Talk:Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart/Archive 4

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

The main, massive photo of Mozart's face is actually slightly scary. Can someone replace it with a normal, zoomed out portrait? None of the other composers seem to have this sort of treatment - if nothing else it's inconsistent. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.40.163.5 (talk) 18:21, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't think there is need for such a thing. "Scary" is so ambiguous. Let me say that, in any case, Mozart wasn't like "none of the other composers".201.231.67.208 (talk) 15:40, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

If "scary" is too ambiguous then how about it is changed to a wider shot in the interest of standardization? That makes sense since this is an encyclopedia and all... DavoudMSA (talk) 11:20, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Mozart was not sewn into a linen sack, he was not buried together with other corpses and he had his own coffin. The complete 1784 burial regulations were never valid in Vienna, because the local government hat refused its approval to paragraph five of these regulations. Sack and mass burials were illegal in Vienna in 1791 (see Walther Brauneis: "Mozarts Nachruhm", Wiener Geschichtsblätter 47, Vienna 1992). Due to heavy ignorance of the latest research this page is spreading massive misinformation concerning Mozart's burial and a quite a few other things that have uncritically been copied from Maynard Solomon's flawed book. I won't bother to correct all these howlers in the future, the blindly trusting public deserves no better.--Suessmayr 14:01, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

But it's not just Solomon. Here's the New Grove:

Mozart was buried in a common grave, in accordance with contemporary Viennese custom, at the St Marx cemetary outside the city on 7 December. If, as later reports say, no mourners attended, that too is consistent with Viennese burial customs at the time.

I'll look at the Brauneis, if I can find it. Since his view evidently represents a minority (of one?), it would be particularly useful to look for of citations of Brauneis's work by other scholars who think he is right--do you know of any?

More generally, I think your criticism is misdirected. I'm not trying to enforce the Solomon line; I'm trying to get this article based on published sources, rather than random editors' anecdotal memories, as it was before. This is a gradual process, and will ultimately encompass multiple biographies (I'm starting to use Niemetschek and Deutsch as well). But as a starting point, I think it's quite reasonable to use a biography that attracted favorable reviews from musicologists (search on JSTOR if you like), is crammed with footnotes citing source materials, and has a huge bibliography.

Concerning "other howlers", I'm actually curious to hear about them--provided you cite your reference sources so I can read them myself. Just yelling at me is not going to be helpful or productive. Opus33 15:25, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Followup: To answer one of my own questions: Tomislav Volek cites Brauneis's finding with evident approval in the music library journal Notes (1993), and other web search indicates that Brauneis is a Mozart scholar of some standing. So yes, our article needs work (that is, it needs careful quotation and citation of Brauneis, not an angry outburst). I'll try to get to this soon. Opus33 18:54, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Bleah, maybe not that soon... Wiener Geschichtsblätter 47 is going to have to come by interlibrary loan. Opus33 04:22, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

All this is quite hilarious. Brauneis is one of the planet's leading experts in archival Mozart scholarship, while Maynard Solomon merely has a bachelor in psychology. I would suggest to get a copy of the 1991 Zaubertoene catalogue where Mozart's burial is nicely dealt with by Brauneis. Even more important is Brauneis's article "'Dies irae, Dies illa - Tag des Zornes, Tag der Klage', Jahrbuch des Vereins für Geschichte der Stadt Wien 47/48 (Vienna 1991/92), pp. 33-50, where Brauneis refers to the legal situation in Vienna (p. 42). It's not a matter of "views" or being cited by whom and how many, the facts are totally obvious: sack and group burials were never legal in Vienna and only because people know not much else than the movie Amadeus, they simply won't do without the spare coffin and the sack. So be it!--141.203.254.65 11:20, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your advice. I found your message rather off-putting, particularly the snobbery about degrees and the supreme confidence in the truth of your position (never a great idea in scholarship). I'll try to hunt down these references as well. Sincerely, Opus33 20:53, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the interesting references to Brauneis. BTW, what has Wikipedia and the discussion of its curious content - "Mozart's Death" [1] is an especially amazing compilation of howlers - to do with scholarship?--Suessmayr 11:37, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Hello Suessmayr, the Wikipedia will have something to do with scholarship if its editors embark on a persistent program of reading, editing, and citation. For heavens' sake, if you're so cynical, why do you even bother to visit?

