Talk:Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 23:13, 4 October 2005

Latest revision as of 02:51, 29 July 2025

Line 1:

{{featuredSkiptotoctalk}}

{{Talk header|search=yes}}

{{mainpage date|February 22|2004}}

{{Contentious topics/talk notice|topic=cid}}

{{Omnimusica-referencing}}

{{FAQ|collapsed=no}}

{{composers}}

{{ArticleHistory

''See [[/Archive 1]] for earlier talk.''

|action1=RBP

==Short intro?/Amadeus==

|action1date=January 19,2004

I agree with [[User:Karmish]], and would go a bit further: I think the intro section should be quite short. Various editors keep putting in rhapsodic passages saying how wonderful Mozart was--but this is obvious, no? Since readers come to the Wikipedia to learn facts, and might even be annoyed by "gushing", we should keep the intro short, simply mentioning briefly that a lot of people love Mozart's music.

|action1link=Wikipedia:Archive/Refreshing brilliant prose - People and culture

|action1result=kept

|action1oldid=2834414

|action2=FAR

I also shortened the Amadeus discussion, on the view that discussion of this play/movie belongs in its own article, not the Mozart article.

|action2date=October 20 2004

|action2link=Wikipedia:Featured article removal candidates/Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart (the first)

|action2result=kept

|action2oldid=6772670

|action3=FAR

[[User:Opus33|Opus33]] 15:55, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

|action3date=October 29,2005

|action3link=Wikipedia:Featured article removal candidates/Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart

|action3result=demoted

|action3oldid=25961908

|action4=GAN

:I agree with these edits. The previous introduction was unencyclopedic. -- [[User:Viajero|Viajero]] 16:06, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

|action4date=February 21,2007

|action4link=Talk:Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart/Archive 2#GA Fail

|action4result=failed

|action4oldid=109715643

|action5=PR

::Viajero also lengthened the intro--but the material added is factual, not "gushing", so it's ok by me. [[User:Opus33|Opus33]] 16:30, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

|action5date=14:05, 21 August 2010

|action5link=Wikipedia:Peer review/Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart/archive1

|action5result=reviewed

|action5oldid=379936025

|action6=PR

:::Having just now read the intro for the first time in a while -- I think it's excellent, and just about the right length. [[User:Antandrus|Antandrus]] 16:41, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

|action6date= 10:00, 14 September 2012

|action6link=Wikipedia:Peer review/Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart/archive2

|action6result=reviewed

|action6oldid=512086678

|maindate=February 22,2004

: The comments under the title "Unappreciated" below, as well as some recent edits to this page, caused me to reread the opening para carefully, and it seemed to me to have become somewhat opinionated. Having looked at the introduction from the version of [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wolfgang_Amadeus_Mozart&oldid=11843473 2nd April] when Antandrus made his comment above, I boldly decided to recast it to return to something like that version, the last time consensus was reached. The reasoning behind the edits is as follows. "Great" is a subjective adjective. "Highly unregarded" seemed to me a somewhat uncomfortable phrase. Some people's astonishment at the amount of music he composed is not encyclopedic (and not referenced); and the amount of music he composed seems to me the least of Mozartian marvels. I found the phrase "often performed today" a little woolly. I feel rather as if I set myself an impossible task, returning to that older version while not losing encyclopedic content from intervening edits. I hope the community thinks it's an improvement; if not I know my changes won't survive the day! --[[User:RobertG|RobertG]] ♬ [[User talk:RobertG|talk]] 5 July 2005 16:21 (UTC)

|currentstatus=FFA

|topic=music

|otd1date=2006-01-27

::It looks good to me now; I'm not even sure how it mutated to the previous version. Another recent issue is that some of us have been removing a Haydn quotation from persistent, anonymous editor who wants to insert it into the lead (the quote is already below in the biographical section). Thanks, [[User:Antandrus|Antandrus ]] [[User_talk:Antandrus|(talk)]] 5 July 2005 16:38 (UTC)

|otd1oldid=36944953

}}

{{WikiProject banner shell|collapsed=yes|class=B|vital=yes|listas=Mozart, Wolfgang Amadeus|blp=no|1=

{{WikiProject Biography|musician-work-group=yes|musician-priority=Top|core=yes}}

{{WikiProject Austria|importance=Top}}

{{WikiProject Classical music}}

{{WikiProject Composers}}

{{WikiProject Opera}}

}}

{{User:MiszaBot/config

| algo = old(90d)

| archive = Talk:Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart/Archive %(counter)d

| counter = 17

| maxarchivesize = 70K

| archiveheader = {{aan}}

| minthreadstoarchive = 1

| minthreadsleft = 4

}}

{{old moves|date1=3 May 2020|destination1=Mozart| result1=not moved| link1=Special:Permalink/954729362#Requested move 3 May 2020|

