Talk:Impromptus (Schubert)

	Classical music portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Classical music, which aims to improve, expand, copy edit, and maintain all articles related to classical music, that are not covered by other classical music related projects. Please read the guidelines for writing and maintaining articles. To participate, you can edit this article or visit the project page for more details.Classical musicWikipedia:WikiProject Classical musicTemplate:WikiProject Classical musicClassical music articles
	This article is supported by Compositions task force.

Impromptu No. 2

I strongly suspect that whoever wrote the account of Impromptu No. 2 in Eb Major was actually describing No. 4 in Ab Major. I had altered the description, but changed it back for now, as I was probably making even more of a muddle. The description certainly needs recasting, as it is certainly inaccurate as it stands.

I withdraw my earlier comment.

Kostaki mou 23:38, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(Kostaki, please note that content should not be deleted from talk pages; this makes it easier for people to follow the whole discussion. As such, I have restored your previous comments. In the future, If you would like to retract something you've written, you should make use of the strike-through. --Todeswalzer|Talk 22:48, 5 February 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Noted.

Kostaki mou 05:30, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: last edit (11/14/07)

You are correct. The piece is in Eb major, though it ends in Eb minor. Kostaki mou (talk) 23:46, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Impromptu, Opus 90 No. 4

I regard my description of this piece as preliminary. I find it a trifle awkward as it stands (through accurate).

(Since writing this, I have come to the conclusion that I may have been too self-critical. Either that or I've gotten used to what I've written. What do you think? (Actually, I did tinker with it a bit in a few places.)

Kostaki mou 03:54, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have also removed a few subjective observations of mine, here and for the first and third of the 3 Klavierstücke.

Kostaki mou 04:14, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

from japan

I've edited about this matter in Japanese.Between Opus 90 and Opus 142,we find severe difference in constructure and characterics of the masterpieces.So the devision will be necessary. ----19 April 2007

unsourced and irrelevant stuff moved here

I moved the following stuff here. The first sentence can go back, if someone can find a reference for it. The rest doesn't belong here, as people can read that stuff at the page on Schubert.--24.86.252.26 08:20, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Impromptus for piano were written by Schubert for the entertainment of his friends, as were the majority of his works. While Schubert had a close circle of friends and associates who admired his work, including his teacher Antonio Salieri, and the, wider appreciation of his music during his lifetime was limited at best. He was never able to secure adequate permanent employment, and for most of his career he relied on the support of friends and family. Interest in Schubert's work increased dramatically in the decades following his death.

"They [3 Klavierstücke D. 946] are among the most difficult piano works ever written by Schubert."

The only part that is at all difficult is the B major section of No. 1. No. 2 is downright easy. Opus 90 nos. 2 and 4 and Opus 142 No. 4 are far more difficult. Kostaki mou (talk) 23:35, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

References re Op. 142

After some digging, I removed the following from the description of Op. 142 #2:

The opening bars of the melody are highly reminiscent of a similar theme, from the opening of Beethoven's piano sonata in A-flat, Opus 26.

In my opinion, the melody does not resemble any of that piano sonata's themes (much beyond the first three notes of the first movement theme, anyway). I've substituted Einstein's description (which, on comparison of the two themes seems much more apt) of it resembling the theme in the third movement from Beethoven's Op 72 #2 Piano Trio. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Magicpiano (talk • contribs) 21:37, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See below under POV. Someone appears to have reinserted the original assertion without any discussion. It should be removed. Your statement should remain, however, as it is credited to a noted Schubert (and Beethoven) scholar, AND marked as that scholar's opinion only. Jubilee♫clipman 22:17, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

muliple interwiki to ja

Isn't it inappropriate? --Cheol (talk) 00:57, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

POV

Much of the material in this is open to debate, especially without references. In particular, the statement that Op 90/2 is easily the most recognized of Schubert's piano works. I would venture that Op 142/3 or the third Moment Musical are both far better known and instantly recognizable, to say nothing of the Wanderer...

The tonal ambiguity at the start of the piece highlights the romantic composer's need for abstract imagery through music. In whose opinion? Also, the opening chord (of op 90/1) does not leave the key ambiguous on its own: arguably the entire first line of melody does. The "new theme" in that same work is not new: it is based on the end of the lyrical statement of the march theme.

Op 90/2 has these unqualified staments: ..This section is tumultuous and is in quintessential Schubertian form..,..follows a set of chord changes often borrowed in all manner of musical genres..., ..the first section spins out of control and unravels.... All of these are out of place here: this is not meant to be a critical review but an unbiased description.

Op 142/1: The B episodes contain a passage invoking a unique pianistic effect...: hardly unique, as Mozart uses a similar device in his C minor Sonata, as do many others in other works. The way it is used here is rather striking though, granted.

Op 142/2: The opening bars of the melody are highly reminiscent of a similar theme from the opening of Beethoven's Piano Sonata in A-flat, Opus 26. Again, this is only in your opinon: I have played both countless times but would say they only bear a "slight passing resemblence" to each other.