Along these lines, I appreciated your pointing out errors in Death of Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart, but you're not helping the project much unless you indicate where in your own reading your learned the correct version. Would you kindly revisit Talk:Death_of_Wolfgang_Amadeus_Mozart and add in these crucial details? Sincerely, Opus33 17:52, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Hello, our Mozart article is well over 60K long. To keep anywhere near the recommended WP length of 32K, we need to use satellite articles to handle material that is not utterly central. Judging that Mozart's Freemasonry activities are important but not utterly central, I've restored the satellite article status of this section. Opus33 (talk) 16:27, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the result is that the satellite article is unimproveable, and is only a few paragraphs. Considering that some very small periods of time are elaborated on in great detail as-is in the article, I'd suggest looking at the rest of the article being too long as well. Considering music Mozart wrote for and about Masonry is pretty central (as part of his overall corpus of music), I think to claim certain material is central and other material is not to be a little subjective. MSJapan (talk) 04:25, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Hello MSJapan,

Your idea that the satellite article is "unimprovable" is simply baffling--what would it mean for an article to be "unimprovable"? In fact, I would like to suggest that you go ahead and improve it: go to your library, check out some books covering Mozart and Freemasonry, study them, and use what you learn to make changes and additions. By making it a satellite article, we free up space for improvements.

Sincerely, Opus33 (talk) 04:52, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Ah come on, are you people serious about that first picture? That is way to close to his face. Mallerd (talk) 22:18, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

- I agree. It's terrifying. Please replace it!

CharlieRCD (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 14:36, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

In the music school I went to, it was almost common knowledge that Mozart posessed these two skills, especially the memory which was evidenced in his ability to compose an entire symphony without requiring a main score. He simply wrote out the parts for the instruments and historians recreated the main score by looking through the parts, finding that all the parts were flawless. There's also the mention in here that his rough drafts and sketches were not saved, but that elides the fact that his work often was entirely free of errors due to this memory. Also, am I blind or is there no mention of the "Amadeus" story? Even if this is not historically provable, it is a fascinating element of his legend and should certainly be included if only to show the myth that was built up around him.--N88819 (talk) 09:42, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Hello N88819, If I remember rightly, none of the biographies I've been reading for purposes of editing this article (currently: Deutsch, Solomon, Cambridge Encyclopedia, Clive, and New Grove) cover perfect pitch or eidetic memory. I will recheck them. (As I'm sure you're aware, "common knowledge" won't suffice; there has to be a scholarly source.) Note that we do already have a mention of the famous Allegri transcription episode, for which there is documentation from family correspondence.

Re "Amadeus", I guess you didn't read the whole article; it is mentioned. Readers who want a lot of detail about "Amadeus" can follow the links; these lead to long articles about both the play and the movie. Sincerely, Opus33 (talk) 17:43, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm not referring to the amadeus movie, I'm referring to the story of how he was given that name by the pope as a child. And no I don't expect common knowledge to be covered here, but it is a widely held belief among musicians so spending some space confirming or dispelling it would be a valuable use of time. For the non-musician it would open up another avenue of musical curiosity with a link to the article about perfect pitch.--N88819 (talk) 17:54, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

"Pope names Mozart Amadeus" -- totally new to me! I thought he only knighted him (see

Mozart and Roman Catholicism). Can you at least find a web reference to this? Thanks. / Concerning the perfect pitch/eidetic memory stuff: as I said, I'll check it out when I have access to my reference books. Opus33 (talk