==Inauthentic Portrait==

date2=14 February 2025|destination2=Mozart|result2=not moved|link2=Special:Permalink/1275843427#Requested move 14 February 2025}}

See http://www.faz.net/s/RubEBED639C476B407798B1CE808F1F6632/Doc~ED33FA3328AC742C9B0D45F721B0E9951~ATpl~Ecommon~Scontent.html for article from the Frankfurter Allgemeinen Zeitung by Renate Schostac (Kunst: Nicht Mozart, sondern ein Beamter): F.A.Z., 2005.02.03, Nr. 51 / p. 37 Bildmaterial: dpa/dpaweb. For English summary of artcle, see http://www.mozart.at/mozarttest/dummy/index.php?id=472&tx_ttnews%5Btt_news%5D=541&tx_ttnews%5BbackPid%5D=429&cHash=37189bb810 Basically, the subject of the Edlinger PAINTING is said to have been found out to be, by investigation of the Munich municipal archivist Richard Bauer, a well to do Muenich merchant and city councilor named Joseph Anton Steiner (and NOT Mozart). (Contributed by Vicki Volz: I recalled having read this FAZ article this spring, and remembered it now when I recognized the image of the painting of the "man in greenjacket" on your website. I read your wikipedia article to find information about Mozart's the 21st Piano concerto, its tonality and "color" and "texture" and "images" [I am a "visual" person], after having just listened to it on the radio and having been "blown" away).

== Featured picture scheduled for POTD ==

I recognize from an article I've read that the portrait of Mozart in this article is not an authentic one. The seventh and tenth portraits featured on [http://www.edto.net/mozart_life.htm this] website would be suitable replacements. I'm not sure how urgent this is though...

Hello! This is to let editors know that [[:File:Mozart Family Croce.jpg]], a [[Wikipedia:Featured pictures|featured picture]] used in this article, has been selected as the English Wikipedia's [[Wikipedia:Picture of the day|picture of the day]] (POTD) for January 27, 2026. A preview of the POTD is displayed below and can be edited at [[Template:POTD/2026-01-27]]. For the greater benefit of readers, any potential improvements or maintenance that could benefit the quality of this article should be done before its scheduled appearance on the [[Main Page]]. 270th birthday of Wolfgang Mozart If you have any concerns, please place a message at [[Wikipedia talk:Picture of the day]]. Thank you! ―<span style="border: 1px solid black; padding: 1px; border-radius: 5px;">[[User:Howardcorn33|<b>Howard</b>]] • [[User talk:Howardcorn33|🌽³³]]</span> 20:57, 5 February 2025 (UTC) <!-- Template:UpcomingPOTD -->

*Good point. The portrait in the article is disastrous. By far the best choice, however, seems to be the recently discovered [http://web.telia.com/~u57013916/Edlinger%20Mozart.htm last portrait of Mozart] by Edlinger from, presumably, 1790. Edlinger was one of the best portrait painters of his time, and his Mozart is indeed a masterpiece.

<div style="margin-top:4px; border:1px solid #ddcef2; background:#faf5ff; overflow:auto;"><div style="margin:0.6em 0.4em 0.1em;">{{POTD/Day|2026-01-27|excludeheader=yes}}</div></div>

== Requested move 14 February 2025 ==

I would prefer not to use the newly discovered one without including another portrait (i.e. the Bologna portrait or the unfinished one by his brother-in-law) because I've read that Mozart was being treated with [[mercury (element)|mercury]] for his illness during the time that the newer portrait was done, and that could be the cause for his [[bloating]]. The newer portrait is suprisingly unflattering if you consider his age at the time (mid-thirties). --[[User:Berserk798|Berserk798]] 23:05, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

<div class="boilerplate mw-archivedtalk" style="background-color: var(--background-color-success-subtle, #efe); color: var(--color-base, inherit); margin: 0; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px dotted var(--border-color-subtle, #AAAAAA);"><!-- Template:RM top -->

*I cannot see any signs of illness or anything unflattering in the new portrait. Some newspaper articles saw the most ridiculous things into the picture. That's just gossip. But I agree that it should be presented with the "Bologna" portrait from 1777. The Lange portrait (by his brother-in-law) is highly idealized: straightened nose, enlarged eyes, diminished chin. Perhaps Konstanze liked it because of that. [[User:213.164.193.161|213.164.193.161]] 20:09, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

:''The following is a closed discussion of a [[Wikipedia:Requested moves|requested move]]. <span style="color: var(--color-error, red);">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a [[Wikipedia:move review|move review]] '''after''' discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.''

