Talk:Franz Schubert

Swap main portrait of Schubert

Is it okay with everyone if I swap the main image of him for one that was made in his lifetime? On Mozart's page it was decided that accuracy was more important, so we should do the same here. Wikieditor662 (talk) 03:47, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

No, we have a portrait that is of higher-quality. See WP:OTHER. GuardianH (talk) 21:22, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

That doesn't mean we should be inconsistent across what we do across articles. Either the more accurate or "higher quality" portrait should be used for the wikipedia articles, and whatever we decide we shouldn't change unless there is a good reason to do so.

As for why the more accurate portrait should be the one used, have a look at MOS:IRELEV: "images serve as an illustrative aid and "should look like what they are meant to illustrate"." Another argument they made was the following To give you an example:

for most who have ever heard of Scott McCloud, this image will be the most recognizable - I'd bet far more people could identify that than could pick an actual photo of him out of a lineup. But we use a photo as the lead image for his article. (To be fair there's a copyright complication there, but I'd suggest even if the comic was free we still should use the photo for his lead). " Wikieditor662 (talk) 23:52, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

@GuardianH What does WP:OTHER have to do with this? Zingarese talk · contribs (please  mention me on reply; thanks!) 13:12, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

[X] article has [Y], so this article should also have [Y] is a very old argument that has rarely been accepted, not mention that it is a textbook fallacy. A decision for a portrait of Mozart on Mozart's page does not automatically apply here on Schubert's page ("On Mozart's page it was decided that accuracy was more important, so we should do the same here"). And what makes the lower-quality image here more accurate? Both artists lived during, and presumably met, Schubert. Rieder even befriended Schubert at the Academy of Fine Arts Vienna and their brothers were close friends. On top of that, Rieder even painted multiple portraits of Schubert. His watercolor got this attention:

Some portraits of the composer were executed by artists who knew him personally, and many later illustrations are based on Wilhelm August Rieder's famous watercolor, considered to be "the most like him" by Schubert's friends. – The Cambridge Companion to Schubert

Looks like Rieder had a good sense of who Schubert was and what he looked like. We have no reason to doubt him. Being posthumous =/= being inaccurate. GuardianH (talk) 17:56, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

He may have known Schubert, but the one made in his lifetime was possibly drawn while he was looking at Schubert, which would make it even more accurate. Wikieditor662 (talk) 22:16, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

"was possibly drawn..." – Until there is evidence that it actually was "drawn while he was looking at Schubert", any assumption is moot. We don't pick and choose on whims, hence WP:NOR. GuardianH (talk) 00:14, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

What I am certain about is that the other portrait was certainly NOT drawn while he was looking at schubert. All I'm saying is that the other one is not guaranteed but more likely to be more accurate. Wikieditor662 (talk) 23:33, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

I looked today, and see the Rieder as both lead image and in context. I think that's not needed. What do others think? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:28, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

You're more experienced and I don't really care about this anymore, so I trust you. Wikieditor662 (talk) 21:06, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

References

Add Charles Rosen's book "The Classical Style" to the list of references. In the epilogue, it has a short but very interesting discussion about the relation of Schubert's music to that of Beethoven. I am not a musicologist so I cannot evaluate Rosen's analysis. I was struck by his discussion of a Schubert piano sonata movement clearly modeled on a Beethoven piano sonata movement, in which Rosen finds a lack of formal clarity in Schubert's music compared to Beethoven's, but concludes with the statement that the Schubert piece is "unquestionably greater than its model". 67.254.171.9 (talk) 02:45, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

Potential Improvements

@Zingarese, just putting these here for everyone to see. What strikes me first

• No section on the symphonies
• Quite short chamber music section, that should probably be split from the rest
• The catalogue section is quite unwieldily—would suggest moving most of it notes or other articles
• At a later point: the lead doesn't summarize the music section
• I know you are actively working on sourcing, but a number of essay collections have come out these past few years , the ones dual edited by Bodley and Horton (both in 2016) seem worth particular attention

Aza24 (talk) 22:15, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

@Aza24, I agree with all of your suggestions, and to those I would also add:

• Although this has improved a bit now, the biographical section relies unduly on Victorian-era biographies. In my opinion, they are no less than hagiographies that tend to be overly romanticized.
• The style section is lacking in rigorous musicological substance and currently relies only on general quotes from a composer (Krenek) and a music critic (Schonberg). I agree with the above suggestion to include Rosen's analyses. IIRC, in the analysis referred to above, he discusses the final movement of Schubert's D. 959 in relation to the final movement of Beethoven's op.31 no.1 piano sonata (G major).
• The music section is a disorganized catchall in its current form. In addition to no section on the symphonies, there is no discussion about his piano four-hand music (which revolutionized the genre) or his sacred and choral works. I believe we must include a summary of his highly personalized relationship with Catholic dogma and how it manifested, most notably in his consistent omission of the text "Et in unam sanctam catholicam et apostolicam ecclesiam" from the Credo of all six of his masses.

Zingarese talk · contribs (please mention me on reply; thanks!) 17:54, 27 July 2026 (UTC)