) 19:34, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Regarding the ability to compose without creating a score: which symphony would that have been? Certainly in his maturity he generally didn't write out parts at all, but gave the score to a copyist who could produce sufficient copies of each instrumental part in a clear hand that a performer could sight-read. (If you look at a Mozart score you'll see a good deal of short-cutting: no clefs or key sigs except at the beginning of a movement or where they change, indications for one part to double another, etc. Besides, do you suppose he'd have copied out multiple copies of the string parts?) As to "entirely free of errors due to this memory": how do we know this if his sketches aren't preserved? You may be thinking of the infamous "Rochlitz letter", a forgery in which Mozart was alleged to have said that he could see/hear an entire piece at once in his mind. (The forgery was itself later plagiarized in order to make the same assertion about Beethoven...) RogerLustig (talk) 02:39, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Like RogerLustig, I couldn't find the putative story of Mozart composing a symphony in his head. But I did find a pretty good article ("Compositional method" by Ulrich Konrad, in the Cambridge Mozart Encyclopedia) that throws a lot of cold water on this "eidetic memory" stuff. Konrad note a systematic pattern of sketches and drafts in Mozart's working practice, which would hardly have been necessary if Mozart relied on a miraculous memory ability to compose. The evidence also indicates that Mozart needed a keyboard instrument in order to compose, again, not something one would expect from someone with a superman-type memory. Lastly, Konrad also makes a good case that Mozart's process of musical creation was romanticized and falsified in the 19th century, that the fraudulent letter mentioned by RogerLustig played an important role in this process, and that the misconceptions thus generated persist among many members of the musical public today. In contrast, Konrad offers a convincing, non-miracle-based account of how Mozart worked. Highly recommended.

From my reading, I judge that at present it would not be appropriate to discuss Mozart's putative "eidetic memory" in the Wikipedia article. (I'm still looking at sources concerning perfect pitch.) Sincerely, Opus33 (talk) 05:32, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Well I'm very glad to know this information, as I was taught the exact opposite in my music history course. I think that covering this would be highly informative to many who have been similarly mistaught. I know of at least a few thousand pupils at Berklee who would have been taught this same information. I implore you to please include both subjects, the "super" abilities as well as the amadeus story, even if you only wish to debunk them.--N88819 (talk) 20:38, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

I'll give it a try. Opus33 (talk) 00:11, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps it's time for a "Mozart Myths" article. Heaven knows, there are enough of them, and enough scholarly work debunking them. William Stafford's The Mozart Myths (Stanford, 1991) is but one obvious source; Braunbehrens, Brauneis, Eisen, Edge, Solomon and many others have also weighed in. (The granddaddy would have to be Nicholas Slonimsky's article, "The Weather at Mozart's Funeral.")

Regarding perfect/absolute pitch, I note that the Wikipedia article on the subject acknowledges Mozart's having had it, and cites a recent paper by Diana Deutsch. Wonder what she footnotes...

One myth that gets debated without a key point being acknowledged by either side: the story of Mozart's writing out the Allegri Miserere after one hearing, or perhaps two. It's impossible. Not that he heard it and then write it down; but that he heard it only once! Look at the piece itself: a fairly simple work that gets repeated several times. The big deal is the ornamentation that the top voice adds in each section. That's what made it a tourist attraction and a trade secret. So, for all practical purposes, Mozart had heard the polyphony 5 times or so by the end of his first "hearing", and made careful note of the ornamentation. Still a terrific achievement, if he did it; but not what one might imagine if one heard the story but not the piece itself. RogerLustig (talk) 03:48, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Great idea, a Mozart's myths article. Maybe even a "famous composer myths" article. Thanks.--N88819 (talk) 05:44, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Hello, I've now included discussion of Mozart's not-quite-superhuman musical memory in the newly-posted article Mozart's compositional method.

On the whole, I think it's better to include mythbusting material within articles that say what is actually true, rather than to create articles with a specifically mythbusting purpose. Cheers, Opus33 (talk) 19:42, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

The cause of Mozart's death is known. Salieri confessed on his deathbed that he had poisoned Mozart over jealousy of superior musical talent. There is signed affidavit to Salieri having confessed. That is end of the story "de jure". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.83.12.110 (talk) 21:09, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

You fell victim to a hoax, or you have a weird humor. You can have an affidavit on this.--Suessmayr (talk) 07:31, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

"Mozart is the Mister Mister of classical composers" .. this famous quote has now been properly identified as belonging to Michael Doherty. Pocketcorp (talk) 19:56, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