I'm assuming that a 200+ year old painting would be public ___domain, but should I ask for permission before borrowing it from a website? --[[User:Berserk798|Berserk798]] 23:21, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The result of the move request was: '''not moved.''' Overwhelming consensus not to move the article, [[WP:SNOW]] applies. Closing so as not to waste time further. <small>([[Wikipedia:Requested moves/Closing instructions#Closure by a page mover|closed by non-admin page mover]])</small> [[User:Zxcvbnm|ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ]] ([[User talk:Zxcvbnm|ᴛ]]) 13:16, 15 February 2025 (UTC)

*I think the old one was also very good, and was about Mozart... But this new looks very ugly, so I replaced it to the "original" in the hungarian Wikipedia. [[hu:User:NZs]]

----

[[:Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart]] → {{no redirect|Mozart}} – [[WP:CONCISE]] and [[WP:COMMONNAME]], see [https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=Wolfgang+Amadeus+Mozart%2CMozart&year_start=1800&year_end=2022&corpus=en&smoothing=3 ngrams] <span style="text-shadow:#000 0em 0em 1em">[[Mukarrib|<span style="color:#000">𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨</span>]]&nbsp;[[User:Abo Yemen|<span style="color:#CD0000">Abo Yemen</span>]] ([[User talk:Abo Yemen|<span style="color:#000">𓃵</span>]])</span> 10:19, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

What do you mean by "was about Mozart"? The previous picture showed an imagined romantic view of Mozart. The painter never saw Mozart. Perhaps we can agree that most readers of an encyclopedia would like to see authentic portraits, not fabricated ones. [[User:213.164.193.161|213.164.193.161]] 20:41, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

* '''Oppose''' per [[WP:CONCISE]], which notes that "{{tq|given names and family names are usually not omitted or abbreviated for the purposes of concision}}". This is consistent with [[Johann Sebastian Bach]] and [[Ludwig van Beethoven]] and [[Franz Schubert]] and [[Pyotr Ilyich Tchaikovsky]] and [[Johannes Brahms]] and [[Claude Debussy]] and so forth. [[User:SilverLocust|SilverLocust]]&nbsp;[[User talk:SilverLocust|💬]] 11:54, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

:If the Edlinger painting is of him, gentlemen, I believe that he looks more distinguished in it than in the Bolognese portrait. --[[User:Anglius|Anglius]] 04:11, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

* '''Oppose''' as per SilverLocust. [[User:Martinevans123|Martinevans123]] ([[User talk:Martinevans123|talk]]) 12:09, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

* '''Oppose'''. See above. [[User:Zacwill|Zacwill]] ([[User talk:Zacwill|talk]]) 12:20, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

*Me thinks you read [[WP:COMMONNAME]] wrong. I dunno why people would even bother with 'oppose' votes. Or are even pretending to take this seriously. [[User:Melodia|♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫]] ([[User talk:Melodia|talk]]) 13:25, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

* '''Comment''': Two days ago [[Portraits of Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart]] was moved to [[Portraits of Mozart]], with the edit summary "make consistent with other Mozart pages". Those Mozart pages appear to be [[Biographies of Mozart]] and some others linked to from [[Template:Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart]]. I would be in favour of moving at least those two to [[Biographies of Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart]] and (back to) [[Portraits of Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart]], assuming that this RM fails. [[User:Ham II|Ham II]] ([[User talk:Ham II|talk]]) 14:33, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

*: I think that would be a misunderstanding. While I agree that for the biography, the guideline is to have the full name, I don't believe that it is meant also for related articles. I once started an article [[Reger works]], and find [[Mozart operas]] useful for easy search. --[[User:Gerda Arendt|Gerda Arendt]] ([[User talk:Gerda Arendt|talk]]) 14:50, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

*:: I quite agree with [[Reger works]] and [[Mozart operas]] existing as redirects, but those articles' titles are (now, at least) [[List of compositions by Max Reger]] and [[List of operas by Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart]]. [[User:Ham II|Ham II]] ([[User talk:Ham II|talk]]) 15:01, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

*::: I don't go for making the shortcuts article names, but without a redirect, searching for such a list, especially with a first name as long as Wolfgang Amadeus, is tedious. There are longish discussions about different names than [[Bach cantata]] in its archives. - It's not without irony that Mozart never used Wolfgang Amadeus. The [[Salzburg Festival]] - his festival - uses W. A. Mozart. --[[User:Gerda Arendt|Gerda Arendt]] ([[User talk:Gerda Arendt|talk]]) 17:20, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

