But closer scrutiny of them, however contentious a proposition, brings to mind Ernst Hilmar's telling observation that "Schubert is remarkable in the way in which he manages to elude his biographers".
As such, they occupy an unenviable position in which the confusion of history has tended to cloud their merits and obfuscate their true value. There is, of course, an alternative reading of the oeuvre an analysis that sees Schubert's symphonies as uniquely a product of the wholly unsystematic and largely serendipitous shift between the musical periods we've come to know as the Classical and the Romantic eras. Thus Schubert, a veritable demigod when it comes to Lieder, remains a mere earthbound mortal in relation to the symphony. The rest of Schubert's symphonies, popular prejudice has concluded, are at best imperfect and inconsequential, at worst juvenile and derivative. Pressed further, they might shamefacedly allow another begrudging inch to the flawed because ambiguous experiment that has acquired the nickname of the Unfinished. Some who hold to this view with staunch obstinacy will occasionally allow that aspects of the Great C major Symphony perhaps offer indications of an innovative and forward-looking symphonic imagination at work. While the definition of 'authenticity' has incrementally revealed itself to be much more elastic than originally imagined - perhaps even intended - and as the practice of period-instrument performance in recent years has begun to make ever deeper and more incisive incursions into the 19th century, the received wisdom about Schubert's contribution to the development of the symphony has stubbornly continued to maintain that he didn't in fact contribute much to it, if indeed, anything at all. In a great many respects the debate about Schubert's symphonies is only just getting under way. To find the perfect subscription for you, simply visit: .uk/subscribe
Subscribing to Gramophone is easy, you can choose how you want to enjoy each new issue (our beautifully produced printed magazine or the digital edition, or both) and also whether you would like access to our complete digital archive (stretching back to our very first issue in April 1923) and unparalleled Reviews Database, covering 50,000 albums and written by leading experts in their field. If you're not a fan of Schubert, I wouldn't even mention its existence.We have been writing about classical music for our dedicated and knowledgeable readers since 1923 and we would love you to join them. I hope we don't have to wait another 50 years (it was made on the 200th anniversary of his birth) before another better effort is made.
If he was gay, what about Mayrofer? What about Anselm and Josef Huttenbrenner? Did he visit boy prostitutes (peacocks?) like Oscar Wilde? 5) The poetry/inspiration? Hardly touched 6) Events happening around him (in Music and life?) Hardly touched It is not awful, but it is neither good drama or good history: and it needed to be one of the two! All in all, very disappointing. And although friends did describe him as 'round-of-face' there is no evidence he was anywhere near as overweight as this 3) Of course I was expecting large amounts of fiction and conjecture, but instead it distorted the factual events of his life in terms of time-span and ordering i.e., when he contracted the illness, when he met the Esterhazys, when any of the music was written and so on 4) There are so many relationships to explore (plenty for good television). However upon viewing I was seriously disappointed in a number of ways: 1) It was only an hour long, and there is little you can do in an hour that does any justice to Schubert 2) The lead role (Simon Russell Beale) looked far too old and too fat to play Schubert (who died before his 32nd birthday). Being a Schubertian myself (that is an avid and devoted fan of the music of Franz Schubert), I was naturally immensely happy at the prospect of a film about him with a quality cast including Freddie Jones, Jason Flemyng and Emelia Fox.