When Motzart was little he played the piano.So his dad took him and his sister to travel to play music for other people.THIS WAS WHEN HE WAS THREE! When he played the people thought he was so cute and talented at such a young age.He wrote a song that most people know today as,"Twinkle Twinkle Little Star." Of course it was much more complicated and did not have any words.As he got older the people did not think he was that cute any more so his father stoped doing it.Betterdays99 (talk) 01:19, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for sharing, Betterdays. For information on "Twinkle, Twinkle, Little Star", take a look at

Twinkle Twinkle Little Star. Some information on Mozart's childhood is given in Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart. Opus33 (talk

) 02:26, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Tried posting a new link, but it was promptly (and automatically) removed. And quite rightly so, I gather, since it represented both a conflict of interests (it's my site) and a type of website (a blog) that is apparaently not comme il faut at Wikipedia. No, I hadn't read the rules and yes, I am new here. The site is a catalogue of Mozart's works and I constructed it for my own use (at least initially). Its primary source is The Mozart Compendium (ed H.C. Robbins Landon, 1990), my copy of which is literally falling apart. Yes, it is indeed a blog, but not in practice. A blog was simply the easiest tool to work with (for me, a computer/internet idiot). And my sole reason for posting it at Wikipedia (or trying to), is that there (to my scant knowledge, at least) is no real equivalent to it on the internet, which is why I made it in the first place. Have a look, if you like: http://mozartdatabase.blogspot.com/ Mozartdatabase (talk) 12:58, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

I noticed your addition and the automatic removal and had a bried look at your site. In my opinion, it is very well made and certainly a useful resource. However, I'm not sure how to overcome zealous bots (except to say that I once developed a particularly convoluted way of obscuring URLs). Michael Bednarek (talk) 14:35, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Hello MDB, We do try to avoid making use of material that hasn't been subject to scholarly peer review. I hope you will consider taking your ragged copy of Robbins Landon and using it to make improvements (with citation) to

List of works by Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart, or to the individual articles on particular works. Yours sincerely, Opus33 (talk

) 19:22, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

There is ambiguity here. Mozart was certainly the greatest composer of the "classical period." But there is no evidence to back up the claim that he is THE most enduringly popular of all composers of "classical music." This section of the intro should be fixed. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.169.103.74 (talk) 21:22, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

For some reason, this article is locked to editing and there is no way to fix that intro. Can someone clarify what is meant by most enduringly popular of "classical" composers? Or can someone give us a widely acknowledged source stating that Mozart is more enduringly popular worldwide than, for example, Beethoven? Otherwise, the statement, as it stands, is merely an opinion of the person who wrote it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.32.4.73 (talk) 02:18, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Mozart is regarded as the most 'enduring' because his music was considerably more complex and covered a wider range of musical structures than any composer before or since he lived. 'Enduringly popular' in this sense should not be taken to mean 'The best of Mozart's works were more complex than those of other classical artists'. 'Enduring' is a good description of his works because they were prolific and to this day, very easily accessible. I personally find Bach to be more unified and Beethoven to be more aggressively complicated (and to me that is actually preferable) than Mozart, but Mozart's music gives one the ability to think constructively without being overwhelmed by the intensity of the music (generally speaking). If you are obsessed with the semantics of entry, why not petition to change 'enduringly popular' to just "durable"? The real issue in the description is the 'popluarity' assertion, since most people know very little about the actual music, yet it still lives on to this day. This discussion will be moved to the bottom of the page where it belongs, in cronological order. SIGN YOUR COMMENTS OR EXPECT THEM TO BE DELETED. This article regards a serious contribution to Western Music. Enough with the trifling semantics. Anonymity ensures rapid impermanence DavoudMSA (talk) 08:29, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Your argument doesn't hold water. As I've pointed out, you don't have any widely acknowledged sources to back up your claim that "Mozart is regarded as the MOST 'enduring'" (by whom? by the majority of music critics?). The issue is with the word "most," not the word "enduring." Anyways, what I pointed out was significant in that you simply made a controversial assertion with out any evidence (and you still did not provide any even after I pointed out that it was necessary); it is definitely not trifling, precisely because, as you said, this article regards a significant contribution to Western music. Please show some respect for constructive comments. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.110.52.71 (talk) 10:14, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

The pedantic discussion on the Cutural Durability of Mozart's body of work has been moved to the bottom of the page, where it belongs.