* '''Oppose''' per others, also largely agreeing with Gerda. [[Reger works]] would not be ideal as the actual title, but [[Mozart operas]] would be fine imo. [[User:Johnbod|Johnbod]] ([[User talk:Johnbod|talk]]) 15:03, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

* '''Oppose'''. Renaming the page sets bad precedence for naming conventions in my opinion, See J.S. Bach and his family, not to mention P.D.Q. Bach. [[User:VARice22|VARice22]] ([[User talk:VARice22|talk]]) 13:04, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

:'''Oppose''' and snow close. [[User:Killuminator|Killuminator]] ([[User talk:Killuminator|talk]]) 23:17, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

:If I recall correctly, the famous portrait of Mozart painted some years after his death was done with Nannerl's consultation; it is also said that the painter supposedly modeled the portrait off of Nannerl's face, because it was often remarked that Wolfgang and she looked very much alike.

*'''Oppose''' per above. [[User:Randy Kryn|Randy Kryn]] ([[User talk:Randy Kryn|talk]]) 11:29, 15 February 2025 (UTC)

<div style="padding-left: 1.6em; font-style: italic; border-top: 1px solid #a2a9b1; margin: 0.5em 0; padding-top: 0.5em">The discussion above is closed. <b style="color: var(--color-error, red);">Please do not modify it.</b> Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.</div><!-- from [[Template:Archive bottom]] -->

</div><div style="clear:both;" class=></div>

== Amadeus ==

:Getting off the subject of the famous posthumous effort for a second, has anyone perchance ever suggested using the [http://www.mozartforum.com/images/Death_Mask.jpg death mask] as a portrait? Surely a cast of the man's face would do his likeness greater justice than any artist's spatial estimations. The only problem is that there appear to be some doubts about the authenticity of the mask as well. If anyone has any further information on the likelihood of the mask being genuine, please do tell us about what you know. [[User:Batman Jr.|Batman Jr.]] 23:13, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

I feel this page should have something about ''Amadeus'', both Peter Shaffer's [[Amadeus (play)| play]] and Milos Forman's [[Amadeus (film)|film]]. I have many doubts about its historical accuracy (Salieri was apparently a good composer held in esteem by Mozart) but it is none the less an important work. On [[Schubert]] (a Good Article) we learn "Schubert has featured as a character in several films including ''Schubert's Dream of Spring'' (1931), ''Gently My Songs Entreat'' (1933), ''Serenade'' (1940), ''The Great Awakening'' (1941)—whose plot is based on a fictional episode of him fleeing Vienna to Hungary to avoid conscription—''It's Only Love'' (1947), ''Franz Schubert'' (1953), ''Das Dreimäderlhaus'' (1958), and ''Mit meinen heißen Tränen'' (1986)." None of those are as famous or as influential as ''Amadeus''. [[User:Charlie Faust|Charlie Faust]] ([[User talk:Charlie Faust|talk]]) 12:49, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

== Request for references ==

:To be clear, I think it should be under "Influence". On the Schubert page, there's a subheading "[[Franz_Schubert#In_film_and_television|In film and television]]". I'm not sure we need that here, but ''Amadeus'' is more important than the films listed on Schubert's page. Like ''Amadeus'' or not (and I can see why classical music scholars might not), it's hard to ignore its influence. [[User:Charlie Faust|Charlie Faust]] ([[User talk:Charlie Faust|talk]]) 14:11, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

Hi, I am working to encourage implementation of the goals of the [[Wikipedia:Verifiability]] policy. Part of that is to make sure articles [[Wikipedia:Cite sources|cite their sources]]. This is particularly important for featured articles, since they are a prominent part of Wikipedia. Further reading is not the same thing as proper references. Further reading could list works about the topic that were not ever consulted by the page authors. If some of the works listed in the further reading section were used to add or check material in the article, please list them in a references section instead. The [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Fact and Reference Check|Fact and Reference Check Project]] has more information. Thank you, and please [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=User_talk:Taxman&action=edit&section=new leave me a message] when you have added a few references to the article. - [[User:Taxman|Taxman]] 17:18, Apr 22, 2005 (UTC)

::In the section "Influence" is a link to [[Mozart in popular culture]] where all this and more has been listed since 2008. -- [[User:Michael Bednarek|Michael Bednarek]] ([[User talk:Michael Bednarek|talk]]) 03:45, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

