Talk:List of compositions by Robert Schumann

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Lists, an attempt to structure and organize all list pages on Wikipedia. If you wish to help, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.ListsWikipedia:WikiProject ListsTemplate:WikiProject ListsList articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Germany Low‑importance

	Germany portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Germany, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Germany on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.GermanyWikipedia:WikiProject GermanyTemplate:WikiProject GermanyGermany articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Classical music: Compositions

	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.

Sub works[edit]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Die_Lotosblume This song was part of schumanns mythern collection. Should it be listed under it in this list? 125.236.182.178 (talk) 10:15, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Opus nr of the 1852 Mass[edit]

I think the Mass for four part chorus and orchestra in this list is actually opus 147, not 148, and it is also called Missa Sacra. Please tell me here or on my talkpage if there is really another mass written in 1852 - in this case, Missa Sacra seems to be missing from the list. Or are there different catalogues giving different numbers? The sources for my opinion about the opus nr:

and some other stores, I have been looking for the scores of this work lately.ML-Est 13:44, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it is opus 147 (Daverio, "Robert Schumann: Herald of a New Poetic Age" (1997), p. 504, e.g.. Op. 148 is the Requiem. The book can be viewed in excerpts at Google books. Schissel | Sound the Note! 14:20, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Variations on a Nocturne by Chopin[edit]

In my research for Variations on "Là ci darem la mano" (Chopin), I came across a piano piece by Schumann I’d never heard of before, the Variations on a Nocturne by Chopin (the Nocturne was one in G minor, Op. 15/3). It was only published in about 1981 as far as I can tell. Has it been added to the formal catalogue of Schumann's works and given a WoO number? -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 10:41, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It has been recorded by Gregorio Nardi, it seems. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 22:44, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

4th Piano Sonata[edit]

And here's information about the completion of a 4th Piano Sonata. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 19:19, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Overhaul required[edit]

I think this page is inadequate; the principal source appears to be a list of works published as an appendix to Jensen's Schumann, which is not intended as a reference work but as a popular biography. It was published before McCorkle's excellent and comprehensive catalogue of 2003 appeared, and consequentially misses a whole load of unpublished work. Naturally it also uses the numbering system for Schumann's WoO works which was partially superseded by McCorkle's RSW system, making it confusing to compare items in the list with discussion of unpublished works in contemporary scholarship. Even ignoring that, the page is very low on detail, especially considering how few of Schumann's works have yet to receive their own articles. Information on publication and instrumentation would be really welcome, as well as links to scores, incipits, discussion of composition circumstances etc.

Completely restructuring the page, which is one solution, is a very big task to undertake all in one go. An alternative solution is more pages like List of solo piano compositions by Robert Schumann, itemising works composed for particular mediums on separate pages. Many such separate lists exist for other composers' works: Schubert even gets a template listing lists of his work. As a start I have added publication information to the solo piano list, though I hope to add a breakdown of works into individual movements soon. I have also thrown together a list of Schumann's vocal works, linked on the page under the heading Vocal works.

The intention for the page, which is by no means fulfilled, is that it should itemise not only all Schumann's vocal works but also the songs and movements which make up cycles and dramatic/religious works, along with detailed movement-for-movement information on instrumentation and publication. I think this is probably too much detail for the all-compositions list, but will work nicely on a separate and dedicated page. I have not finished listing individual songs and movements yet—only for the first few cycles—and if nobody else thinks a separate page is a good idea I shan't carry on.

I'd like to get around to a page for chamber music including all unpublished works. I think orchestral and concertante works would possibly like their own list too. SaryaniPaschtorr (talk) 18:27, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ugh, this is dumb. There's zero reason to make separate pages like you did, it should all be one list. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 04:46, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I set out my reasons above, in the middle two paragraphs – @Melodia, do you have a prevailing reason against? SaryaniPaschtorr (talk) 14:09, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You don't give a single reason why this list needed to be decimated. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 05:06, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Decimated!