Pedantic? If the user who wrote the intro simply asserted that Mozart was the MOST enduring of all composers without providing any credible sources (surveys, for example), I don't think this topic is pedantic. 67.169.103.74 (talk) 18:44, 22 February 2008 (UTC) To view more information click the highlighted links. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.74.150.21 (talk) 18:59, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

It seems that a new portrait of Mozart has been discovered, which might be more accurate than Barbara Krafft's. Might be a good idea to add it to the article. Source [2] Visarga (talk) 11:44, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

That's the Hagenauer Mozart, see Image:Hagenauer Mozart mid-1780s.jpg. Given that that image was uploaded on 22 January 2006, it can't be as new as the telegraph's article makes it out to be. An indeed, googling for "Hagenauer Mozart" gives this as the first result: Identification of the Hagenauer Mozart (beware of pop-ups; my browser received numerous such warnings). It says, it was discovered in 2004, and it presents evidence that it's authentic. Michael Bednarek (talk) 12:23, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

The so-called Hagenauer Mozart was not presented as authentic on 15 March 2008 by Professor Eisen, but as "possible Mozart portrait". The title of Eisen's paper had a question mark. This was obviously done to provide an exit strategy if necessary.--Suessmayr (talk) 07:30, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

...photo of James Hulme AKA Mozart's face is actually... [talk page, "Main Photo", above] - I see absolutely no need whatsoever for this comment's edit by 212.23.3.157. Other edits on this page by this user have been deemed as vandalism. Wikipedia is not the place for playground nicknames. Other users opinions prior to removal? Jonfun (talk) 16:47, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Ignore above, Mscuthbert beat me to it. Jonfun (talk) 16:49, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Since it's now been added twice here, can someone tell me what Mozart's contribution to Homeschooling is, and, more importantly, how members of the Homeschooling project plan to use their knowledge of that topic to improve this article? If the point is that Mozart was instructed by his father, does this mean we'll start seeing Homeschooling project tags on every person born before compulsory public education became the norm? -- Myke Cuthbert (talk) 04:08, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Mscuthbert's skepticism, and I would judge that if no one has a good answer to his question, we should take the banner down again. Opus33 (talk) 16:05, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Removed. -- Myke Cuthbert (talk) 03:34, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

The

Here is the intro to this unknown string quartet:

Does anybody know the name of this string quartet? Thanks--Geremia (talk) 08:52, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Hello Geremia, your sound clips are amusing. "Happy Birthday" was composed over a century after Mozart's lifetime, as you would find out by clicking on that link you gave. The second clip is four bars I can't identify, followed by an extract (maybe bars 56-59?) from the first movement of Mozart's Quartet in C, K. 465. Maybe what you have is meant to be some kind of musical joke? Cheers, Opus33 (talk) 15:37, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Hello, thanks to Gary King for rationalizing the footnotes, etc. There are some places where he switched the citation from some other source to Solomon's biography. The particular one I have in mind here is switching from Deutsch to Solomon re. what Mozart called himself.

I've switched this one back (and plan to do a few more as I have time). In the present case, there are two reasons.

• First, Deutsch makes this as a direct declaration, based on his study of the documents. I think that for this particular claim, Deutsch is a more direct and trustable source.
• More generally, I don't see any merit in cutting down on the diversity of sources cited. Rather, in any given case, we should go with the most detailed, trustable source available. Sincerely, Opus33 (talk) 17:50, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Feel free to cite more than one source for the same fact. Nothing wrong with that either. It happens all the time in the literature and with footnotes, the extra citation is not that obtrusive. DavidRF (talk) 04:30, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Good point.

So, I went back to the citation of Solomon (1995) that I had removed, to check out the case at hand--might Solomon serve as a good backup for Deutsch? Unfortunately, the Solomon reference says nothing about what Mozart called himself in general and thus is not an appropriate citation here. I suspect now that the editor who did these changes may not have read the sources and that quite a bit of work might be needed to fix the damage. Opus33 (talk) 15:50, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Concerning whether Mozart's output declined during the late 1780's: Steptoe actually provides data (counting the works). The Solomon reference does not; it should not have been substituted. Opus33 (talk) 17:17, 21 May 2008 (UTC)