==Mozart's name being re-merged into the main article==

:::Yes, I know of [[Mozart in popular culture]]. But [[Schubert]] (a Good Article, per the robust standards of Wikipedia editors) notes films featuring him as a character, films much less famous than ''Amadeus''. [[User:Charlie Faust|Charlie Faust]] ([[User talk:Charlie Faust|talk]]) 12:38, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

:::[[Verdi]] (also a Good Article, per the robust standards of Wikipedia editors) [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giuseppe_Verdi#Memorials_and_cultural_portrayals informs us] that "Verdi has been the subject of several film and stage works. These include the 1938 film directed by [[Carmine Gallone]], ''[[Giuseppe Verdi (film)|Giuseppe Verdi]]'', starring [[Fosco Giachetti]]; the 1982 miniseries, [[The Life of Verdi (miniseries)|''The Life of Verdi'']], directed by [[Renato Castellani]], where Verdi was played by [[Ronald Pickup]], with narration by [[Burt Lancaster]] in the English version; and the 1985 play ''[[After Aida]]'', by [[Julian Mitchell]] (1985). He is a character in the 2011 opera ''[[Risorgimento! (opera)|Risorgimento!]]'' by Italian composer [[Lorenzo Ferrero]]." Again, none of those works are as influential as ''Amadeus''. [[User:Charlie Faust|Charlie Faust]] ([[User talk:Charlie Faust|talk]]) 13:40, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

::::Hello, the Manual of Style now provides guidelines about "pop culture" sections; see [[MOS:CULTURALREFS]]. [[User:Opus33|Opus33]] ([[User talk:Opus33|talk]]) 16:56, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::Re Schubert and Verdi: those articles are not swamped, like Mozart's was in 2008, with references to popular culture. That's why that section was split off. -- [[User:Michael Bednarek|Michael Bednarek]] ([[User talk:Michael Bednarek|talk]]) 01:51, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::OK, but is Mozart's section swamped now? It doesn't seem to be.

::::::Of course, most of the items in [[Mozart in popular culture]] should stay there. (The Requiem features briefly in ''The Big Lebowski'', but Mozart's music is not integral to the plot.) Mozart, his character and his work, ''are'' integral to the plot of ''Amadeus''.

::::::From the [[MOS:CULTURALREFS]], I read "A good 'Cultural references' section might, for example, set out a logically-presented overview... A well-crafted article or section on a topic’s cultural representation should be based on reliable sources that address the topic broadly. These sources may cover the entire topic (e.g. cats), its cultural representation (e.g. cats in fiction), or specific aspects (e.g. cats in 1960s Italian fiction). The primary aim should be to present an analysis of the topic's cultural representations as found in these sources. Editors must avoid introducing their own interpretations, as this would violate Wikipedia’s no original research policy.

::::::A limited number of examples can be valuable for illustrating and reinforcing this analysis, but they should complement, not replace, broader discussion. If examples are included, they should be drawn from sources that discuss the primary topic rather than being selected arbitrarily. Their inclusion should reflect their prominence in relevant literature. For an example of good practice, see [[Mars in fiction]], a featured article."

::::::I actually think Mozart in fiction would be something worth including. The myth of Mozart that Shaffer builds on starts, as I understand it, with Pushkin's play ''Mozart and Salieri'', later an opera by Rimsky-Korsakov. I think works where Mozart is a central character are worth including (a "limited number of examples", as the MOS says. Mozart is apparently a character in ''Bill and Ted Face the Music'' but not, as I understand it, a central character, so it's not worth including on Mozart's page.) Mozart ''is'' a central character in ''Amadeus''. And it's more than mere pop culture. Peter Shaffer's play and Milos Forman's film won Tony for Best Play and Oscar for Best Picture, respectively. And it has, for better or worse, shaped the public perception of Mozart ever since. [[User:Charlie Faust|Charlie Faust]] ([[User talk:Charlie Faust|talk]]) 12:33, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::{{tq|the public perception of Mozart}} is a huge subject, so it's better dealt with in its dedicated article. -- [[User:Michael Bednarek|Michael Bednarek]] ([[User talk:Michael Bednarek|talk]]) 13:20, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

== Birth and Death place ==

I noticed that the material from the [[Mozart's name]] article has been merged back into the main article, and I feel this is a bad idea.

Hi!

It is off-putting for a reader, coming to this article and wanting to read about Mozart, to be immediately bogged down in a mass of detail on the meaning of Mozart's name and the various changes it underwent during his life. As is true in the other articles on major composers, we have spun off excessive detail into satellite articles (see [[Ludwig van Beethoven]], [[Beethoven: life and work]], [[Beethoven's musical style and innovations]] for some other examples). If we merge this detail back into the main articles they become long and rather unwieldy.

