Talk:Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart/Archive 9

Archive 5

←

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

→

Archive 15

An error I found but cannot fix due to the lock

 Done

The second sentence of section 1.5 - "1781: Departure to Vienna" - reads "The following March the composer was summoned to Vienna, where his employer where Archbishop Colloredo was attending the celebrations for the installation of Holy Roman Emperor Joseph II."

This sentence needs to be edited to remove the second "where" and, perhaps, add some punctuation.

The sentence would be improved if it read: "The following March, the composer was summoned to Vienna, where his employer, Archbishop Colloredo, was attending the celebrations for the installation of Holy Roman Emperor Joseph II." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.51.114.90 (talk) 14:32, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Fixed. Thank you for pointing it out. --RobertG ♬ talk 14:53, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Keyboard? Surely piano?

In the lead, it says he could play the keyboard. This is generally taken to be the modern electronic instrument, so should surely be changed to piano?Jandrews23jandrews23 (talk) 22:35, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Hello Jandrews, long before there ever were electronic keyboards, scholars of music used the word "keyboard" to designate keyboard instruments in general, without specifying a piano, harpsichord, clavichord, etc. In the case of Mozart, this vagueness can be helpful. When Mozart was little (and started performing), the harpsichord still predominated over the slowly-spreading piano. Mozart almost certainly began with the harpsichord, and his transition to the piano was probably gradual. "Keyboard" is nice because it deemphasizes the particular choice of instrument, just as Mozart must have done at the time.

Since "keyboard" meaning "keyboard instrument", is pretty standard usage, I'm reluctant to give it up merely because a certain number of (probably very young) WP readers don't know this usage. Indeed, what I hope is happening is that when when people read WP, that they encounter new words and usages and are able to figure them out from the context--thus expanding their vocabularies. Not a bad outcome, right? Yours truly, Opus33 (talk) 01:40, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Opus, thanks for the reply. I understand what you are saying and agree, that probably is a good thing.Jandrews23jandrews23 (talk) 18:50, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

How about "He Played Keyboarded Instruments." 76.116.235.241 (talk) 23:50, 19 May 2009 (UTC)NessLord64

No, that's making up new terminology where existing terminology works perfectly well. People have to become educated about what musical terms mean, and become aware that "keyboards" have been around far, far longer than the advent of the electronic keyboard. -- JackofOz (talk) 00:20, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

This recurring question might be avoided if the term "keyboard" in the first sentence of the second paragraph gets linked to Musical keyboard; while there, the word "violin" should also be linked. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 03:21, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

The wording should be changed to allow greater understanding of Mozart, as oppose to a greater understanding of "keyboard". As it is stated in "Keyboard instrument", "Today, the term "keyboard" is mostly commonly used to refer to keyboard-style synthesizers", one who is unfamiliar with Mozart will therefor assume that the article refers to a "keyboard" as oppose to "keyboard instruments". Additionally, if the word would read, "keyboard instruments" and one was not aware of the meaning, then one would assume that there are a multitude of keyboard instruments and so clicking on will only be necessary for a detailed explanation. Thus giving a faster and more fluid learning experience without the need to force the meaning of "keyboard" while one is attempting to learn about "Mozart". User:starkiez (talk) 08:38, 17 Sept 2012 (UTC)

Solomon reference

Is there any reason that all of the references in the text refer to Solomon (1995) but in the references list it is Solomon (1996) ? 1995 was the hardback's publication date, but the ISBN (and date) in the references section are for the paperback. One is incorrect but I can't tell which. Also the dates for Rushton (1992/1998) seem to have the same problem. - 09:19, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

1767 escape away from smallpox epidemy

There is no mentined in the article: 1767 escape from Vienna due of smallpox epidemy. He visited also Olomouc. See File:Leopold Mozart and Wolgang Amadeus Mozart plaque.jpg and File:Mozart plaque.jpg. --Snek01 (talk) 14:00, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

You're quite right, this should be mentioned somewhere. I don't think it belongs in the main article, but it would fit well into a satellite article covering the 1767 family visit to Vienna. (The "visit by visit" strategy seems to be working fairly well elsewhere in our Mozart coverage.) Another possibility would be to write an article called Mozart and smallpox. This more general topic is treated quite interestingly by Ruth Halliwell in her book The Mozart Family. Opus33 (talk) 19:57, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Grave site?

