Talk:Antonín Dvořák

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Biography (Rated C-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 

This article has comments here.

WikiProject Composers (Rated B-class)
WikiProject icon Antonín Dvořák is within the scope of the Composers WikiProject, a group of editors writing and developing biographical articles about composers of all eras and styles. The project discussion page is the place to talk about technical and editorial issues and exchange ideas. New members are welcome!
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 

This article has comments here.

WikiProject Czech Republic (Rated C-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Czech Republic, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Czech Republic on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Opera (Rated C-class)
WikiProject icon This article falls within the scope of WikiProject Opera, a group writing and editing Wikipedia articles on operas, opera terminology, opera composers and librettists, singers, designers, directors and managers, companies and houses, publications and recordings. The project discussion page is a place to talk about issues and exchange ideas. New members are welcome!
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 

This article has comments here.

This article has an assessment summary page.

Use of Second Movement of Ninth Symphony, Op. 95, in Film "The Snake Pit"[edit]

In the section on Symphonies, the article mentions that a student, William Arms Fisher, found the second movement of Dvorak's Ninth Symphony, op. 95, to be very reminiscent of a Negro spiritual and wrote lyrics for it, calling it "Goin' Home." The article, however, does not mention that "Goin' Home" was used, in a very beautiful and moving scene, in the 1948 film "The Snake Pit," which starred Olivia de Havilland. In that film Olivia de Havilland's character, Virginia Stuart Cunningham, is recovering in an insane asylum and at an inmate dance once of the inmates, played by actress Jan Clayton (who was not billed), sings "Goin' Home." The other inmates are captivated by the beautiful song and stop dancing to listen to her and some join in the singing. After Olivia de Havilland's character is picked up by her husband, the song's melody is heard while they are riding away from the asylum.

For verification purposes, see the Wikipedia articles on "The Snake Pit" (which mentions the adaptation by William Arms Fisher and use of the song, sung by Jan Claton, in the movie) and on "Jan Clayton," (which mentions her singing a song in the movie but does not identify what song is sung). The Wikipedia article on William Arms Fisher mentions his adaptation of the second movement into a Negro spiritual called "Goin' Home" but does not mention its use in the movie. On Amazon.com some of the customer reviews for the movie mention use of the song "Goin' Home;" the IMDB article (in the "Soundtrack" section) for the movie "The Snake Pit" both mentions the use of the song "Goin' Home," (crediting William Arms Fisher for the lyrics and Jan Clayton for the singing) and attributes the music to the second movement of Dvorak's Ninth Symphony.

Gakgoogle (talk) 08:31, 31 January 2012 (UTC)gakgoogle

Dvořák and musical criticism section[edit]

I'm not quite sure the best way to fix this. The content is useful and the link leads to something relevant and interesting, but the claim that Dvořák's "arguments have stood the time as insightful, passionate and persuasive" appears to be original research; it needs to be supported by a secondary reference, not a primary one. Rivertorch (talk) 07:42, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Info box?[edit]

I was very surprised to find an info box at the top of the article, since I was under the impression they were not supposed to be used for classical music composers. Could someone please enlighten me? Thanks. Jonyungk (talk) 18:51, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

There's no rule against it. Some people in the composers proect don't want them, but there's no disallowence beyond that. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 19:48, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Birthplace?[edit]

Should we mention the fact that he was born in Bohemia, in the info box? or are we just using modern countries? Paradoxical 0^2 (talk) 07:59, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Other articles usually use the Austrian empire as the birthplace, which it was. Bohemia was not a country then.
Ceplm (talk) 06:22, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

GA/FA push[edit]

I am thinking about doing a GA/FA push on the article, since the composer is well known internationally. While I am working on it in my sandbox, here are a couple of issues that we need to deal with:

  • Lead section - looks good due to my significant expansion of the lead section, but can add influences on other composers during his life time.
  • Biography section - also looks good, but may need to be expanded on a little more.
  • Honors, awards and commemorations - may be added as well.
  • Opera section - looks slim, and needs to be expanded on.
  • Selected works - may need to be included in the article.