Is it permitted to add detail to Mozart's birth and deathplace?

I'm open to other opinions. [[User:Antandrus|Antandrus]] 23:44, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

Birthplace: [[Mozart's birthplace|Getreidegasse 9]], [[Salzburg]], [[Prince-Archbishopric of Salzburg]], [[Holy Roman Empire]]

Deathplace: [[Vienna]], [[Archduchy of Austria]], Holy Roman Empire

:Yea, I undid, the placement of all of Mozart's name in the Mozart article, until a descision has been made whether or not to delete it. [[User:Rmrfstar|Rmrfstar]] 01:27, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

Sincerely, - [[User:MahmoudAbbasAlDilfti|MahmoudAbbasAlDilfti]] ([[User talk:MahmoudAbbasAlDilfti|talk]]) 05:45, 28 July 2025 (UTC)

== Unappreciated? ==

: I assume you mean to the infobox? It was tried many times, and reverted as many times. I would like it. --[[User:Gerda Arendt|Gerda Arendt]] ([[User talk:Gerda Arendt|talk]]) 07:28, 28 July 2025 (UTC)

::Is there a problem with the historicity like [[Romulus|the Romulus article]], hence why it was prohibited to add details to the infobox? Or other issues?

'Although highly unappreciated during his lifetime...' - Not ''entirely'' true; surely someone can expand on this. <span style="font-size:smaller">(comment by [[User:62.253.64.14]].)</span>

::- [[User:MahmoudAbbasAlDilfti|MahmoudAbbasAlDilfti]] ([[User talk:MahmoudAbbasAlDilfti|talk]]) 12:26, 28 July 2025 (UTC)

::: It is not prohibited. Try it, and my prediction is that you will be reverted with an edit summary such as "see note", and I have no idea which note that might mean, and don't care enough to investigate. How do others feel? --[[User:Gerda Arendt|Gerda Arendt]] ([[User talk:Gerda Arendt|talk]]) 12:38, 28 July 2025 (UTC)

Yes, we should expand on it. He was actually fairly popular in Vienna, and he was a musical ''idol'' in Prague. <span style="font-size:smaller">(comment by [[User:Berserk798]].)</span>

:::The current level of detail seems appropriate, and avoids the historicity issues. [[User:Nikkimaria|Nikkimaria]] ([[User talk:Nikkimaria|talk]]) 02:13, 29 July 2025 (UTC)

::::Which Pleasehistoricity signissues? postsIs onMozart's talk pages. Seeexistence commentsas abovedoubted underas Romulus''Short intro?/Amadeus''. --[[User:RobertGMahmoudAbbasAlDilfti|RobertGMahmoudAbbasAlDilfti]] &#9836; ([[User talk:RobertGMahmoudAbbasAlDilfti|talk]]) 502:31, 29 July 2005 16:212025 (UTC)

:::::Existence, no. But the polities involved needlessly complicate. [[User:Nikkimaria|Nikkimaria]] ([[User talk:Nikkimaria|talk]]) 02:51, 29 July 2025 (UTC)

==Persistent insertion of Haydn quote into lead paragraph==

Today the anon returned and restored the quote into the lead paragraph, this time removing the quote from the biographical section. I still feel that it is out of place in the lead: long quotes rarely if ever are useful in a lead section, which is a place for the most general statement of a composer's significance. This edit [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wolfgang_Amadeus_Mozart&diff=prev&oldid=17941495] leads me to doubt the good-faith capability of the anon editor, but I'm willing to extend the benefit of the doubt just a bit longer. Any other comments? [[User:Antandrus|Antandrus ]] [[User_talk:Antandrus|(talk)]] 8 July 2005 15:24 (UTC)

: <span style="font-size:smaller">User formally on Wikibreak, just passing.</span> I agree the quote is out of place in the intro, and belongs in the biography. I also feel that the anon must be ignoring us. Looking at anon's other recent edits, I can see rewordings most of which I find are other than an improvement (anon has incorrectly changed the spelling of ''acknowledged'' twice now), and nothing of substance except the persistent unsubstantiated statement that Mozart is categorically ''the greatest''. I hope this anon can be convinced of the Wikipedian collaborative ideal; I suspect s/he just doesn't understand that this is a community, yet - but agree time is running out for the penny to drop. List anon on clueless newbies? --[[User:RobertG|RobertG]] &#9836; [[User talk:RobertG|talk]] 8 July 2005 16:04 (UTC)