Is there any record of his grave site? Any marker? The article (and "Amadeus") tell him being buried in a pauper's grave. --98.232.181.201 (talk) 09:44, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

It wasn't a pauper's grave. It was simply the way they buried people at that period in time. There wasn't a big deal made out of burial sites and a persons remains in the late 1700's. Check snopes. Padillah (talk) 18:25, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Mozart's nationality yet again

User:Ask123 removed Mozart from List of German composers. I have reverted, and directed him here (noting that he made a similar edit here, also reverted). Magic♪piano 21:40, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Ask123 that Mozart should not be on that list. Claudio Monteverdi, as well as hundreds of other Renaissance composers, was born in a time when "Italy" as we know it today didn't exist yet, but he's not considered a Milanese/Venetian/Genovese/Sicilian/Whatever composer, but an "Italian composer", clearly showing that what matters is the modern day geography of the place where they were born, not the one of their time. The same should apply for Mozart. Capmo (talk) 06:00, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

And I agree with Magicpiano. Let's leave Mozart in all the German/Austrian/Viennese cats/lists and turn to something more productive. --Kleinzach 06:21, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

I find the situation somewhat ironic that some people are now asserting he should be Austrian and not German. Back in January it was the opposite, according to an anonymous IP editor. There is more discussion on this subject in this archive. As Kleinzach says, don't we have better things to do? (I've added HTML comments to both List of German composers and List of Austrian composers directing editors here if they're considering removing Mozart from either list.) Magic♪piano 11:12, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Mozart described himself as "teutsch" (=deutsch, i.e. German), and he was proud of it. He was no Austrian in the then sense of the word (Österreich ob und unter der Enns, which corresponds now to Oberösterrreich and Unterösterreich). Salzburg (which he hated) did not belong to the Habsburg possessions at all. It was a huge archbishopric within the Holy Roman Empire. See Mozart's original correspondence. Buchraeumer (talk) 15:45, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree absolutely with Buchraeumer. Mozart was definitely proud to be German. There is no doubt when you have a look into the historical context. Furthermore with Mozart's writings it is historically handed down. You cannot remove Mozart from the List of German composers without removing him from the List of Austrian composers as well. That would be historical nonsense. Eurystheus 15:50, 09 August 2009 (UTC)

mozart's birth

hello i am a 14 year old girl and i would like to know mozart's birth date for my music class homework —Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.155.77.247 (talk) 05:01, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Hello. Welcome to Wikipedia. I recommend our article about Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart, it's really quite good. You will find his date of birth there, along with a wealth of other information. --RobertG ♬ talk 06:14, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Blindfolded

Hello, I'm moving this:

By the age of six he could impressively play the piano blindfolded with his hands crossed over one another.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.ez-tracks.com/showArtists-OrigArtist-Mozart.html|title=Mozart music|publisher=Ez-tracks|accessdate=2009-06-25}}</ref>

to the talk page, for two reasons.

First, "ez-tracks.com" doesn't look like a very serious reference source -- in fact, their Mozart article is filled with inaccuracies (details on request). It's also written in very bad English, which is is probably telling us something about its origins. There are lots of serious published biographies of Mozart, and we should be using these, not amateurish web posts, as our source.

Second, if you do read the biographies, you'll find that the general take they have on the playing-blindfolded trick is that it was not really very impressive. Instead, they see it as a sort of cheap gimmick that didn't really demonstrate Mozart's genuine talent but rather was designed to impress ignorant onlookers. If we do need to mention blindfolded playing, I think it belongs in Mozart family grand tour, where there is more space, and there should be some mention of the view that the practice didn't really reflect very well on the Mozarts.

Opus33 (talk) 19:01, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

P.S. I checked and it already is in Mozart family grand tour. As I remember from reading the biographies, the cloth went over Mozart's hands; it wasn't a blindfold. Opus33 (talk) 20:42, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

It seemed quite impressive to me but I agree with your arguments. JohnADean (talk) 15:52, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

KEYBOARD???

Mozart was not around early enough to use a keyboard. Someone change it to piano because that is a very stupid mistake, Mozart was not around for the basics of a keyboard, definitely not for an actual one to be mad —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.8.19.182 (talk) 10:17, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

See discussion above. (I've linked keyboard (which was not linked anywhere in the article) and violin in the lead.) Magic♪piano 13:09, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

New Mozart Piano Music Discovered

Someone should add this to the article I think, here is the link: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/arts_and_culture/8165645.stm —Preceding unsigned comment added by GWST11 (talk • contribs) 08:36, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Please restore page protection

Would an admin kindly restore page protection to this article? (By this I mean: only let registered editors change it.) The article attracts a lot of vandalism. And when there are so many vandalism edits, it makes it hard for editors to monitor the substantive edits as well.