All are welcome to assist in this process and any other ideas on how to improve the article would be very much appreciated. Thanks, Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 01:33, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

I suggest to remove the template {{Romanticism}}, Dvořák is considered an exponent of neoromanticism, as far as I know ... but the terminology may be unclear and overlapping. Some sections are confusing and inconsistent ("Later years", for example). I'll look at the article closer during this weekend. I can maybe help with the translation of Czech sources. I'm one of the main contributors to Leoš Janáček (now GA), so I believe I have some knowledge in this area. But I'm not an expert. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 16:51, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
Okay, then. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 21:57, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
Pardon my possibly horrid ignorance, but isn't Dvořák actually an example of the "romantic-classicist synthesis", along with Brahms? It's currently sourced in the lead, and there must be thousands of reliable sources identifying him as a romantic composer. Toccata quarta (talk) 03:57, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
Pardon granted. See text in the template for Romanticism , also the article Romanticism, which correctly gives the period of romanticism as ending c, 1850. 'Romantic' music is generally much later than romanticism. The cite in the lead by the way, is not very good; it appears to be a translation (the citer's own?) from Czech from the source given, who would not be regarded I think in any case as a leading authority in English-speaking countries. It would be bettere to delete this cite, or replace it with a valid English one.--Smerus (talk) 05:06, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
(ec)Well, there's no doubt that Dvořák's romanticism has its roots in the style of early romantics and was influenced by the works of Brahms. I would agree with the definition of "romantic-classicist synthesis", but I still don't think it should be directly associated (via template) with the period of the first half of the 19th century. It is slightly misleading, but nothing serious. It is just my opinion ... maybe influenced by my own "horrid ignorance" :D Thanks for joining the discussion, Toccata quarta, the more eyes we have, the better. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 05:10, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
@Smerus, Jarmil Burghauser, who is the author of the cited claim, was without any doubt a leading authority on Dvořák. But I agree that the citation should be replaced by a better one. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 05:15, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but did you actually LOOK at what neoromanticism is? And I find it frankly ridiculous that anyone would deny Dvorak (or Tchaikovsky, Brahms, Smetana, Wagner, Bruch, and many others of the later half of the 19th century) as not being Romantic composers when there's probably tens of thousands of sources that would say they are. It's pretty inconceivable. I want to assume good faith, but I really cannot take anything that Vejvančický has said seriously. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 05:27, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
You don't have to be sorry. As you imply, neo-romanticism is not the same as romanticism. And Romantic music is also a separate topic from romanticism. With a little patience, you could read anything by Vejvanicky or even me with serious comprehension. By the way I do apologise to Jarmil Burghauser - but let's anyway find a more specific source. It would greatly help this article if someone could look at the Grove article on Dvorak (say) for a model of structure and what is relevant. There is also a deal of lumber which makes the article unwieldy - for example, the stuff about numbering symphonies could perhaps be a separate article.--Smerus (talk) 05:39, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
Achtung: All translations are mine.
In his book "Hudba zvaná symfonie" ("A Music Called Symphony"), Miloš Hons includes a thorough discussion of Dvořák's symphonies in chapter 8 (starting at p. 261), which is called "Klasickoromantický typ v národních školách" ("The Classicist-Romantic type in national schools"). He goes on to say, "Symfonie Antonína Dvořáka ... patří k nejcennějším dílům romantické hudby." (ibid.) ("The symphonies of Antonín Dvořák ... are among the most valuable works of Romantic music.").
The author's credentials look like this: [1].
The book had its "odborná recenze" ("professional/expert review") done by Jaromír Havlík and Jiří Holubec (p. 4), whose credentials look like this: [2] and [3].
Reliable enough? Toccata quarta (talk) 05:59, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Yes, the source is reliable and the translation correct and good. Here is a different opinion:
  • "...v 19. století vytvoření novočeské národní školy (Smetana, Dvořák) významně obohatilo evropský novoromantismus."
  • My clumsy translation: "In the 19th century, establishing of the neo-Czech national school (Smetana, Dvořák) significantly enriched European neo-Romanticism."
  • My source:Burghauser, Jarmil (1966). Antonín Dvořák. Statní hudební vydavatelství. p. 6.  (Czech)
  • It is not the only example, I can find out more. Dvořák's association with the neo-Romanticism could be mentioned in the article, as it was noted by notable musicologists. But I agree with Smerus that Grove's definition should be decisive for us. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 06:47, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
Are you (and others) saying that Neoromanticism is separate from Romanticism? It is not—see War of the Romantics. Toccata quarta (talk) 06:54, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
I don't say it is separate. But we have two verifiable terms used in scholarly sources (i. e. Carl Dahlhaus and Ian Bent) and two articles in this encyclopedia. The development of music in the 19th century was different from painting and literature, however, some differences between the works and style of early romantic composers and the later ones have been noted and discussed. The fact that Dvořák is sometimes called a Neoromantic composer is just a verifiable fact, nothing more and nothing less. But I don't think it is particularly important. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 07:22, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Biography section[edit]

Along with Smerus, I am working on the biography section. So far, I have found some sources for early years and expanded upon the section. However, we may need to find more sources on how his work influenced him as well. Any thoughts? Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 21:12, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

