Talk:Die Forelle

User:Magicitrus July 24

On July 24, User:Magicitrus added this sentence to the article Die Forelle:

Die Forelle is a perfect marriage of Classical Form and Romatic content in two related works.

which struck me as a meaningless weasel peacock phrase. I'm going to delete it if it doesn't get re-written. Michael Bednarek 00:56, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Removed. DavidRF 17:38, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Brief comments from Tim riley

I'm putting my comments here, but by all means move them to the article talk page if you prefer. The Lied is not my strong suit (though I'm anybody's for a Fauré mélodie) so I offer these few comments from the commanding heights of sheer ignorance:

• I think it may be worth mentioning other famous songs from the same year: Graham Johnson lists Der Tod und das Mädchen and An die Musik. (Notes to Hyperion CD "Schubert in 1817–1818", CDJ33021 (1994) – one of the few CDs of Lieder on my shelves.)
• Date: Johnson says "early 1817", not summer. Reed (p. 159) says that the earliest copies date from the spring of 1817.
• Also perhaps relevant that though Schubart's last stanza makes it plain that the narrator is male, in the verses Schubert set it is not possible to say from the text whether the narrator is a man or a woman (see Kramer). Thus the song has been sung by many famous singers of both sexes. Elena Gerhardt comes to mind just as much as Fischer-Dieskau, for example.
• I see Reed's one-line music example bears the tempo direction "Etwas lebhaft", which is worth mentioning, perhaps. A good pianist keeps the brook babbling in a lively way throughout.
• Tangentially, I have just played through a CD of the Coriolan Overture and I'm blest if I spotted anything that Schubert might have unconsciously pinched. Do any of your sources say which bit Ebner was referring to?

• I'm glad it wasn't just me then! No, sadly the source dwells on the dramatic news of a near-destruction, and not on any of the useful details. - SchroCat (talk) 12:20, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

That's my lot. Much enjoyed. – Tim riley (talk) 10:08, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

• Many thanks, Tim: I hope I've done justice to your very kind thoughts! All taken on board, dealt with and it looks strong enough for the GAN I've filed for it. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 12:20, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Die Forelle/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Khazar2 (talk) 01:25, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

I look forward to reviewing this article. I'll begin with some initial comments sometime within the next 24-36 hours after a few readings and confirming some of the citations, etc. Thanks! --ColonelHenry (talk) 16:12, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Initial comments

• Remove the "In popular culture" section. The song's use in a movie soundtrack is not really significant, and doesn't add anything to the understanding of the song or its critical/popular reception. The mention in this section, per the three question litmus test at WP:IPCEXAMPLES renders this as merely trivia. See: WP:MISC, WP:IPC, Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, WP:HTRIVIA. This goes to the list inclusion criteria in 1b.--ColonelHenry (talk) 16:12, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

• No probs: removed. Thanks for taking the time to pick this one up. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 17:21, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

"Die Forelle"
by Franz Schubert
Key	D-flat major
Catalogue	D. 550
Genre	Lied
Text	by Christian Friedrich Daniel Schubart
Language	German
Composed	1817 (1817)
Scoring	solo voice and piano

• Doesn't reflect on the GA review...but have you considered using an infobox?--ColonelHenry (talk) 17:54, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
  • The thought passed my mind, but I'm not a fan of them in a lot of circumstances: in this case most(?) of Schubert's other lieder don't carry the IB, so I happily went for the consistent approach here. - SchroCat (talk) 18:00, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
    • I'm not a fan of them, either, but sometimes even I have been observed being convinced to break with consistency. --ColonelHenry (talk) 18:08, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
    • Yeah, everyone has their own opinion of IBs and their pluses and minuses: I just don't think that in this instance the article would be improved by such an addition. - SchroCat (talk) 18:44, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

I'll slowly start doing a copyedit through the next day or so. I tend to not bother a nominator with small things I can fix easily (Why waste time writing about a comma that I could attend to). I should be away most of tomorrow afternoon (work), so likely won't be able to get back to this until Thursday at the earliest.--ColonelHenry (talk) 03:40, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Lede

• "In doing so, he opened the song for either male or female singers." - there has to be a better way to say this...one doesn't come to mind.
  • I just happened to see this on WikiProject Classical Music's alerts page. I've copyedited that bit (diff). Best wishes, RainCity471 (whack!) 14:31, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

New reviewer

Hey SchroCat, Henry's withdrawing from his GA reviews, so unless anybody gets here first, I'll step in on this one. Oddly, my dryer plays this tune every time a load is done; it took us a year to figure out what it even was. It may be a few days before I can post comments, though, so if anybody else wants to review this before I get a chance, you're welcome to. Anyway, thanks for your work on this, and sorry for the inconvenience of the swap. -- Khazar2 (talk) 23:04, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Okay, I can at least start in tonight after all. Initial comments below. So far this looks good, but I've noted a few issues I'd like your thoughts on. -- Khazar2 (talk) 01:24, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

• "Lied" is capitalized in lead but not in body; should be made consistent

• Done - SchroCat (talk) 18:26, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

• What's the source of the translation of the poem? If it was translated by one of the cited authors (Wigmore or Kramer), the translation may need to be removed for copyright reasons; this would be too extensive a quotation to claim fair use, I think.