This problem is unlikely ever to go away, so I would appreciate if you would make the protection permanent. Thanks very much. Opus33 (talk) 17:10, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Done. It does appear that the level of persistent nuisance vandalism from anonymous users meets the threshold in the protection policy ... so if anyone would like the protection lifted please discuss here. Thanks, Antandrus (talk) 17:51, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, Antandrus. Opus33 (talk) 18:58, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

The well-known 'greatness' of Mozart

...But let's not say so in the lead. We already have "prolific and influential" and "He is among the most enduringly popular of classical composers" in the first paragraph; it strikes me as unhelpful to add some WP:WEASEL words such as "considered among the greatest ..." since that adds essentially nothing. The statements already there are factual and verifiable; subjective notions such as "greatness" are hard to reconcile with Wikipedia's core policies. Cheers, Antandrus (talk) 21:24, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

How to label the IPA pronunciation of his name?

Hello, I believe that what we currently display:

German pronunciation: [ˈvɔlfɡaŋ amaˈdeus ˈmoːtsart]

is not too bad as an IPA representation of Mozart's name, as pronounced in German. But it's not a very good version of what I hear English speakers say. For that, it might be more like:

[ˈwʊlfgæŋ æməˈdeɪəs ˈmoʊtsɑrt]

However, English speakers actually vary a lot in how much they try to make their pronunciation sound like the German. As a result, there really is no such thing as a "standard" English rendering of his name. I think it would be safer for us to give just the German pronunciation--labeled as such--and let English speakers deal with it as they please. That's why I reverted. Sincerely, Opus33 (talk) 23:29, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, I'm all up for displaying the correct pronunciation (vɔlfɡaŋ amaˈdeus ˈmoːtsart is right), originating from a Mozart loving family I've always pronounced it the right way, it's just that saying "German pronunciation" right at the start of the article seems a bit unnecessary and unwieldy, surely an IPA spelling on its own would be enough? It looks to me to be unnecessary to state that it is a German pronunciation. I'm not familiar with the formatting of IPA, so excuse me if I messed up the page. Brutal Deluxe (talk) 00:55, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Displaying the IPA pronunciation after the subject's name seems to be a Wikipedia standard and also common sense — where else?

How the template {{IPA-de}} is rendered can be controlled to a limited extent with a second parameter: |IPA= or |lang= or |pron=; if none of these is present, the text "German pronunciation:" is used. (This is not very well documented at Template:IPA-de.)

Code	Rendered as
{{IPA-de|ˈvɔlfɡaŋ amaˈdeus ˈmoːtsart|}}	[ˈvɔlfɡaŋ amaˈdeus ˈmoːtsart]
{{IPA-de|ˈvɔlfɡaŋ amaˈdeus ˈmoːtsart|IPA}}	IPA: [ˈvɔlfɡaŋ amaˈdeus ˈmoːtsart]
{{IPA-de|ˈvɔlfɡaŋ amaˈdeus ˈmoːtsart|lang}}	German: [ˈvɔlfɡaŋ amaˈdeus ˈmoːtsart]
{{IPA-de|ˈvɔlfɡaŋ amaˈdeus ˈmoːtsart|pron}}	pronounced [ˈvɔlfɡaŋ amaˈdeus ˈmoːtsart]
{{IPA-de|ˈvɔlfɡaŋ amaˈdeus ˈmoːtsart}}	German pronunciation: [ˈvɔlfɡaŋ amaˈdeus ˈmoːtsart]

The advantage of using the template {{IPA-de}} over {{IPA}} is that the former links the IPA string to the article Wikipedia:IPA for German which is probably helpful for some readers. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 06:31, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

I'd go for IPA: [ˈvɔlfɡaŋ amaˈdeus ˈmoːtsart]. Brutal Deluxe (talk) 11:00, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

I could go either way, but prefer the German. Some of our readership (say, precocious children) might not yet have learned that Mozart was a German speaker. Opus33 (talk) 16:15, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. Brutal Deluxe (talk) 19:13, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

PS: I found there is one option I didn't describe: an empty 2nd parameter which renders without any additional leading text. I added this method as the first in the table above, only as a matter of providing a complete description, not to propose a different way of using the template in the article. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 13:16, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, regardless of how it should be labeled, the pronunciation has a mistake. The r is wrong. German, for the most part, has no alveolar trill. at the very least it should be IPA: [ˈmoːtsaʁt], which would be the right r, but really, most Hochdeutsch speakers have non-rhotic accents, so it probably should be IPA: [ˈmoːtsat]