I've expanded the section "Last years", please, check the grammar, structure and flow of the text. Thanks. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 07:41, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

re Černušák (1963)- I have strong reservations about using this source (50 years old and only in Czech) in English WP - can we replace these cites with recent English sources? The same applies really to Burgrhauser (2006) unless there is an English translation. The article will not be promoted unless it has sources available to English readers--Smerus (talk) 06:38, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
Hmm, I believe the information is correct and helpful to the readers. Burghauser and the creators of the Československý hudební slovník (Czechoslovak Music Dictionary, CMD) were notable musicologists (some entries in Grove are almost verbatim translations of CMD, from what I've noticed) and use of non-English sources is allowed, as far as I know. I don't care about promotions, I just want to improve the article and I use good and reliable sources that I have in my library. But I think the citations are replaceable with the English ones. The question is who will do that? The article was in a poor shape and I believe it is now better. I admit that CMD is partly outdated, old fashioned and biased (given the date of its creation in the communist Czechoslovakia), however, the dates and chronologies are usually correct, well referenced, and still valid. The CMD is still the most comprehensive source for the Czech music, as far as I know. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 07:10, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
The article seemed to me a bit US-centric, so I wanted to bring here another point of view. Do you think I have damaged the article by expanding it using non-English sources? The information is verifiable and I can explain each of my edits in detail or provide the original Czech text. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 07:32, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
No, it's becoming more perfect, since we need to use foreign language sources as well. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 07:35, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
Btw, take a look at Bedřich Smetana, which is now a featured article. Most of the sources in that article are old and some of them even older than the CMD. The article Leoš Janáček (now GA) was improved almost exclusively with the help of Czech sources. Does that mean that the information is inaccurate? I understand that this part of the project should serve mainly to English readers and provide mainly English information, however, verifiability, accuracy and comprehensiveness are more important than language of a source. It is just my opinion, the article is still open to editing and further improvements :) --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 07:47, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
Just what, Smerus, do you mean by "The same applies really to Burgrhauser [sic] (2006)", considering the age argument is not relevant in this case? Wikipedia does not oppose non-English sources—see WP:NOENG. Toccata quarta (talk) 08:04, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

I mean, as always, simply what I say. English readers prefer English sources, if only because they can simply pursue them to find out mnore if they wish. If your Czech is good enough to verify Czech sources then that is fine for you. But my Czech and that of most readers of English WP is not. In fact I see that Bedřich Smetana has very few Czech sources. Whoever approved Leoš Janáček as GA presumably had Czech, or they would not have been able to verify the references (which I'm sure they did, didn't they?). One can WP:AGF for the occasional ref in a foreign language, but it is rather aggressive to do so en bloc. There are plenty of English sources on Dvořák and we ought as a courtesy to readers to use them where possible. It's just politeness.

But as WP:NOENG has been cited, let's just read what is says :

Because this is the English Wikipedia, English-language sources are preferred over non-English ones, assuming English sources of equal quality and relevance are available. When quoting a source in a different language, provide the original text and an English translation, either in the body of the article or in a footnote. When citing a non-English source for information, it is not always necessary to provide a translation. However, if a question should arise as to whether the non-English original actually supports the information, relevant portions of the original and a translation should be given in a footnote, as a courtesy

If therefore those who give these citations are prepared to provide full translations of those parts which support the fact referred to, I of course have no problems. But otherwise, how do I (and most other readers) know whether the citation is relevant? I have already picked out and deleted several non-relevant or inaccurate 'citations' in English for this article, but have no way of assessing the Czech ones. Indeed, on the basis of the text of WP:NOENG I might be inclined (if I had world enough and time) to challenge the propriety of Leoš Janáček's GA..............

Best, --Smerus (talk) 14:46, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

If there are no useful sources on a subject in English, its notability is suspect. One therefore has to wonder what the purpose of enabling the use of non-English sources on en.wikipedia.org is. Do you think the Czech Wikipedia should say one thing and the English one something else, simply because Czech and English sources differ? That's a pretty amusing anarchical proposition. Toccata quarta (talk) 16:31, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
There's always a possibility that I might add fraudulent references or cheat, Toccata. Good faith is important, but transparency is more important. Smerus is right and he (or anyone) has full right to question validity of references in this article or in the article Leoš Janáček. Most of the content that I added could be easily verified with English sources, it's just my habit to work with Czech sources ((a) I often work on topics marginally known in the English speaking world (b) rewording and modifying of the text is far easier when translating). I'm always trying to say exactly the same what my sources say, it's not my first day on this project. ... I've added the original Czech text of my sources, the translation (or rather reformulation in compliance with WP:COPYRIGHT) is present in the text of the article. I believe it is clear, anyone can ask for more if it isn't enough. I still firmly believe that I contribute to the better shape of this article, despite all suspicions. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 06:20, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
  • I have downgraded the assessment from B-class to C-class, as the article as it is fails criteria B1 of the B-Class criteria. C679 17:17, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Influence on Czech music.[edit]

