 10:09, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

All minor keys?

I did not verify this factoid that JackofOz (talk · contribs) added to the lead, though I don't doubt it is true. And I agree with Jerome Kohl (talk · contribs)'s comment that the factoid is unsupported in the article. But I ask a more fundamental question: So what? This is (probably) also the only Schubert quartet that has a subito piano in the third measure, that has a next to last measure that echoes the second measure, and ... well, I could go on forever.

My point being that, if you think this factoid is somehow significant, you need to say why, and probably support that why with a source. And, in any case, I think it hardly belongs in the lead of the article.

And forgive me for writing lead instead of lede. Habits die slowly in old men. --Ravpapa (talk) 16:56, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

Reformatting

Albinoni67 has reformatted the analysis section so that the text on the left side of the page is no longer connected to the musical examples on the right side. I suppose this makes the section much more compact, but, to my mind, incoherent. The whole idea was that you could read "first theme" and then click to hear the first theme. Now you have to scroll through the examples to find it.

If others agree with me, I will restore the original format. --Ravpapa (talk) 05:29, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

My apologies, please go ahead and restore. I can see your point of view ! Albinoni67 (talk) 20:40, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

Done --Ravpapa (talk) 06:10, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

Gratitude

I am writing an essay trying to incorporate this fantastic string quartet (which i have now listened to about 20x in past month) into prose and the breakout sections with audio for each movement and themes therein have been immensely helpful for this not-so-musically-sophisticated lover of schubert. (D960 being my all time favorite)

a heart thanks for whoever did that!

i do not add to talk so much so i hope this is appropriate since not "critical" information

~~ Richrat4 (talk) 21:18, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

Entirely appropriate. As for who did it, it was a community effort. In the name of the Wikipedia community, you're welcome.

Ravpapa (talk) 03:49, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

Irrelevant sculpture

Anonymous user https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/2A02:1210:5E98:9A00:7DBF:9A14:3E2A:5AFD deleted a picture of a sculpture of the Death and the Maiden because, he said, it was irrelevant. Why was it irrelevant? It is, I believe, one of the earliest artistic depictions of the Death and the Maiden legend. --Ravpapa (talk) 05:25, 26 September 2023 (UTC)