• I'll check, but I think Kramer. I'll make it slightly clearer, as well as use 2 or 3 different sources, which should break the issue of a copyright violation. I'll see if I can find a pre-1928 translation, which would be even better. - SchroCat (talk) 07:42, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

• Both the original and translation are from both sources. The translation is an amalgamation of both (they are fairly close) except where there is one discrepancy. I'll keep looking for a pre-1928 version, but as this version is an amalgam of both sources, it should be ok. - SchroCat (talk) 21:44, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

• "a classic example of the strophic song with Abgesang ... after-strain'." -- I'm a little lost here. Is the apostrophe after after-strain meant to be mark a quotation within a quotation? If so, it looks like half is missing. Is after-strain a translation of Abgesang?

• Yes - now complete. - SchroCat (talk) 18:45, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

• "The draft is undated, although is from 1817" -- this is a little disorienting. Possibly rewrite "but is known to be from" or "has been dated to" or some such explanatory transition?

• Yep, good spot. Now done. - SchroCat (talk) 18:45, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

• "Just as, in my haste, I was going to send the thing, I rather sleepily took up the ink-well and poured it calmly over it. What a disaster!" -- this should presumably be in quotation marks

• Doh! Now done. - SchroCat (talk) 18:37, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

• "This version has "a five-bar piano prelude"." -- the 1820, the 1821, or are these the same?

• Tweaked: final version only. - SchroCat (talk) 18:37, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

• ""the vividness of the imagery," -- where does this quotation close? -- Khazar2 (talk) 01:24, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

• Now closed. - SchroCat (talk) 18:37, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Hi Khazar, many thanks for picking this one up: it's much appreciated. I'm a bit ties up today with some family stuff, but will addesss the remaining points shortly, hopefully within 48 hours. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 07:39, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick responses! Here's another minor action point for you-- *"File:Schubert - Schumann-Heink - Die Forelle (1929).ogg" -- needs tag for US copyright status (though should be fine). -- Khazar2 (talk) 17:45, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

I've removed the file and tagged it for deletion from Commons. I've also sorted the text, leaving only the removed verse. - SchroCat (talk) 10:57, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

I've reverted the deletion request as URAA doesn't apply – see Commons:File talk:Schubert - Schumann-Heink - Die Forelle (1929).ogg.

The subject of this article is Schubert's setting, not Schubart's text. So I don't understand why the complete text of Schubert's Lied is removed while leaving a stanza which is not part of it. There can't be any copyright concerns about a totally artless translation which lacks any metre or rhyme, something which Google could have done. I suggest to restore it.

On the other hand, the provided external link to Harper's Magazine is still useful for its discussion of the works and their background, and it gave me the idea that this picture of a young angler might be used in this article, too. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 12:01, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Checklist

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	Let me get a second opinion about the poem translation issue.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).
	2c. it contains no original research.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	Yes, though the theory of the Harper's source (in EL) that the song is political rather than sexual is interesting and might be worth adding in the future.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.	see note above about .ogg file
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
	7. Overall assessment.	Pass as GA

{{italic title}}?

I think the heading says it all. George8211 ^{conversations} 10:05, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure the MoS suggests song titles should be italicised, but instead appear, in text at least, in quotation marks. - SchroCat (talk) 10:14, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

I have the same understanding. However, I don't know if "song" means also this "lied" which in German might be termed not Lied but Kunstlied (art song), to distinguish from Volkslied (folk song). --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:28, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Isint this the melody that the samsung EcoBuble washing machine plays when it finishes? 95.42.68.128 (talk) 07:11, 20 September 2021 (UTC)pog595.42.68.128 (talk) 07:11, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

I think it still comes under the more general classification of song here? Looking at Wikipedia:QUOTEMARK, it suggest songs and poems are held in quotes, which suggests that a lied would also fall into this category - tending to be poems set to music. - SchroCat (talk) 10:43, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

