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
A fact from Piano Quartet (Schumann) appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the Did you know column on 23 April 2021 (
check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
Did you know... that the Piano Quartet, composed by
Robert Schumann in 1842 for piano and strings, was described by his wife
Clara as "a beautiful work, so youthful and fresh, as if it were his first"?
I agree that this article needs to be expanded and sourced. However, the "notability" tag is absurd. This is a major work of the chamber repertoire, referenced in numerous other WP articles but until now with a dead, red link. I added this article so those links would point somewhere. I have removed that tag.
mcoverdale (
talk)
15:56, 27 February 2011 (UTC)reply
Did you know nomination
The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as
this nomination's talk page,
the article's talk page or
Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.
Substantial detailed article, on fine sources, offline sources accepted AGF, no copyvio obvious. Sorry, the hook doesn't work without saying it was one person's evaluation. I wonder if his wife's reaction - who was probably the pianist at the house performance if not also later - would interest our readers more, and is sourced. I have a few suggestions for the article which are of course not needed for DYK, but I think this could easily go towards GA and even FA (compare
Piano Concerto No. 24 (Mozart)).
I'd like to see what the lead says about the implication for the future expanded more in the body.
I'd like to see more of the body summarized in the lead.
I think an image of Clara S. would be a good addition.
I think - unless we can specify the performers of the premiere - the info in the infobox could go to a one-liner "performed".
Still one more: if we go by the hook here, movement needs a link, probably even theme also. Most of our readers will not even know what a piano quartet is, and think that four pianos play ;) --
Gerda Arendt (
talk)
09:06, 27 March 2021 (UTC)reply
Thanks, Gerda, for your detailed comments.
ALT0b: ... that the Piano Quartet, composed by
Robert Schumann in 1842 for piano, violin, viola and cello, is said to feature one of the most beautiful cello themes of the
Romantic period in its third
movement?12
ALT1: ... that the Piano Quartet, composed by
Robert Schumann in 1842 for piano, violin, viola and cello, has been described by his wife
Clara as "a beautiful work, so youthful and fresh, as if it were his first"? Keller, p. 423
How could the movement be linked? As far as I understand, external links are not allowed. I could engrave the theme so it fits a picture though. GPQ now done.
intforce (
talk)
13:22, 27 March 2021 (UTC)reply
I linked "movement" for you, - not the specific one but to distinguish from a political movement. That part of the hook could also go, without much loss. Thank you for expanding and GAN! No need for music engraving, - too many to whom it means nothing. I prefer the ALT, with Clara (GA for GA) ;) - Next time, please link to the review (I did that now), and don't write below the last line (fixed) ;) - In that review, I'd not accept "people in Taiwan" because too general, and the image caption's "restaurant in question" as not encycloypedic, - + the hooks don't even say "restaurant". --
Gerda Arendt (
talk)
13:50, 27 March 2021 (UTC)reply
The article doesn't mention "a beautiful work, so youthful and fresh, as if it were his first". All the hook facts need to be in the article.
97198 (
talk)
00:39, 16 April 2021 (UTC)reply
Listen to Intforce. I prefer the specific voice of a woman, close to the composer, in the style of the time, to that of a no-name probably man, unspecific and a bit "purple language" superlative. --
Gerda Arendt (
talk)
07:54, 16 April 2021 (UTC)reply
I am sorry that I wasn't clear. "Listen to Intforce." was short for "Listen to what Intforce will have to say about this, not to me, but if you want my opinion nonetheless here you go:" --
Gerda Arendt (
talk)
14:47, 16 April 2021 (UTC)reply
Requested move 8 June 2023
The following is a closed discussion of a
requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a
move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Piano Quartet (Schumann) →
Piano Quartet, Op. 47 – This was Schumann's second effort in the genre. Hopefully I'll get around soon to creating an article for the earlier quartet in C minor, and think that giving each work's Opus number in the title is a good way to disambiguate between two. There are three options besides Opus number as far as I can see:
Leaving this article where it is, and naming the new article "Piano Quartet in C minor (Schumann)"/"Piano Quartet, Op. WoO 32". There is an asymmetry here which seems potentially confusing to me.
Naming both articles with numbers (e.g. "Piano Quartet No. 1 (Schumann)"). The trouble here is that numbering like this is not used frequently used in the literature, and so might be somewhat confusing.
Naming both articles according to their keys ("Piano Quartet in E-flat major (Schumann)"). I can't see anything recommending this approach over using Opus numbers, but it is certainly more cumbersome.
Keeping this article here and naming the new article "Piano Quartet in C minor (Schumann)" would be standard practice, as we usually do not include opus numbers in the title if it can be avoided. There is an asymmetry, but that is warranted given that this work is more substantial than the earlier quartet (
WP:PRIMARYTOPIC).
intforce (
talk)
19:55, 8 June 2023 (UTC)reply
V funny. I don't buy that two substantial musical works may be of differing 'weight'. Is it that one is better known? Longer? Neither of those seems a fair comparison – and in any case the piano quartets are of about the same length. But if nobody sympathises I'll drop it.
SaryaniPaschtorr (
talk)
12:40, 16 June 2023 (UTC)reply
I don't know Shcumann's chamber music well enough to about the 'weight' but there's one piece that is generally reffered to as "Schumann's Piano Quartet" and another that's pretty obscure, then yeah it makes sense to keep it at this title. A good example of this is action is the very well known
Cello Concerto (Dvořák) where Dvorak also wrote an early A minor concerto as well. But absolutely there needs to be a Schumann disambiguation, putting an Op. number is ridiculous. Having two articles each with key designations is doable though, but only if the other one actually needs an article in the first place AND the popular one isn't so overwhelmingly known.
♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (
talk)
06:19, 17 June 2023 (UTC)reply
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.