Thanks for the observation, but I think "r" is more helpful to our readers. People who already know German will know how to render the r properly, and others would use their own form of r in any event. B.t.w. I have doubts about your claim that r is actually dropped in German; see German phonology. Opus33 (talk) 23:21, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Opus33 - German phonology actually supports the "dropping" of r: "In the syllable coda, the allophone [ɐ] is used in many varieties, except in the South-West." In other words, the r in Mozart is vocalised to [ɐ̯] (not actually dropped entirely) in most standard German accents. The previous user was also correct about the alveolar trill being less prevalent than the fricative ʁ. Therefore, as per the project page at Wikipedia:IPA_for_German, the correct transcription of Mozart on Wikipedia is ['moːtsaɐ̯t]. Lfh (talk) 11:05, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

The only region in Germany where the r would be completely dropped in some words is the Ruhr, particularly in its Westphalian part (and it doesn't sound pretty). A famous example is the miner's family naming their daughter Carmen and yelling for her: "['kaːmen]!" – ['moːtsaːt] would invite similar derision. As for the transcription ['moːtsaɐ̯t]: I think that might not be helpful for the average Wikipedia reader without special training in reading IPA script. I think we should stick with the current transcription. -- Michael Bednarek (talk)

I can see your point. The reason I argued for ['moːtsaɐ̯t] is that (a) it's consistent with the project page to which the user is directed (where [ɐ̯] is listed under Semivowels), and (b) there is some precedent, e.g. Saarbrücken, Horst Köhler. My compromise choice would be [ˈmoːtsaʁt], since [ʁ] is in any case preferred over [r]. But I don't want to get into an edit war about such a technical issue on such a high-profile page, so I'll leave it unchanged. Lfh (talk) 15:33, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. For completeness, let me readdress the issue of whether Standard German has "r dropping". A fair criterion to apply would be to check whether the words affected by r-dropping would become homophonous with words that never had an r in the first place. This is true, for instance, of British English, where r-dropped "spar" is homophonous with "spa". But, as you note, it is not true of Standard German, where, for instance, "Saar" does not rhyme with "Schah". German is better described (to use your words) as having vocalization of r, not dropping. That's what I meant when I referred to German phonology. Thanks for listening. Opus33 (talk) 16:26, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

So it looks like we're in full agreement about the facts. I put "dropping" in inverted commas to give it the broad meaning of "not pronounced as a rhotic", which was probably a misleading thing to do. Lfh (talk) 16:59, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Please Add The Kurdish/CKB Language to the Article

Hello, Please Add The Kurdish ckb language to the article, you'll find the article in Kurdish CKB here http://ckb.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wolfgang_Amadeus_Mozart

Thanks --195.96.131.65 (talk) 20:05, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Done. --RobertG ♬ talk 21:25, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Mozart quote missing

{{editsemiprotected}}

It has now been verified that Mozart once criticized composers who established new forms within the classical era; they were, as he put it, idling simpletons who will accomplish nothing."

I would like to post this on the Wikipedia page, but it is semi-protected. Thank you!

You'd help yourself by adding a link to the source of this quote. avs5221 (talk) 16:01, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Check the IPs. contributions. It's been adding a lot of unsourced nonsense to composer pages. I'd just as soon dismiss this. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 16:13, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

 Not done Please provide a reliable source for this as requested above. —SpaceFlight89 17:58, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Mozart sound files

A couple of edits ago, User:Uxbona added a box with links to sound files of works by Mozart. Feeling best ambivalent about this, I went on the side of conservatism and reverted. My reasons are:

• It seems a better form of organization to put these files in the articles about the individual works themselves.
• Even if we decided to be "pedagogical" and place a few selected files in the Mozart article, we would be making some very arbitrary decisions, because there are so many famous works composed by Mozart. It seems possibly an NPOV violation for us to be picking out Mozart's "greatest works" on our own, and I also think this selection is an aesthetic choice and not really encyclopedia material.

Uxbona courteously replied on my talk page as follows, and I felt it would be most reasonable to bring the discussion to this talk page. Maybe there is already a policy about this? Opus33 (talk) 17:16, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

<from Opus33's talk page:> Hello Opus33, I've just seen you have reverted the inclusion of some sound media samples in the article. I understand that, being in a block, it did interfere with the article layout. However, I invite you to reconsider some kind of media inclusion ( it can be in smaller one sample blocks): this is an article about a musical genius, which gave space to every picture of Mozart and friends, although a lot of people know exactly how Mozart sounds, its music is the issue here, and it would also be kind for the not so connoisseurs - or not so interested to dig it -to be able to hear it there. What do you think? --Uxbona (talk) 23:16, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Can we switch "Family and early years" section to point to Nannerl Notenbuch?