There is so much else here that needs to be entirely rewritten that I will probably need help, though I will make a start when I get a chance. Jubilee♫clipman 22:17, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Changed that horrendous school report that was the descripion for Op 90/2. Could not bear to read it! I did leave the (badly written) assertion in the middle, since it may well be true, though it needs references (and rewrites) if it is to stay. Jubilee♫clipman 23:35, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rewrote Op 90/1. The essense was there, but there was quite a bit of POV too. The statements at the end need reviewing, so I tagged them. Jubilee♫clipman 00:26, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nyman

For the film Gattaca, Michael Nyman composed...: should that not be arranged? Schubert composed the work. I've not seen the film so I am unaware if it is a total rewrite which should be credited entirely to Nyman (based loosely on Schubert) or a mere reworking for more fingers. (!) Jubilee♫clipman 00:42, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Found it on uTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=35ExsXFovIM&NR=1) and it is merely a clever reworking IMHO with additions - and cannot be played on 12 fingers! Then again I suppose Pulcinella is merely a clever reworking of 18 century music but is credited lock-stock to Stravinsky... Thoughts? Jubilee♫clipman 00:54, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Op. 142 No. 2 Recording

The most dreadful rendition I've heard recorded? There are numerous mistakes all throughout the piece. Ecthelion 8 11:13, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No. 2 in E-flat major

"The section ends with two oscillating figures which act as an important bridge both here and later." I listened to the piece several times, but couldn't find out what those 2 oscillating figures are. I even have the shhet music, but couldn't figure it out. What's that supposed to be? Princilll (talk) 14:06, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Another cultural reference

I don't know if this important enough to be featured in the main article: During an operation in the episode "Motherhood" from the TV series Emergency Room (Season 1, episode 24) the medical staff listens to Impromptu No. 3, D.899. This unique episode was directed by Quentin Tarantino. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.179.134.9 (talk) 10:18, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No. 3 in G-flat major

I would disagree with the comment about this being one of the first pieces composed in this unusual key. Bach composed a fugue in G-flat major (I don't have exact date) much earlier. Suggest removing the whole sentence.

I'd perhaps add that it is much easier to play in g flat major than in g. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Doyoulikestring (talk • contribs) 12:34, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for pointing this out. I've removed the sentence. Graham87 15:27, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Citation Needed entries

Sometimes the Wikipedia editor's advice "citations needed" are without sense of proportions for what is common knowledge and not so important conventions, something which will be seen when you e.g. get printed music in a library for Schubert's Impromptus: //quote://The Impromptus are often considered companion pieces to the Six moments musicaux, and they are often recorded and published together.[citation needed]//:unquote// But for demonstration I try to lay down a link to Amazon.co.uk which has a recording made by Brendel w. Impromptus and Moment Musicaux http://www.amazon.co.uk/s/?ie=UTF8&keywords=schubert+moments&tag=googhydr-21&index=music And as printed music: http://www.amazon.co.uk/Impromptus-Moments-Musicaux-piano-HN/dp/B00076PIUO --d-axel (talk) 13:25, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

They're commercial links, and making conclusions from them is original research. Graham87 14:14, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

About the history of D899

Someone removed this remark about publshing history of the Imprompti D.899, I think it is important to understand that these works were published in Schuberts lifetime - but only two of them! I found the information as part of the "publication" on IMSLP which I consider a good reference though it should be checked against Otto Deutsch's work (which I do not have).

The Impromptus op. 90 were edited as single pieces, numbered from 1 to 4. Only the first two appeared in Schubert's lifetime: in December 1827 (Tobias Haslinger, Vienna). (See talk to IMSLP webpage for D.899 http://imslp.org/wiki/Talk:4_Impromptus,_D.899_(Op.90)_(Schubert,_Franz) .) --d-axel (talk) 18:38, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wikis are not reliable sources. Graham87 13:21, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"Impromptu No. 2 in E♭ major was performed in its entirety by Françoise Rosay in a segment of the 1948 anthology film Quartet"

Certainly her character performs it, but did Mme Rosay herself actually play it? Kostaki mou (talk) 17:09, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Split into separate articles

If no one objects, I would split the impromptus into separate articles. The impromptus are not connected musically (and not always performed as a set), and separate articles would allow for the addition of more background information and analysis. intforce (talk) 14:42, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Are you proposing to split them into their corresponding published sets or by individual piece? I’m all for it if the former, but would be opposed if the latter. While it is true that they are not always performed as sets corresponding to their respective opus/Deutsch numbers, they are often performed and recorded that way. And whether Schubert intended it or not, Op. 142 has attracted a lot of commentary for its perceived crypto-sonata musical unity. Splitting its component pieces into separate articles would inhibit understanding of this important part of the Impromptus’ reception history. CurryTime7-24 (talk) 06:19, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Applying WP:summary style for the three groups of compositions (each group getting a separate article) would be OK for me. All other options not. Note also that the current version of this article would need quite some clean-up to make it more or less acceptable. Splitting to avoid clean-up, or to start messy sub-articles, would also not be OK for me: in that case it would be better not to have sub-articles for the time being and do the clean-up in this article first. --Francis Schonken (talk) 08:12, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've added variant split suggestions to the three main sections of the article, according to my comment above. --Francis Schonken (talk) 08:26, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks CurryTime7-24 and Francis Schonken, I fully agree with your comments. I'll tackle this once the libraries here reopen and I can do some more substantial research. Regards, intforce (talk) 10:59, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Intforce: compare Schubert's compositions for violin and piano (summary style article) and Violin Sonatas, Op. 137 (Schubert) as an example of a spin-off article of the latter. Not that these are perfect articles, but might give you a rough idea of what I was thinking of. --Francis Schonken (talk) 11:13, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the advice. I'll keep that in mind. Cheers, intforce (talk) 11:23, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support split into the three sets, while probably preserving this overall summary page. Courtesy ping for intforce, the tag has been here for over a year now :( – Aza24 (talk) 23:49, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]