Talk:Carnaval (Schumann)

Lipinski, Paganini, and Schumann - a possible "Carnaval" connection

Doing some research on the dedicatee Karol Lipinski, I discovered that the Op.10 Paganini dedicated to him was a piece for unaccompanied violin called "Burlesque Variations on La Carnaval de Venise".

Schumann dedicated his "Carnaval" to Lipinski, and titled one of the sections "Paganini".

Schumann considered Lipinski the greatest violinist of the age, but Carnaval is a piece for a pianist, not a violinist. I've often wondered why Lipinski got the nod for a piece he could never play. This says he could not play the piano.

Is there any connection here? I.e. Paganini having dedicated his "Carnaval" to Lipinski, did Schumann seek to emulate the honour by having the same dedicatee for his Carnaval? Did Schumann even know of Paganini's dedication to Lipinski? Did Schumann know the Burlesque Variations?

I don't want to say anything about this in the article, being original research at this stage. But I remain curious. JackofOz 03:24, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Coquette . . . depicting the flirtatious servant from Friedrich Wieck's house who may have given him syphilis

What is the evidence for this? It looks like speculation to me. Kostaki mou (talk) 03:29, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Fasching, Ash Wednesday and Schumann's name

The new information in this edit seems quite plausible, but I've never read it anywhere else. Can we please have a citation? Otherwise, it's OR and it will be removed. -- JackofOz (talk) 00:23, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Ask.com

Endnote 11 has a link to Ask.com. While I haven't clicked it to see what it contains, I shouldn't have to...ask.com is not a legitimate source. I only care about scholarly integrity, so perhaps a Schumann junkie could follow the link and see what's cited and then find the reference in an appropriate scholarly source? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.5.86.85 (talk) 16:01, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Chopin's opinion: relevant?

I’m wondering whether we should be mentioning Chopin’s opinion of Carnaval at all.

• He was definitely not a fan or champion of Schumann
• He is not recorded as ever thanking Schumann for his Hats off, gentlemen! A genius! critique of his Variations on "Là ci darem la mano" (1831)
• They only ever met twice (1835, 1836) and Chopin made no attempt to foster a friendship
• Chopin did not respond to any of the 5 letters Schumann wrote to him, and
• He probably dedicated his Ballade No. 2 to Schumann purely out of social obligation, in return for Schumann's dedication of Kreisleriana to Chopin and for his naming one of the section of Carnaval after Chopin. He did not like Schumann's music, was indifferent to him personally, and this dedication was not a sign of any great respect he felt towards Schumann.

Given all this, his opinion of Carnaval is hardly very subjective or telling. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 07:40, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

I agree. My biggest issue with including the comment is that the source, Frederick Niecks, is incredibly dubious! His word, though published, should not be trusted and not worth including in a Wikipedia article. It's a rather juicy factoid and will only be perpetuated when there is no reason to believe that Chopin actually said it in the first place. --24.87.155.233 (talk) 11:38, 19 November 2012 (UTC) -- Concerned person

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Carnaval (Schumann). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090502162542/http://infopuq.uquebec.ca:80/~uss1010/catal/ravel/ravcatarr.html to http://infopuq.uquebec.ca/~uss1010/catal/ravel/ravcatarr.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:03, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Sphinxs ("The notes , , , are written as blocks only. . . . " "As it doesn't actually contain any real notes , , , ,was obviously not intended to be played in performance.")

This section needs rewriting. The notes are indeed "real" notes. They are breves or "double whole notes," which are little used today. (As the name "breve" indicates, they were historically short, though they are long today!) Thus, it is not necessarily "obvious" that this section was not intended to be played (though this is very likely, as we do have Clara Schumann's word for it, as the source indicates). As the source also indicates, they are indeed occasionally performed. Kostaki mou (talk) 01:21, 23 October 2021 (UTC)