::Hrm. The current version within the article (''and he knew Joseph Haydn, who on hearing the six string quartets Mozart dedicated to him - themselves inspired by Haydn's own set of six published as opus 33, known as his Russian quartets.'') with the quote excised, makes no grammatical sense. (This apparently due to the anon's edit of 11:17 today.) So I'm doubly confused. [[User:Schissel|Schissel]] : [[User_talk:Schissel|''bowl listen'']] July 9, 2005 03:59 (UTC)

:::Uh, yes, you are right; I didn't notice that this morning. I think we should move the quotation back into the place where it not only rightfully belongs, but fits grammatically. [[User:Antandrus|Antandrus ]] [[User_talk:Antandrus|(talk)]] 9 July 2005 04:16 (UTC)

==Influences on Mozart==

The previous version had the "influences on Mozart" partly at the wrong times, so I've rearranged and added a bit.

*friendship with [[Johann Christian Bach]] in London

*meeting with Haydn is believed not to have occurred until Mozart moved to Vienna in 1781

*meeting with van Swieten and influence of the Baroque composers

*I moved a "toddler" paragraph one section earlier. This may have messed up the arrangement of pictures, sorry.

The new Haydn section provided a spot to include the famous quote said by Haydn to Leopold. I hope the editor who keeps putting this quote into the intro paragraph will be happy, or at least content, to see it here. I really think it's too specific to put into the intro. [[User:Opus33|Opus33]]

==recent anonymous addition==

This paragraph:

:''Another--and perhaps even more pervasive--myth about Mozart involves his prodigy as a composer, from childhood until his death. While he was indeed composing from the age of five, musicologists and historians generally agree that the work he completed before he was about 20 is simplistic and rather forgettable. Nor was his adult work as portrayed in ''Amadeus'': finished in his head and written down uncorrected in only one draft, as if by divine inspiration. Quite the contrary, Mozart was a studiously hard worker, and by his own admission his extensive knowledge and intellect about music developed out of many years' close study of the European musical tradition.''

Was recently added. It's well-written, and part of it is true. I've been staring at it for ten minutes and can't figure out what to do with it, so I'm bringing it here (for now, I left it in the article--it's at the end). This line in particular is not true: "musicologists and historians generally agree that the work he completed before he was about 20 is simplistic and rather forgettable" -- when he was 17 he wrote the "little" G minor symphony (I think), when 18 he wrote the Symphony No. 29, the violin concertos when he was 18 or 19, -- there is no "general agreement" about these pieces other than that they are spectacularly effective works by one of the most gifted composers who ever lived. The works he wrote in his early teens are deliberate imitations of Italian [[galant]] models, and are just as good as a lot of music by J.C. Bach; they are deliberately light and "simplistic" because that style was all the rage. Maybe it would be better to mention the over-promotion by his father, and that there were other child-geniuses (Mendelssohn, Bizet, Korngold come to mind) who actually attained more compositional technique earlier without quite as much hype. [[User:Antandrus|Antandrus ]] [[User_talk:Antandrus|(talk)]] 02:11, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

: His prodigy has become a legend ([[Flanders and Swann|Michael Flanders]], on introducing his ''Ill Wind'' - a hilarious take on the Horn Concerto K. 495 - in ''At the Drop of Another Hat'' which I urge you to hear if you don't know it, gets a big laugh by saying that it was written "at the age of about 18 months"), but I agree with Antandrus. I also cite Mozart's Bassoon concerto and ''Exsultate, jubilate''. How about this:

::''Mozart's prodigy as a composer has become something of a legend, inflated into myth by such portrayals as ''Amadeus'' in which the fictional Mozart composes entire works in his head, writing down the finished music in only one draft as if by divine inspiration. In fact Mozart was a studiously hard worker, and by his own reckoning ''[which I can't immediately find a reference for]'' his mastery of musical composition was a result of many years' close study of the European musical tradition. Although some compositions from his teens are now accounted exceptionally fine, most of his works which are now accepted as masterpieces date from his maturity.''.

: ? It's not quite right - has anyone else ideas on how to knock it into shape? --[[User:RobertG|RobertG]] &#9836; [[User talk:RobertG|talk]] 09:04, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

: The sentence starting with "Quite the contrary" doesn't really present a contradiction - Mozart could have been both studious and draft-free. Can anyone edit / explain?