This is a minor issue, but I don't see the point in referring specifically to "Andante (K. 1a)" and "Allegro in C (K. 1b)" when those articles have been merged into an article for the entire notebook. If I'm not mistaken, I think those two were only mentioned because those two got their own articles very early in wikipedia history. I'd give it a go myself, but on some of these high-traffic biography pages I don't like mucking with the existing phrasing. Thanks and Cheers.DavidRF (talk) 21:36, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. I suggest, after the quote from Nannerl: "These early pieces, K. 1–5, were recorded in the Nannerl Notenbuch." More suggestions? -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 05:02, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

This seemed uncontroversially sensible to me so I just went ahead and put it in (not meaning to exclude further input, of course). Opus33 (talk) 16:21, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks!DavidRF (talk) 20:34, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Too many external links

I'm moving these recently added ones here -- they seem just too marginal/unhelpful to readers to include. Opus33 (talk) 23:58, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Historical Recordings

• CHARM (The AHRC Research Centre for the History and Analysis of Recorded Music)
  • CHARM: Mozart - recordings with audio available
  • CHARM: Mozart - recordings (incl. without avail. audio)
  • CHARM: Information on sound file
• Recordings listed at the Internationale Stiftung Mozarteum (audio not yet available)
• Recordings at the Cylinder Preservation and Digitization Project
• Recordings at archive.org
• Recordings at the Archival Sound Recordings (British Library)
• Recordings at Gallica
• Recordings: 1 (ref), 2 (ref) at Edisonia (sounds)

• Mozart's Grave: 1, 2
• Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart/Archive 9 at Curlie

I agree! The grave links and opendirectory are marginal indeed: good idead to remove them. MySorAccount (talk) 00:34, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

I strongly disagree about the removal of the historical recordings. This wikipage is about Mozart. Mozart is known for music. I think it is very helpful to provide some audio. Now the question is: which audio? I'm against midifiles because of the lack of musical phrasing. I'm against copyrighted music. I'm against links that fail to mention sources. But what is ideal is: historical recordings. I'm putting them back (but omitting Edisonia, for being too marginal). Good faith? Anywhere? :) MySorAccount (talk) 00:34, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

I work a lot with external links issues and dmoz is almost universally accepted as something that we should link to]], and I think archive.org provides a reasonable amount of encyclopedic material that we cannot link to, so it is also debatable per WP:ELMAYBE. I'm neutral when it comes to CHARM, as I'm probably too close to the group to be able to make an unbalanced judgement. ThemFromSpace 04:41, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

I recommend the following version of external links: Version328297224. The reasoning is: As expressed in more detail above, legal recordings (which include details about performer, recording date) are an important contribution to the page. Historical recordings satisfy the criteria (non-copyright, source details: performer, recording date, etc.).
Regarding WP:EL: There are no long lists of unstructured links. (compare with unstructured version before my cleanup ->unsatisfactory). Rather, the external links should be easy to navigate: I only see four Link-groupings in Version328297224: 1)Digitized Material, 2)Sheetmusic, 3)Historical Recordings, 4)Articles
This is well-structured, and provides the interested reader with interesting, stimulating written and acoustic (AND RELEVENT!) information. Can we reach a consensus, that it's OK to have the links as shown in this Version328297224???? MySorAccount (talk) 09:20, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Please refer to theChopin#External_links. You can find links to recordings there also! In fact, that recordings section has been there for a long time, without any problems. (See e.g. the Chopin Version from 3 May 2007 - more than 2 years ago. In these 2 years no one has removed the recordings via WP:EL) MySorAccount (talk) 09:38, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

While I partially agree with MySorAccount that at least some of the links to historic recordings have merit, putting what are essentially query strings into a variety of archives strikes me as somewhat fragile (I'm painting with an over-broad brush in this characterization). It might be better to note what sites have material of interest, and link to their query pages (which, if layed out correctly, shouldn't take up an unbalanced amount of space).

I will also second the inclusion of DMOZ (Open Directory) -- editors whose links are rejected are often directed to place items there instead.

Finally, in Eusebeus' most recent edit summary here he suggests gaining some consensus for what you are doing on the Composers project talk page. This is especially true if you plan to do this for more composers than Mozart and Beethoven. Magic♪piano 15:00, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Two little bits:

• First, I think the right place to put recorded versions of Mozart's works is in the (many) articles we have about these works. Putting them in the main Mozart article is not a good form of organization.
• Second, User:MySorAccount should work on being a bit more thick-skinned ("Good faith? Anywhere?"). My edits reflected a judgment about what belongs in the article and should be taken as such, not as an insult/vendetta/etc. Opus33 (talk) 19:26, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Hi there Opus33!
If we are to get users to put recorded works into the articles about the works (as you desire), users will have to know where they can actually find works. For this reason, and all the stunning reasons brought forth above; I say: lets include the links here, as I have suggested (Version328297224), to have them available when needed! :) PS: I'm way-out thick skinned and cool! (Those top 3 words were meant Tongue-in-cheek!!). I'm your finest model of a "cool cat".MySorAccount (talk) 21:33, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Hello, if material is intended just as a resource for editors, a good place to put it would be in Wikipedia:WikiProject_Haydn_and_Mozart. Relevant editors would be able to see it, and it wouldn't unduly lengthen the main Mozart article. Opus33 (talk) 20:50, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