Whilst the article has a (rather doubtful) section on D's influence on American music, it has nothing about his legacy in and influence on Czech music - there is Suk, Foerster and doubtless many others to write about here...... --Smerus (talk) 20:19, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Musical criticism section[edit]

The musical criticism section on the article was recently restored by a user. However, I think this opinion is only acceptable if we can use a reliable source can be given from a recognised authority that Dvorak's writings on music haver any value. Rather than getting involved in an edit war (which is forbidden), I am taking the bold, revert, and discuss route to start a discussion about this here before we re-add it or leave it out. Any thoughts? Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 17:53, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

The proposed addition is an example of original research and should therefore be removed until proper secondary sources can be found to back the claim. Favonian (talk) 18:02, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
I would add that the proposed addition simply gives as evidence a link to a magazine article written (or purportedly written - it may have been ghostwritten) by D. This does not in itself give D. any status as a notable writer on music. Unless there is something affirmative on this topic in a recognised biography or study of D., D's 'writings on music' should not feature in the article.--Smerus (talk) 18:25, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
Dvorak did have editing help on the article. It has useful information about what composers Dvorak admired, as now included.Marlindale (talk) 01:31, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Clapman or Clapham[edit]

There are references to Clapman, is Clapham intended?

There are multiple references to Clapham (1995) and I inserted several to Clapham (1979). I did not have the 1995 reference to hand. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marlindale (talkcontribs) 02:30, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

I have changed all "Clapman" to"Clapham 1979" and found if possible page numbers in the Norton (American) edition, also preserving older page numbers given which might fit the UK edition - but why should two books with the same ISBN be that different, I don't understand.

Now it seems that the books by Clapham (1979) published in the UK "Musician and Craftsman" and in the US by Norton with no subtitle are two different books with different ISBNs. I will try to revise notes accordingly.Marlindale (talk) 02:40, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

The article also had references to Clapham 1966 and 1969. The 1969 book is claimed online to be the first edition. My guess, inserted, is that it's a reprint of the 1966. Marlindale (talk) 00:28, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Dvorak's finances in 1874[edit]

The "Antonin Dvorak biography - online" says that the job of organist gave Dvořák "financial stability, higher social status and ample free hours to devote more time to composing." It also does not mention the Austrian State Prize for composition. In these two ways it remarkably resembles the version of the Wikipedia article before I began my edits.

The article as I now revised it mentions that Dvorak's salary as organist was "a mere pittance" (reference to Clapham), so how could that give financial stability to the newly married couple? Marlindale (talk) 00:28, 18 January 2014 (UTC) On the other hand the report in favor of the 1874 Prize says the composer was "without resources" and had so far not been able to buy a piano for himself.

I tried to steer a middle course by rephrasing to say instead of "without resources" which seems clearly wrong, that the composer was "relatively impoverished." He was giving piano lessons, possibly in the homes of people who owned pianos. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marlindale (talkcontribs) 05:39, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Reference issues: Clapham, Cernusak[edit]

There are two versions of Clapham (1979). The U. S. (Norton) Edition is simply named Dvořák. The other is given in the Sources list as published in London, publisher not named. I call it the U.K. edition in my edits. It has the subtitle Musician and Craftsman which the Norton edition does not. Both books have the same ISBN. I have access only to the Norton edition. When a page was given previously as being in the UK edition, I looked for it in the Norton, and sometimes found it but never on the same page, and sometimes did not find it. It would be good if someone with access to the UK edition could check those points I could not find in the Norton.

The Černusak (1963) reference, cited about 20 times in footnotes, is listed in the Sources as `Černušak, Gracián (ed.); Štedřon, Bohumír; and Novaček, Zdenko (ed.), Československý hudebni slovnik I A-L (in Czech).' The title I found on a German library webpage given in German as Tschechoslowakisches Musiklexikon which I would translate as Czechoslovak Musical Dictionary. I found about Štedron that he co-authored with Geraldine Thomson a book in English Leoš Janaček: Letters and Reminiscences. About Novaček I found he had an interest in music in Slovakia, and in I think two Hungarian composers, one of whom was Bartók. Černušak himself had written Dĕjiny evropské hudby (4 vols.) which I guess means survey or history of European music. I didn't see indications that any of the three editor-authors had any particular specialty in Dvořák. So, it seems to me questionable whether the "slovnik," even were it translated into English, would be as reliable a source as a biography by a specialist.

For example, in an English-language analogue, the Encyclopedic Dictionary of Classical Music, Ed. David Cummings, Random House, 1997, in its short article on Dvořák, mistakenly combines the three times (over four years) the composer won the Austrian State Prize into one event.