I concur: songs in quotes, song cycles in italics. However, there is a conflict with MOS:FOREIGN and WP:MOSTEXT#Foreign terms (and that's probably why George8211 raised the matter), but this is mostly disregarded for songs/Lieder (although opera arias, when used in synopses, are mainly, but not always, done in italics; my preference for aria names is also quotes.) -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 14:03, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Translation of lyrics

It's generally not considered synthesis for an editor to translate the lyrics. I speak enough German and am knowledgeable enough about poetry and form, and Gerda is German with a great command of English. She and I could possibly collaborate to provide a translation to accompany Schubart's poem for the article.--ColonelHenry (talk) 14:45, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

see also - in short: Moonraker is the one if it should be done, but for Bach, we don't do it but link to an available translation, quoting in the article only relevant parts, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:07, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Either approach would meet the GA criteria, I think (new translation by editors or external link to translation). I'm fine with whatever the consensus here is. -- Khazar2 (talk) 15:35, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

I'm easy either way: there is a EL to a translation in there currently, which means we at least covered for information. - SchroCat (talk) 15:41, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

"Schubert removes ... the need for a male voice and thus allows "Die Forelle" to be sung by female singers"

Does the sex of the narrator always need to coincide with the sex of the singer? I doubt this was a requirement in Schubert's time: if it did, The Shepherd on the Rock wouldn't have been written for a soprano, and Vogl would not have been "a famous exponent of Ellen's Ave Maria". Even though these probably coincide more often today, it then does not really make sense to say that Schubert's removal of the final stanza was meant to allow female singers to sing Die Forelle: that was most probably not his intention. Double sharp (talk) 11:55, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

(In case I ever need another example: the autograph of Die Rose D 745 has the vocal staff in the tenor clef. Nothing to do with this sentence in particular, which was resolved last year.) Double sharp (talk) 08:59, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

The sentence is referenced, though. Can anybody verify Kramer Franz Schubert: Sexuality, Subjectivity, Song , p. 82? -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 12:03, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

I did when I wrote it. I shall try and find the reference again and post a full quote to verify. - SchroCat (talk) 12:34, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

From the Google Books except of Kramer: "... a few comments about the sex of the narrator are advisible. In the last stanza of Schubart's text, the narrator explicitly steps forward - to no-one's surprise - as the male author speaking in propria persona. In Schubert's song, the deletion of the last stanza means that this step never occurs. How ambuguous does this make the narrator's sex? ... Still there is nothing to prevent the part of this male narrator from being taken by a woman's voice, something, of course, that often happens in general and in common with this song in particular."(Kramer, p.82) The reference here is linked to the right page. - SchroCat (talk) 19:08, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

It also says "How ambiguous does this make the narrator's sex? Just enough for a song, one might reply, but not too much. By convention, a narrator of unspecified sex is assigned the same sex as the author." I don't see how this supports the step in the logical chain "Schubert removes last stanza → Schubert removes the need for a male voice": there is nothing to prevent that either way, is there? (With that stanza, the narrator is clearly male: without it, the narrator is by default assigned as male. And the source states outright that in the latter case there is nothing to prevent the song from being taken by a female singer, so why should there be in the first case?) Double sharp (talk) 03:04, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Whatever the finer points are in reading Kramer's text, it's clear that he sees the omission of the last stanza as relevant to the narrator's sex, if only to make it less specifically male. This seems a worthwhile observation to have in the article. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 06:11, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Double sharp, I disagree. That is precisely what Kramer is saying. - SchroCat (talk) 08:40, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

I agree that Kramer is saying that Schubert's removal of the final stanza makes the narrator's sex more ambiguous (and that is indeed mentioned in the article), but I don't think he's saying clearly that Schubert's doing so opened the door for female singers to sing the song. In particular, he doesn't make it clear that a male voice would have been required if Schubert hadn't removed the last stanza, and somewhat implies the opposite by his statement "Still there is nothing to prevent the part of this male narrator from being taken by a woman's voice, something, of course, that often happens in general and in common with this song in particular." Double sharp (talk) 10:52, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

@Double sharp: how do you suggest to rephrase "By removing the stanza, Schubert removes both the moral and the need for a male voice and thus allows "Die Forelle" to be sung by female singers."? -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 11:32, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps we could merge sentences in that paragraph, creating "Schubart's poem takes the viewpoint of a male speaker, advising women to be careful of young men. By removing the stanza, Schubert removes the moral and creates uncertainty in the sex of the narrator." or something similar? Double sharp (talk) 13:06, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Fine with me. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 06:51, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

OK,  Done. Double sharp (talk) 10:20, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Sherlock Holmes: A Game of Shadows

No mention of this? How come? Jonas Vinther • (Click here to collect your price!) 11:50, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

And washing machines that play the tune, don' forget them as well