W. A. Mozart

I think an obvious addition to the paragraph entitled "Influence" would be the following sentence :

"Franz Schubert wrote his delightful fifth symphony in homage to Mozart, and based much of it on Mozart's style." 64.203.204.92 (talk) 21:14, 28 November 2009 (UTC) Harry Wells hawells@hargray.com

Adding more specific information into your biography sections

The Mozart Wiki article is lengthy and contains a lot of biographical information. However, specifically in the sections where Mozart's life is laid out year by year a lot of information is missing. I would like to see more specific information to flush out Mozart's life, especially from 1876 onward. I feel the information is lacking, or incomplete. Thus I propose that further research is required to make this Wikipedia article more accurate.

I have added some information into the 1786–1787: Return to opera section-

Despite the great success of Die Entführung aus dem Serail, Mozart did little operatic writing for the next four years, producing only two unfinished works and the one-act Der Schauspieldirektor. He focused instead on his career as a piano soloist and writer of concertos. However, around the end October of 1785, Mozart moved away from keyboard writing concertos[48][page needed] and began initiated his famous operatic collaboration with the librettist Lorenzo Da Ponte. This was the most ambitious opera buffa which is said to have tried to emulate the success of Paisiello’s Il barbiere di Siviglia. However, even before its premier Le marriage de Figaro(The Marriage of Figaro) encountered difficulties with the censor. Yet on February 3, 1785 Figaro was approved for publication, not public performance. Mozart was taking a huge risk playing Figaro in public, but on May 1, 1786 Mozart premiered Le marriage de Figaro under the alias “An Italian Singspiel in four acts”. saw the successful premiere of The Marriage of Figaro. It saw an overwhelming success in Vienna. Its reception in Prague later in the year was even warmer,. In a letter to his close friend Gottfried von Jacquin Mozart exclaims, “here they talk nothing but- “Figaro”; nothing is played, blown, sung, and whistled but “Figaro”; no opera is seen as much as- “Figaro”; again and again it is- “Figaro”; it’s all a great honor for me. and Tthis led to the commission by and second collaboration with Da Ponte: the opera Don Giovanni. Originally Don Giovanni was supposed to premier on the October 14, 1787 in honor of the marriage Maria Theresia and Prince Anton Clemens of Saxony, which Instead it premiered ten days later on in October 24, 1787 to much acclaim in Prague., and also met with success in Vienna in 1788. The two are esteemed among Mozart's most important works and are mainstays of the operatic repertoire today, though at their premieres their musical complexity caused difficulty for both listeners and performers. These developments were not witnessed by the composer's father, as Leopold had died on 28 May 1787.

In December 1787 Mozart finally obtained a steady post under aristocratic patronage. Emperor Joseph II appointed him as his "chamber composer", a post that had fallen vacant the previous month on the death of Gluck. It was a part-time appointment, paying just 800 florins per year, and only required Mozart to compose dances for the annual balls in the Redoutensaal. Mozart had finally secured an imperial post. But, Mozart routinely complained to Constanze that the pay was "too much for what I do, too little for what I could do".[49] However, even this modest income became important to Mozart when hard times arrived. Court records show that Joseph's aim was to keep the esteemed composer from leaving Vienna in pursuit of better prospects.[49]With the premier of Don Giovanni on May 4,1988 Mozart enjoyed a modest reception. It was described as “learned, little suited to the voice” by Countess de la Lippe. Even Figaro was described as too learned and artificial. Mozart’s genius would only be apparent to a handful of the Viennese elite.

In 1787 the young Ludwig van Beethoven spent two weeks in Vienna, hoping to study with Mozart. The evidence concerning this time is conflicting, and at least three hypotheses are in play: that Mozart heard Beethoven play and praised him; that Mozart rejected Beethoven as a student; and that they never even met. (See Mozart and Beethoven.)

I used these sources to gather this information and I recommend that more research be done to flush out some of the other shorter sections.

• Rushton, Julian. (2006) Mozart. Oxford University Press.
• Spaethling, Robert. (2000) Mozart’s letters, Mozart’s life: Selected Letters. Faber & Faber, London,

  Review: Head, Matthew. “Untitled.” Oxford University Press, November 2002. Pg. 614-618.