There is Czech version of Wikipedia, cs.wikipedia with, of course, an article on Dvořák. Some passages from the Czech version seem to have been just translated into English and inserted in the original, and just carrying over the footnotes verbatim, including a fair number, in Czech, to Černušak. Parts of those passages I think need extensive revision.

On the positive side, I think the Burghauser Thematic Catalogue, which includes trilingual, English, German, and Czech text (although with more in Czech) can and should be used more, for example, as it provides dates and performers in premieres of all pieces, which for important compositions would be major events in the composer's career. Marlindale (talk) 01:34, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

As for your concerns about Černušák's Československý hudebni slovnik I A-L, please see Talk:Antonín_Dvořák#Biography_section above. If you have any questions to particular claims in the article, please don't hesitate to post them here, we can collaborate on improving of the article. I'm a native Czech and I have some books about Dvořák (Burghauser, Černušák and the Czech translation of Klaus Döge's study on Dvořák) in my library - it might be helpful to compare sources in various languages in searching of the best shape of the article. --Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 07:32, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
About Ĉernušák, he is listed as co-editor with two others. Does the article on Dvořák in the Slovnik have any author specified, or are we to assume that one or more of the three editors wrote that article? I tend to respect Burghauser much more as he is clearly a pre-eminent Dvořák expert, even when the footnotes are in Czech. For one passage with reference to Černušák, see the next section. Wasn't it better to give mentions of individuals earlier in the article and specify when and how they gave their aid, as I did?
Next, I have a concern with the first two sentences of the "Style" section, each citing Černušák. As influencing D's style, four composers are mentioned, Beethoven, Schubert, and "later" Wagner and Liszt. Definitely Wagner had an influence, but the King and Charcoal Burner had two scores, the first under Wagner's influence, the second entirely different. Wagner's influence may have started early, perhaps? It seems almost too obvious to mention Beethoven, as anyone writing symphonies after him was bound to be influenced by him, but was it directly in this case, or perhaps via Schubert and/or Brahms, and why was Brahms not included in the original list? I could find hardly any evidence for Liszt's influence except perhaps as a member of a group including Wagner. I believe that no specified list can be satisfactory, unless perhaps D. had named such a list himself. I am not so definite about the next sentence. I see people disputing about usage of "Neoromanticism" and do not see how one can be objective or give convincing references about such labels.Marlindale (talk) 23:55, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Some who helped Dvořák's career[edit]

In the "Last years" section is a listing of some of the people: Gustav Mahler and Hans Richter in Vienna, Hans von Bülow and Joseph Joachim in Germany, Joseph Barnby and Alexander Mackenzie in England. It seems that the important aid came earlier, not in the "last years." The list provided clues for possible insertions, several of which have now been made. I could not find much about Mahler's aid. He was conductor of a Prague Opera in 1885, but that was a German-language opera. Dvořák's operas, in Czech, would have been conducted by Czech conductors it seems.

The conductor Hans Richter did give a lot of help by premiering some of Dvořák's works as is now mentioned earlier in the article. The violinist Joseph Joachim led the premiere of the String Sextet, but although the Violin Concerto was dedicated to him, he never played the solo part publicly although two or three times he had been scheduled to, so his role was ambiguous. The leading conductor Hans von Bülow did conduct some performances of Dvořák's works, but he was rather reluctant and had to be persuaded. From some point on, Dvořák was conducting performances himself.

Alexander Mackenzie conducted in London the European premiere of the New World Symphony, as is now mentioned in the article on that. Joseph Barnby can be mentioned as conducting the Stabat Mater in England. Marlindale (talk) 04:29, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Brahms - admired?[edit]

The article says "Dvořák admired Brahms greatly." There is a footnote in Czech mentioning Hanslick which is now outdated. Hanslick is now mentioned previously with separate footnotes. What remains is short. Both in Clapham (1979, Norton Ed.) and in Burghauser (1960), chronology of major events in Dvořák's life, Brahms's first appearance is as member of the jury, in 1874, which awarded the Austrian State Prize to Dvořák for the first time, unbeknownst to him until he won it for the third time and was so informed by Hanslick in December 1877. The rest of the footnote is short and seems to lack detail. What I propose to do is revise the statement to say that in that same month, Dvořák wrote his String Quartet in D minor, B.75, and dedicated it to Brahms (being noncommittal about whether this was in admiration, in gratitude, or both).Marlindale (talk) 00:50, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Simrock?[edit]

Under International Reputation, it says that "Both Brahms and Hanslick had been much impressed by the Moravian Duets, and Brahms recommended them to his publisher, Simrock, who published them with success. Having in mind Brahms's well-received Hungarian Dances, Simrock commissioned Dvořák to write something of the same nature." That doesn't sound right. Is that how it's supposed to be? 173.22.0.55 (talk) 22:26, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

I wrote that and don't see what's wrong with it, can you be more specific? Marlindale (talk) 21:53, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Early schooling and apprenticeship[edit]

