Talk:Friedrich Kalkbrenner

Virtually nothing of his huge output survived

Manifestly untrue. And PLEASE can someone edit the clunky and Germanic-sounding English?

Comment

To anyone curious about the Jewish ancestry, that was taken verbatim from 1911 EB, but EB doesn't give their sources for this bit. Perhaps more detail in Grove? Stan 15:50, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Date of birth

I'd like to see the evidence for 7 November 1785. My understanding is that his precise date is not known; only that it was some time between 2nd and 8th November. -- JackofOz (talk) 13:13, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Opus number of the 2nd Piano Concerto

According to the IMSLP the Opus number for the 2nd Piano Concerto is Op. 85, but in the liner notes for Hyperion's recording of the 1st and 4th Concertos, it is given as Op. 80. I need a second reliable source to resolve this anomaly. Graham1973 (talk) 02:42, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Your second source is:Weitzmann, C. F. A History of Pianoforte-Playing. 2nd augmented and revised edition. Translated by Dr. Th. Baker. New York: G. Schirmer, 1897. Quote: Kalkbrenner died in Enghien near Paris in 1849. Of his four Pianoforte Concertos, op. 61, 85, 107, and 127, the first, in D-minor, has found most favour. Weitzmann (1897), p. 152 Thomas W. Jefferson (talk) 22:30, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Site moved to site under full name

I moved the article to K’s full name. The full name (including the "Michael") should be used as there are more Kalkbrenners including his own father. Full name is given in: Walther Killy, Rudolf Vierhaus, Hrsg. Deutsche Biographische Enzyklopäde (German Biographic Encyclopaedia). Bde. 5. K-G. 10 Bde. Munich: KG Saur, 1999. This is a modern and authoritative source.Thomas W. Jefferson 16:53, 2 January 2010 (UTC)moreThomas W. Jefferson 23:27, 2 January 2010 (UTC)--Thomas W. Jefferson (talk) 23:29, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

But were those other Kalkbrenners notable composers, or notable anything elses? Will it ever realistically be necessary to disambiguate them? -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 07:32, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Article is still under construction; more material to follow shortly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thomas W. Jefferson (talk • contribs) 23:08, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Testing this post on 2/13/2012. Please do not delete until 2/14/2012. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.82.241.35 (talk) 15:00, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Testing this post right now!! Please leave until 2/14/2012 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.82.241.35 (talk) 16:30, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

biased content

I think, it is time to revise / rewrite the article. It contains practically no information about Kalkbrenner's role and significance for contemporaries and posterity as a virtuoso, composer and teacher.

Section Stories and anecdotes - almost half of the article - consists of a collection of biased gossips and curiosities. E.g. "Kalkbrenner, who deigned it beneath his dignity to seek out a mere debutant, chose not to go backstage, but rather waited for Gottschalk to come and see him". As if Kalkbrenner's main job was vanity. The section should be deleted without replacement.

The article refers to unreliable and biased literature:

Karasowski has been proven to fabricate facts and falsify Chopin's letters in his Chopin book. See: Bernard Scharlitt (ed) “Friedrich Chopins Gesammelte Briefe”, Breitkopf & Härtel, Leipzig 1911 or Zofia Helman-Bednarczyk “The New Edition of Chopin’s Correspondence”, musicology Today • Vol. 13 • 2016

Harold C. Schönberg’s “The Great Pianists” (1987) lacks any scientific relevance: The quality and reliability of his descriptions vary widely. Concerning “great” artists, intensive research has been carried out for decades or even centuries and a great deal has been published, on which Schönberg could rely; while the same work for ”smaller” artists was / is still pending. Therefore, his descriptions – especially in chapters “From Ireland to Bohemia” or “Old Arpeggio…” are full of errors. He writes on page 121, for instance: Kalkbrenner’s Methode “was posthumously published in the 1850s”. It was published in 1831 and made Kalkbrenner, who died in 1849, a rich man. Further, Schönberg does not document any sources for his citations, he has not even compiled a bibliography. He presents his biased opinion and assumptions as facts and brings reports which fit into his concept and ignores hundreds, which don’t. For instance: Antoine Kontski’s eccentric piano playing on page 204. Or: While Dussek's alcohol consumption is important to him; Saint Beethoven's addiction to drinking is not worth mentioning.

Jeremy Nicholas - like many others - uncritically adopted Schonberg’s texts as a template for his booklet for Kalkbrenner and so he did negative advertising, a disservice to Howard Shelley’s great CD series “The romantic Piano Concert”.

Heinrich Heine, who had little idea about music, is listed as an authority. Between 1838 and 1844 he lived on his uncle Salamon Heine’s alimony. He was permanently bankrupt and in order to get money, especially after the death of his uncle, he blackmailed his better-off friends and acquaintances with the publication of negative press reports. Liszt – didn’t pay, Meyerbeer – didn’t pay enough, they got attacked by Heine. See Alan Walker: “Franz Liszt The Virtuoso Years”, 1987 page 111) or Lina Ramann “Franz Liszt als Künstler” Vol 2.1, 1887 page 43. In 1847, his uncle’s heir agreed to continue paying a pension – on the condition that Heine never publishes about family matters without his consent. I suspect that Heine also tried to get money from Kalkbrenner and flashed off. His other (positive) reports may also have been bought.Farafince (talk) 14:24, 25 October 2020 (UTC)