• Eisen, Cliff et al. (2009 ) "Mozart." Grove Music Online. Oxford Music Online. 23 Nov. <http://www.oxfordmusiconline.com/subscriber/article/grove/music/40258pg3>.
• Elias, N. (1993) Mozart: Portrait of a Genius. ed. M. Schröter. Frankfurt, 1991. Eng. trans.
• Hutchings, A. (1976) Mozart: the Man, the Musicia. London.
• Levey, M. (1971) The Life and Death of Mozart. London, rev. 2/1988.

  Review: Sadie, Stanley. “Review: Uncritical Biography.” Wol. 113, No. 1549. Musical Times Publications Ltd. March 1972. Pg. 270-27. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Klai01 (talk • contribs) 18:51, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Hello Klai,

You might consider editing the article on Le Nozze di Figaro instead. A full-size Mozart biography (for example, Abert's) runs to about 1400 pages. So in Wikipedia we do a fairly short overview in the main article, and rely on many satellite articles (such as those about the individual operas) to provide more detail.

If you do edit Le Nozze di Figaro, I hope you will get other editors to help you with your prose, which contains many grammatical errors. Opus33 (talk) 20:29, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

As one of the editors involved with Le nozze di Figaro, I hope Klai01 will not post unedited material straight onto the article. We've already had a problem like this with Don Giovanni. --Kleinzach 03:23, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm surprised that nothing was mentioned of the "Amadeus" portrayal of Mozart and Salieri's supposed rivalry even if it is only fictional or biased it could be added as a part of "Portrayals in Media" section. It is noted in Salieri's Wiki bio. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Historyfan48 (talk • contribs) 14:55, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

It's in Mozart in fiction. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 15:07, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Missing Information in Mozart's Biography

The Mozart Wiki article is lengthy and contains a lot of biographical information. However, specifically in the sections where Mozart's life is laid out year by year a lot of information is missing. I would like to see more specific information to flush out Mozart's life, especially from 1876 onward. I feel the information is lacking, or incomplete. Thus I propose that further research is required to make this Wikipedia article more accurate.

Some of the information I have gathered on the Marriage of Figaro details how the censor did not permit the performance of this play and Mozart cleverly hid the play under another name ““An Italian Singspiel in four acts” in order to perform it. Figaro’s success, although overwhelming in Prague, was very limited in Vienna. I have read a few letters written by the Viennese elite which highlight their obvious distaste for the opera, for various reasons. However, I feel that overall they were turned off by the manner in which their class was represented in the show. I am still looking for more information on how Leopold Mozart felt about the production of this show. I know he was worried that it would not be received well and that Mozart could lose a lot of opportunities to make a living by premiering this opera.

So far I have not encountered a lot of information about Don Giovanni and how it fits into this particular period of Mozart’s life, but I am confident I will be able to insert more information about Don Giovanni when I read a little further into the information I have gathered on the opera. I do not like how Wikipedia grazes over these two very popular and influential works; it is as if they represent only a tiny, tiny fraction of Mozart’s career. While I agree that in comparison to the hundreds of other works he composed I know that no one can think of Mozart without thinking about the Marriage of Figaro or Don Giovanni. Therefore, it is necessary to dig further into Mozart’s life during this specific period, because it is within these 2 years that Mozart wrote two of the most famous operas ever.

The best way I feel I am able to enhance this article is to take the section of 1786-1787. In this manner I believe I will be able to give another researcher and idea of the specific details that should be put into these lack-luster sections. In my research I have encountered two readings that have been very helpful with this alteration. Mozart by Julian Ruston breaks down Mozart’s life by his musical progression and any significant events that may have affected the way Mozart worked, or how he composed. (Events such as the death of his father and mother.) It is a basic biography of Mozart’s life handled in an easy to digest information. The other book is Mozart’s letters, Mozart’s life: Selected Letters by Robert Spaethling. While this book has the basic biographical information it also is flush with primary source correspondences written by Mozart to his father, sister, and friends throughout his life. It is important to get the first-hand accounts for no one can understand Mozart better then himself. I find that I am using these two documents the most since they share detailed information in a compact manner.