According to the chronology in Burghauser 1960, pp. 466-468, in 1847 around age 6, Dvořák began school, learned singing and began to be taaught violin playing. Evidently he showed talent and skill, as he began playing in a village band and in church. Six years later in 1853 he "is apprenticed to his father in the butcher's trade." In the next year, 1854, he moved to Zlonice and became an apprentice in the Zlonice Town Butcher's Guild. As of 1960 Burghauser wrote that in 1856 Dvořák obtained a "journeyman's certificate" as a butcher, but it seems later Burghauser changed his mind about the certificate (article in Czech). In any case, in 1856 Dvořák continued to receive individual musical instruction from a teacher and in 1857 he went to Prague to Organ School. It seems to me that the different butchers' trade documents resulted from the father's profession and were quite incidental to Antonín himself who clearly was heading into music. I think the disputed journeyman's certificate is not a fit subject for English Wikipedia, and I plan to delete mention of the butcher's trade in the article. It might be more suitably addressed in Czech Wikipedia (and if so, by "early biographers" who is meant, perhaps Šourek?). Marlindale (talk) 21:47, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Toward revising the Lead[edit]

In the WP Manual of Style/Lead section, sometimes briefly called WP:LEAD, referring here to the first four paragraphs before the Contents, it is said that "The emphasis given to material in the section should roughly reflect its importance to the topic." I plan to revise the lead in an effort to bring it more in line with that and other advice given in WP:LEAD. Marlindale (talk) 22:25, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Cello concerto in A major[edit]

There is an article Cello Concerto in A major (Dvořák), Burghauser B.10. Dvořák wrote a score for piano and cello, very early in his career. According to that article (which itself at this writing cites no references, and is heavily criticized in its header for that and other reasons) an orchestration was done much later by Gunter Raphael who according to the article rewrote the piece so much that the version is "more his own than Dvořák's." Still later another orchestration was done by Dvořák's cataloger Jarmil Burghauser. The article says this was more lightly edited and yet Burghauser "took the liberty of cutting the extensive opening and final movements". Although apparently at least one recording of each version exists, this piece seems to occupy a very minor position among Dvořák's works. Marlindale (talk) 19:41, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

You didn't read the article quite well enough. Dvorak wrote a full fledged concerto, but didn't orchestrate it, and this piece is called the Cello Concerto in a minor -- the fact it was orchestrated twice with cuts is reletively irrelevant to this title. Berghauser calls it a concerto, as does the worklist put out by the Dvorak society, as does the recording of the original cello-piano version. Your changes are unhelpful and seem to be based on misunderstodd info. And I fail to see what a "very minor position among Dvorak's works" has anything to do with the title. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 00:00, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
My original response to this got lost in an edit conflict. I said: per the WP article Concerto, a concerto must have an orchestra, but maybe there are other examples (since 1800) of pieces called "concerto" without an orchestra, if so I would like to know what they are.
The Burghauser catalog, 1960 (earliest?) edition. under B.10, has the piece with title "Violincello Concerto in A Major with Piano Accomp." and quoting from the composer himself (translated) "Concerto for violoncello with piano accompaniment composed and dedicated to his good fried Ludevit Peer...." In light of this the article needs revision, which I plan to do. I accept that if the composer himself called it a concerto, so be it. As for the article on this piece, it may need some revision also. In the 1960 edition of Burghauser the Raphael rev[ision] is mentioned. I forget the time of the Burghauser orchestration. Later editions of Burghauser may also be relevant. Marlindale (talk) 18:04, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
I revised the article, mainly reverting my previous edit. One remaining problem I see: the date of the Burghauser orchestration is given as 1952 in the article (left over from what it previously had?) but as "in the 1970's" in the article on this concerto. Another issue is to consult later editions of Burghauser's catalog. Marlindale (talk) 18:40, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
The recording of the Raphael version mentions 1975 for the Burghauser one ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 02:42, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

The other person in the edit conflict inserted the following not on this topic. I will simulate a title for it. Marlindale (talk) 04:09, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Inquiry about score of First Symphony[edit]

Documentation needed, The following is posted on Dvorak's page: "he first submitted a score of his First Symphony to a prize competition in Germany, but he did not win, and the manuscript, not returned, was lost until rediscovered many years later." So, what musical score is it? If the score is known, can a link be added?