: --Docom, 15:08, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

== External links ==

I trimmed them. Easybyte.org is a site where an individual has posted easy keyboard arrangements of various works by many composers including trad and anon, it doesn't add any encyclopedic information about Mozart. The Mozart-Kraus link contains information about Kraus, but for Mozart it is just a list of links to Mozart sites of varying quality; if any of the sites it links to are worthy of inclusion here then add them! Some of them are here already. Amadeus Immortal is a website about the film, with a small amount of information on Mozart; it's already an external link on the Amadeus article. --[[User:RobertG|RobertG]] &#9836; [[User talk:RobertG|talk]] 10:17, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

== Unappreciated by some ==

I propose deleting the clause in the heading, ''Although his music's character was unappreciated by some during his lifetime,''. It seems to me rather vague as it stands: it begs the question "unappreciated by ''who''?" It replaced "Although Mozart was underappreciated during his lifetime," that was there a while back [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wolfgang_Amadeus_Mozart&diff=18989942&oldid=18989652] which I took to mean "his genius and achievements did not gain full recognition during his lifetime"; but even this on reflection seems questionable. Haydn did fully recognise his genius - this is mentioned in the main article while underappreciation is not. Any objections to its deletion? --[[User:RobertG|RobertG]] &#9836; [[User talk:RobertG|talk]] 10:17, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

:I support deletion. Given that almost all of the major composers were not appreciated by some number of listers during their lifetime, Mozart was one of the most appreciated, to the point that songs from his operas were the equivalent of pops songs today. Few other classical composers have had that success. [[User:Jjshapiro|Jeremy J. Shapiro]] 21:15, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

Several people who bought his music tried to return it or complained to the publisher about it because it was too complex and contrapuntal for their tastes. Should we mention that in the article? --[[User:Berserk798|Berserk798]] 22:03, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

==Many vs. most==

An anonymous editor just changed the introduction to say that "most" of M.'s works are part of the standard concert repertoire, rather than the prior "many". If we define the standard concert repertoire as what's played by major symphony orchestras and classical radio stations, only a small portion of his symphonies and concerti are regularly played, not to mention all of the rarely played cassations, concert arias, etc. So I changed it back to many. [[User:Jjshapiro|Jeremy J. Shapiro]] 21:15, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

== information on style is seriously wanting ==

For a FA, this article is deficient in that it provides absolutely no information on his style. Please see the guidelines at [[Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Composers#Guidelines_for_musical_style]]. [[User:Tony1|Tony]] 04:53, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

:You are right. There wasn't a word in the article about style, influence, and so forth. I took a swing at it; it's a bit rough for now. Feel free to edit mercilessly, rearrange, whatever; it could be a ''huge'' amount of material, but I tried to keep it relatively short for the start. It might need subsections by type of composition, or perhaps should be mainly chronological. [[User:Antandrus|Antandrus ]] [[User_talk:Antandrus|(talk)]] 21:14, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

OK, it's a start. I'll come back to it in the next month or so; otherwise the article should be renamed 'Biography of Mozart' or possibly lose its FA status, which no one wants to see happen. It would also be nice if the sound excerpts were not just a big lump at the bottom, unaccompanied by any helpful information. [[User:Tony1|Tony]] 09:46, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

'... although in his later works he explored chromatic harmony to a significant degree'—can someone cite some evidence for this? [[User:Tony1|Tony]] 00:55, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

::Relative to his other work, and to what other composers were doing at the time. Have a look at the 40th symphony, both the development sections of the 1st and 4th movements, that piece for musical clock K 608, the finale of the Jupiter symphony, --there's others. [[User:Antandrus|Antandrus ]] [[User_talk:Antandrus|(talk)]] 01:02, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

::Not to mention the introduction to the Dissonant quartet, "In quali eccesi" in Don Giovanni, and "Der welcher Wandert" in The Magic Flute. [[User:Jjshapiro|Jeremy J. Shapiro]] 01:12, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

OK, maybe this is justified; but I'm a little concerned that it may be a slight overstatement—I'd be happier saying this about Beethoven's mature period. The 'Dissonance' quartet did stand out in my mind, too, but it's out on a limb, isn't it? Let me rootle around Rosen's ''The Classical Style'' and the works themselves; I'll get back to you on this matter. Thx [[User:Tony1|Tony]] 04:46, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

==The intro again==

I've moved the following passage to this talk page:

:Mozart himself is universally recognized as a musical [[genius]], having learned to compose at the age five and showing an encyclopedic grasp of every musical form of his time despite having lived only for 35 years.

Everything it says is of course true--but is also covered later in the article. And there's a lot to be said for a pithy, short introduction.

My own favorite version is Viajero's, from April 2, 2005 (see discussion of it above). It would be nice to reach a consensus, then try to keep the intro stable.

[[User:Opus33|Opus33]] 15:55, 2 October 2005 (UTC)