Template talk:Symphonies (Schubert, Franz)

Mr. Legge, I don't have dramatic arguments against it - it just feels better symmetrical. I don't think that it should be divided in any musical sense, as it is not the template's place..,see the other templates, such as the beethoven piano sonatas - those are certainly musically uneven. It also looks better to the eye if there are as few blank spaces as possible.--Snailey _{Yell at me Email me} 18:13, 6 December 2008 (EST)

Revert warring

Hi Snailey.

It’s Philip, by the way, or PML :)

I don’t see the symmetry present in the latest revision, because the right-hand side is “heavier”. Anyway. Yes, the original template was taken from the Beethoven symphonies template, and the original design looked a little bit like this:

Then you balanced it four and four with a 40/60 split:

Then I came along on 24 November and added in keys, Deutsch catalogue numbers, the sobriquet of #4, and the fragmentary #7 & #10 in a couple of lighter-shaded cells, as well as reverting to 50/50 split:

With the continuing discussion of fragments and sketches over at the forums, the next update on 27 November added in two more sketches, and made some subtle changes to the description of the “unfinisheds”, like this:

As by 2 December I had uploaded the facsimiles of Schubert’s manuscript sketches, this is fairly close to my preferred layout, again with some descriptive changes:

Then you returned on 4 December with about 20 successive changes, significantly widening the table, and relegating the #8 to the bottom half of the table.

I responded by narrowing the table again, adding the fragment D.2b (D.997) and changing the balance of the top half, to indicate the stylistic division between 1–5 and the C major symphonies:

Which you changed again today to this:

And as this appeared less preferable to most of the alternatives before, I reverted back. PML, 11:32, 7 December 2008 (AEDT) My proposition:

Again, feel free to change colours and headings.Snailey _{Yell at me Email me} 22:00, 6 December 2008 (EST)

Another Idea:

This solves all of these problems - again, colour at will.Snailey _{Yell at me Email me} 22:07, 6 December 2008 (EST)

Actually, I really like this way the most.Snailey _{Yell at me Email me} 22:09, 6 December 2008 (EST)

Oh, and sorry. I usually do about 20 edits at a time - I don't use the preview button - maybe I should.Snailey _{Yell at me Email me} 22:12, 6 December 2008 (EST)

Discussion 1: position of the B minor "Unfinished"

May I make the suggestion that the Unfinished B minor should be in the top half of the table, as it is performable despite only consisting of two movements. The other five works under "Unfinished" symphonies are not performable without editorial intervention.

As a result of shifting the B minor to the top of the table, the bottom half should be called something other than "Unfinished Symphonies". "Incomplete sketches"? -- PML, 11:32, 7 December 2008 (AEDT)

The heading change seems to be the best idea here. I wanted a heading, but the "unfinished" heading made me put the "unfinished" symphony in with the rest. However, it too is an incomplete sketch. Also, "numbered" symphonies might work, except for the rather controversial numbering of 7 and 10.Snailey _{Yell at me Email me} 21:54, 6 December 2008 (EST)

Discussion 2: the "gap" in Schubert’s symphonic œuvre

There is a sizeable gap after the 6th “Little” C major symphony, where four of the incomplete works sit, before we reach the “Great” C major. That was the raison d’être behind the intermediate revision with 1–5 on one side of the main section, and the C major symphonies on the other. Even if the B minor “Unfinished” is restored to the top half of the table, there arguably ought to be a gap after 6. -- PML, 11:32, 7 December 2008 (AEDT)

Actually, when I look at it, it looks like 4 belongs on the left side, and afte3r 8 comes in, the rest fixes itself. - only the same small gap as we have now, if we put the gap after 6. However, I still do not feel that a template such as this should reflect subjective matters, which can be argued constantly.Snailey _{Yell at me Email me} 21:57, 6 December 2008 (EST)

But that is the best compromise - making it symmetrical again. Now for the heading.Snailey _{Yell at me Email me} 21:57, 6 December 2008 (EST)