The quoted clause has source code "... score of his First Symphony", causing "First Symphony" to be highlighted and clickable to reach the article. Marlindale (talk) 17:11, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

About the First Symphony[edit]

An account of this is given in the article Symphony No. 1 (Dvořák). About the score per se, it is probably published, but I don't know by whom. Marlindale (talk) 04:18, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Wagner[edit]

The article as of now mentions some compositions said to have been influenced by Wagner. I looked up all entries for Wagner in the index of Clapham 1979, Norton Ed., and found items of three kinds: mentions of Dvořák's great admiration for Wagner, mentions of Dvořák's operas, and mentions of two other pieces by him, Symphony No. 4, and the Othello overture. These are different from the non-opera pieces mentioned in the article. I also looked in the index of the Burghauser Thematic catalogue, which had just two entries on Wagner, one about hearing a concert of Wagner's music while young, and the other about hearing part of a performance of Siegfried in New York, neither of which mentions a composition of Dvořák. I plan to rewrite a passage about Wagner's influences based on what I can document. Marlindale (talk) 22:59, 21 November 2014 (UTC) Marlindale (talk) 04:34, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Neoromanticism - symphonic poems[edit]

The article now uses the word 'Neoromanticism', which seems to have had different meanings to different people at different times. There is a sense which I think applies, namely that Dvořák wrote symphonic poems, a form Liszt apparently invented. I plan to mention this without using any word such as "Neoromanticism". Marlindale (talk) 23:19, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

I admit that this might be confusing and needs further clarification. The correct link in this context is Neoromanticism (music), however, the article doesn't mention Dvořák as an exponent of neoromanticism in music. On the other hand, Dvořák is frequently associated with musical neoromanticism both in Czech and English music literature. --Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 07:15, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

parents' dates[edit]

The parents' years of birth and death, father Frantiŝek 1814-1894, mother Anna née Zdeňkova 1820-1882, are given with a note in Czech (Černušak). I don't know if one could find a source in English for those years. In the Beethoven article, I see father's years and year of marriage but not wife's years. For J. S. Bach, born in 1685, his mother died in 1694 and his father "8 months later," leaving him an orphan at age 10 (he went to live with his oldest brother). So the early deaths were important in his biography. I didn't see parents' years of birth. For the time being I'm inclined to leave in Dvořák's parents' years of birth and death, with the Czech footnote, unless I find a reference for them in English. The years may not be verifiable (for non-Czech speakers), but people may not be concerned about that in this case? Marlindale (talk) 04:32, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

As I wrote above, Československý hudební slovník (Czechoslovak Music Dictionary, Černušák) is the most comprehensive and concise source regarding Czech music. Today, it is being expanded and updated by the musicologists of the Masaryk University. Some of the entries in the reputable Grove Music Dictionary are almost directly taken and translated from the Czechoslovak Music Dictionary. The source is reliable, I own the book and I added the dates. Non-English sources are acceptable, as far as I know, but if it isn't enough for you, see this or this. --Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 06:56, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Reliability and verifiability of sources[edit]

I doubt that one should make blanket statements about such matters. Even such an authority as Burghauser can change a few opinions with time, as he did. I am curious about the omission of the winning of three Austrian state prizes as the way Brahms became acquainted with Dvořák's music in the article as it was just before I began my edits in January. Brahms was seeing scores, he could not have heard the music at that point. Was this an omission by Černušák?

But, Vejvančicky, I appreciate very much the very large amount of work you have put in on this article. Many of your contributions have given me leads for material I could find sources for in English, usually by specialists (Clapham, Burghauser's notes in English to his Catalogue), but occasionally by non-specialists, as in the reference for the Czech music festival in 1904. For that, I just thought Oxford University Press is a respected publisher, and the statements about the large numbers of choruses and singers of Saint Ludmila an addition not previously in the article. Marlindale (talk) 14:48, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure if I understand you correctly here, but I think it is entirely possible to become acquainted with someone's music through reading scores. --Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 15:05, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
We apparently agree about that. Brahms (and Hanslick, and another committee member) were familiar with the music through reading the manuscripts (scores) that had been submitted to them, of pieces that had not yet been performed anywhere. Still you have not answered my main question about Černušák. (talk) 16:08, 30 November 2014 (UTC) Marlindale (talk) 16:13, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
Ah, I guess you mean this. Please understand that I'm not the only contributor to the article, Marlindale. I approached the article when it was - I believe - in a far worse state than it is today, I clarified something and maybe I missed some other things or facts, it was not my intention to compile exhaustive information - I had other things to do on Wikipedia at that time. I'm sure Černušák mentions the Austrian state prizes, it was an important turning point in Dvořák's career. The article is not perfect and we are here to collaborate on improvements. The article is getting better, also thanks to your good work. --Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 16:37, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Requiem performed in Vienna, 1900?[edit]

It is said in the article there was a "triumphal" such performance, marked "citation needed." I could not find such a citation so far. I could not find a mention of a performance in Vienna in 1900 by Clapham (1979, Norton) nor in Burghauser (1960). In the chronology of the composer's life, for 1900 such a performance does not appear. In the entry about the piece, Op. 89 B. 165, there are no press notices for 1900. The nearest was a mention in the Czech musical periodical Dalibor in 1901. Marlindale (talk) 00:00, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