Well to give them more explicitly my reasons are these:

The list wants more historical detail in order to be useful. We should add relevant information on circumstances of composition and publication, as well as notes on reception for very well-known works without their own articles, and on manuscripts and copies, especially for incomplete, partially lost or unpublished works. This makes the list comparatively useful (one of the most important purposes of lists on Wikipedia). This detail is best presented in shorter instrumentation-specific lists.
The list wants more detail on works' internal structure. Listing individual movements/constituent pieces or songs is the practice for many other Wikipedia lists of compositions, and will obviously improve the list. To find in a list the entry "Lieder und Gesänge Heft I" is totally uninformative unless individual songs are listed. But individual listing like this is too unwieldy for a comprehensive list of all compositions. It would make the page hard to navigate.
The list as it stands is a badly incomplete. Any list will need to be revised heavily anyway so that it is in line with scholarship on Schumann's unpublished oeuvre, and not E. F. Jensen's arbitrary decisions to exclude or include. Famous works are missing! The list would by my estimation be roughly twice as long as it was before I cut the duplicating sections if all Schumann's works were present. And that is supposing none of the detail I talked about above is given.
In a similar vein, some composition dates are inaccurate or have been revised based upon the research of the past 30 years or so. Many WoO numbers in the list use an old-fashioned system, and the works have different names now, in use in the academic literature, and in programme notes and album copy, which is needlessly confusing.

I guess my proposal is that the compressed list by Opus number remain on this page, expanded with WoO and RSW-numbered works, but that listings by instrumentation be relocated. A solution like this would be easier to navigate and more informative; it would work a bit like the lists we have for Schubert, who was similarly prolific.

By the way I find your suggestion here for fully-fledged articles like the one for Faure's piano music interesting. I think this is a good alternative to lists by instrumentation – but that it should be at least one of the two. SaryaniPaschtorr (talk) 18:16, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I just brought up the topic in general at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Classical music if you're interested. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 18:16, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, will be glad to have others' thoughts. SaryaniPaschtorr (talk) 18:21, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Well @Aza24 has reverted without leaving any message here – that's fine, I guess. But I restate that this page is not adequate as it stands, and it should be decided what to do with it. SaryaniPaschtorr (talk) 15:31, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Fill in the list as needed on this page. I don't see the issue. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 12:40, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Saryani, I left a comment on the project page, where Melodia alerted you they were posting.

There is really no good reason to make readers go to multiple different pages for a simple list of compositions. Schumann in particular has less than 200 works, making this even more unnecessary; Bach or Telleman for instance might warrant multiple comp list pages. Your idea to improve the content/context for the compositions is spot on, just do it on this page! Currently your two new articles are pointless Content Forks, and would do much better remaining on this page.

If you want to include movement/song information, use collapsible lists. I did this for era names (4th column) in the List of Chinese monarchs and it worked nicely. Aza24 (talk) 03:34, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This is all well and good (except the idea that Schumann was not too prolific, a real canard; it's about 500-750 headwords if we are to list individual movements). But as an aside, if the principle is to avoid content forks, keep information in a single space where possible etc., I find the existence and healthy size of this template for lists of Schubert's compositions which I mentioned in my original post totally baffling. Most of the material in those lists is duplicated; much of the bulk is just individual Lieder and short instrumental pieces which Schubert never bothered to organise into cycles. The Deutsch catalogue is certainly not very parsimonious!

Anyhow I think the continued existence of both the vocal compositions and piano solo articles would be a good thing (though by the way the latter is 15 years old, and I did not create it). Is there maybe consensus here for moving those articles to "Vocal music of Robert Schumann" etc., turning them into general commentaries on musical style and circumstances of composition (with or without lists at their ends)? SaryaniPaschtorr (talk) 02:56, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The composition sublists for Schubert (and incidentally, Bach as well) should be treated with extreme caution. They were created solely by a now-banned user whose reputation for going against norms was well known. Yes, their existence is rightly baffling.

Moving the tables into this list and turning the split articles into general commentaries is an excellent idea. It is certainly precedented, see Piano music of Gabriel Fauré and Symphonies by Pyotr Ilyich Tchaikovsky, for instance. Aza24 (talk) 05:25, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]