Actually, we could put another divider in (colspan=1) and write another heading - (edit - see the proposition no. 2 that I laid out above)Snailey _{Yell at me Email me} 22:01, 6 December 2008 (EST)

Discussion 3: colour coding

I liked having the background for the “Incomplete sketches” section as a comparably “insubstantial” colour. Would there be any grave reason to reject returning it? -- PML, 11:32, 7 December 2008 (AEDT)

No, I just like this colour scheme for templates as you might notice from the ones on my user page.Feel free.--21:52, 6 December 2008 (EST)

Proposition No. 2 (my favorite)

Just wanted to put this on a separate heading for easy access. With your blessing I would like to implement this:

Proposition No. 3 – compromise!

I very much like the idea of the divider between 6 and 8, and it can be done as a rowspan. :)

Aside from the fact that in this particular numbering 7 doesn’t belong to the Unfinished (pace, New Schubert Edition) or to the Great (Ferdinand Schubert’s original numbering). And those three sizeable sketches or incomplete scores go in there.

I'm going with Incomplete sketches, and definitely without the question mark, because the word "unperformable" seems a little too negative to me. "Incomplete" seems more neutral. The 3 sketches have been realised, and the incomplete symphony in E has been completed by three different composers. You could arguably include the Unfinished B minor Scherzo in the bottom half: Aldona uploaded the Old Mozart Edition score and I’ve posted my completion... but that’s getting to the level of splitting hairs. :)

Regards, Philip Legge _{♇ @ © talk} 22:52, 6 December 2008 (EST)

Awesome. Glad you like it. I'll make the change to the pageSnailey _{Yell at me Email me} 22:57, 6 December 2008 (EST)

Done, and all pages have been updated.Snailey _{Yell at me Email me} 23:04, 6 December 2008 (EST)

Revert warring, take 2

Consistency across multiple templates is a nice idea, but each individual template has to balance the maximum amount of helpful information against sprawl and information overload. Conciseness is a virtue.

I'm therefore removing the word "major" from the symphonies which are incomplete; they're all in major keys, for what its worth. What's useful to know (at least where the unfinished works are concerned) is whether they are just sketches or full scores, whether there are 4 movements or fewer; not for screwing up the overall appearance of the template by making sure each major key work is identified with the word "major"...

Bear in mind the reason these templates are needed are because the work pages are titled so abominably, often lacking vital information. For example, someone who remembers playing a concerto or symphony in a certain key, but doesn't remember the number, doesn't want to have to navigate through potentially dozens of pages, just to find out which ones are in which keys. This is frustrating in the case of the Mozart symphonies for example, almost all of which lack both a key and the KV catalogue number; and the order of the B&H catalogue of the symphonies is not always representative of the order he wrote them in, and includes a number of spurious items.

I know my views on this are unpopular, however I disagree with the way a large number of work pages on this site are titled. Perhaps some effort might be put into fixing up the other templates, rather than once again forcing consistency on something – that may not actually require it. Philip Legge _{@ © talk} 23:00, 21 April 2009 (EDT)

As a long-time holder of minority views myself, let me assure you that you're not alone in having misgivings about the way in which work pages are titled (see a few thoughts on the subject here). Even the 'experts' are struggling to come up with a workable system (see[1] and[2]). The re-integration of IMDBP into IMSLP opens up some opportunities to remedy this situation, such as adding more variant titles, and most importantly, the keys of works. We've been promised some changes to the cataloguing system, and presumably Feldmahler has a master plan that he will share with us when the time is right :-)

My main gripe with the templates is the unwanted spaces after "Op." and "No.", which breaks one of the few firm rules we currently apply to work titles. I think there is a risk of confusion if "major" is omitted from the keys ("in B" is ambiguous; "in B major" isn't), but as you say, it can have undesired side-effects on the templates. Hopefully the templates will become unnecessary if we come up with better work descriptions... — P.davydov 14:03, 22 April 2009 (EDT)