Here is what I have come up with:

1786–1787: Return to opera

Despite the great success of Die Entführung aus dem Serail, Mozart did little operatic writing for the next four years, producing only two unfinished works and the one-act Der Schauspieldirektor. He focused instead on his career as a piano soloist and writer of concertos. However, around the end October of 1785, Mozart moved away from keyboard writing concertos[48][page needed] and began initiated his famous operatic collaboration with the librettist Lorenzo Da Ponte. This was the most ambitious opera buffa which is said to have tried to emulate the success of Paisiello’s Il barbiere di Siviglia. However, even before its premier Le marriage de Figaro(The Marriage of Figaro) encountered difficulties with the censor. Yet on February 3, 1785 Figaro was approved for publication, not public performance. Mozart was taking a huge risk playing Figaro in public, but on May 1, 1786 Mozart premiered Le marriage de Figaro under the alias “An Italian Singspiel in four acts”. saw the successful premiere of The Marriage of FigaroIt saw an overwhelming success in Vienna. Its reception in Prague later in the year was even warmer,. In a letter to his close friend Gottfried von Jacquin Mozart exclaims, “here they talk nothing but- “Figaro”; nothing is played, blown, sung, and whistled but “Figaro”; no opera is seen as much as- “Figaro”; again and again it is- “Figaro”; it’s all a great honor for me. and this led to the commission by and second collaboration with Da Ponte: the opera Don Giovanni. Originally Don Giovanni was supposed to premier on the October 14, 1787 in honor of the marriage Maria Theresia and Prince Anton Clemens of Saxony, which Instead it premiered ten days later on in October 24, 1787 to much acclaim in Prague., and also met with success in Vienna in 1788. The two are esteemed among Mozart's most important works and are mainstays of the operatic repertoire today, though at their premieres their musical complexity caused difficulty for both listeners and performers. These developments were not witnessed by the composer's father, as Leopold had died on 28 May 1787.

In December 1787 Mozart finally obtained a steady post under aristocratic patronage. Emperor Joseph II appointed him as his "chamber composer", a post that had fallen vacant the previous month on the death of Gluck. It was a part-time appointment, paying just 800 florins per year, and only required Mozart to compose dances for the annual balls in the Redoutensaal. Mozart had finally secured an imperial post. But, Mozart routinely complained to Constanze that the pay was "too much for what I do, too little for what I could do".[49] However, even this modest income became important to Mozart when hard times arrived. Court records show that Joseph's aim was to keep the esteemed composer from leaving Vienna in pursuit of better prospects.[49]With the premier of Don Giovanni on May 4,1988 Mozart enjoyed a modest reception. It was described as “learned, little suited to the voice” by Countess de la Lippe. Even Figaro was described as too learned and artificial. Mozart’s genius would only be apparent to a handful of the Viennese elite.

In 1787 the young Ludwig van Beethoven spent two weeks in Vienna, hoping to study with Mozart. The evidence concerning this time is conflicting, and at least three hypotheses are in play: that Mozart heard Beethoven play and praised him; that Mozart rejected Beethoven as a student; and that they never even met. (See Mozart and Beethoven.)

The reference section also needs to be beefed up with more current sources.

• Rushton, Julian. (2006) Mozart. Oxford University Press
• Spaethling, Robert. (2000) Mozart’s letters, Mozart’s life: Selected Letters. Faber & Faber, London,

  Review: Head, Matthew. “Untitled.” Oxford University Press, November 2002. Pg. 614-618.

• Eisen, Cliff et al. (2009 ) "Mozart." Grove Music Online. Oxford Music Online. 23 Nov. <http://www.oxfordmusiconline.com/subscriber/article/grove/music/40258pg3>.
• Elias, N. (1993) Mozart: Portrait of a Genius. ed. M. Schröter. Frankfurt, 1991. Eng. trans.,
• Hutchings, A. (1976) Mozart: the Man, the Musicia. London,
• Levey, M. (1971) The Life and Death of Mozart. London, rev. 2/1988.

  Review: Sadie, Stanley. “Review: Uncritical Biography.” Wol. 113, No. 1549. Musical Times Publications Ltd. March 1972. Pg. 270-27. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Klai01 (talk • contribs) 23:38, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Klai01: As I've suggested in your talk page, you should polish this stuff up (in Wikipedia style with links etc.) in your own userspace, and then post comments here referring back to it. If you simply post large sections here without working on them first, then unfortunately no-one will read them. Best. --Kleinzach 03:17, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

References

Mozart's name

Someone has replaced Mozart's name with bad language in the introduction. Please take care of this issue. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.38.4.4 (talk) 20:16, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Just vandalism. You can always fix it yourself if you come across it in the future. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 21:08, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

I would but the page is locked. Anyway, thanks for correcting it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.38.6.75 (talk) 22:44, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Change eduringly popular among classical composers to...

"Enduringly popular composer of all-time". he is not just popular in classical. jazz, pop, even blugrass musicians play his music. i've seen his music on tv commericals. just saying that it sounds like a understatement when you are talking about mozart, whoever has the power to edit should edit it to make it sound stronger and more accurate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.231.28.185 (talk) 02:42, 15 January 2010 (UTC)