The Vienna performance in March 1901(!) was a triumph of Dvořák's music, as if the Viennese public wished thereby to make up for their earlier, sometimes, cool reception of his works.<ref>{{cite book|last=Burghauser|first=Jaromír|title=Requiem Op. 89. Partitura (foreword)|publisher=Bärenreiter|location=Prague|date=2001|page=X|ismn=M-2601-0090-9}}</ref> --Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 16:38, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
Aha, so it was 1901. Many thanks to whoever put in that information. I will insert it in the article when I have a chance (not today) unless someone else has done so in the meantime. Marlindale (talk) 16:23, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
It was me, I forgot to sign my post. --Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 16:41, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
I put the quote into the article, putting the score into Sources and then citing it from there. The tag "nowiki" I'm afraid got lost. Marlindale (talk) 00:00, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
There is no mention by Clapham or Burghauser (1960) of a 1901 performance either, so the reference from the 2001 score is the only one we have? The only press notice of the piece in 1901 I see in B. (1960) is the one in Dalibor. From some Google searching about the score it seemed there may have been another editor with Burghauser? If memory serves, Burghauser might have died before 2001? Marlindale (talk) 00:29, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
Jarmil Burghauser died in 1997, but Jaromír B. as cited may be someone else? Marlindale (talk) 04:31, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
The 2001 edition which I cited here is a reprint of an earlier edition. There is a quote in the article Dvořák's Reception in Liberal Vienna: Language Ordinances, National Property, and the Rhetoric of Deutschtum by David Brodbeck, Journal of the American Musicological Society, Vol. 60, No. 1 (Spring 2007), p. 122: "Wenige Tage nach der ‘Serenade’ überraschte uns ein zweites größeres Werk des sonst in Wien recht stiefmütterlich behandelten Dvořák: sein Requiem op. 89" (Eduard Hanslick, in Neue Freie Presse, 5 March 1901). There's a translation by the author: We were surprised [to hear] a second larger work [Requiem] by Dvořák, who is usually treated quite shabbily in Vienna. (Accessed via JSTOR).--Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 09:46, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
I found an earlier, 1976 edition of the score and have put it in as a source instead of the 2001 edition. No Burghauser is among the long list of editors which begins with Šourek. The quotation in English is exactly the same as quoted from the 2001 edition. The preface is not attributed to any individual in 1976. Worldcat gives editors of various editions of the score, but they seem not relevant now. Marlindale (talk) 00:12, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Which symphonies' manuscripts were submitted to the Austrian State Prize competition in 1874?[edit]

The article says there were three of these. The MS of the first symphony was lost for many decades and so not available. The fifth symphony was composed in summer 1875. So then seemingly the three were the second, third, and fourth? Marlindale (talk) 04:30, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

It is possible. The report of the committee from 1874 mentions that Dvořák submitted 15 compositions, symphonies and overtures for a large orchestra, but it doesn't mention specific compositions. Signed were Johann von Herbeck, Felix Otto Dessoff and Eduard Hanslick, the members of the committee. The information is from the Czech translation of the book Dvořák. Leben - Werke - Dokumente by Klaus Döge, p. 121. --Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 09:58, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
If so Brahms was not yet on the committee, and it would have been a later submission he saw, which could have included the fifth symphony. I have the impression it was not clear which three it was, and this may be why it is not clear. Marlindale (talk) 14:37, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
Brahms joined the committee in 1875, a year later. --Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 15:03, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
My sources, Clapham and Gál, both say that Brahms was on the jury in 1874. Clapham 1979, Norton, footnote, p. 36, says the director of the Austrian State Archive has provided the report and "confirmed that both Herbeck and Brahms were on the jury" despite an 1879 statement by Hanslick to the contrary. The prize for which submissions were made in 1874 was actually awarded in February 1875 (Clapham p. 35). Marlindale (talk) 00:56, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
I just revised the article Lead to say two symphonies were submitted in 1874, as that is what the sources say. Clapham believes the third and fourth were submitted, but I don't know how he excluded the second. Marlindale (talk) 04:32, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
The WP article on the sixth symphony says Brahms was on the jury in 1874, with a reference to Klaus Döge in Grove Music Online Marlindale (talk) 04:45, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
The article Dvořák's Reception in Liberal Vienna (quoted in the above section) says he joined only in 1875. The same is in Beckerman's Dvořák and His World (2012), p. 59 ("... starting in 1875, Brahms became a committee member himself"). "Eduard Hanslick and, beginning in 1875, Brahms sat on the selection committee ...", says the book Chamber Music: An Essential History (2012), p. 191. But I don't think it is a crucially important detail. --Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 06:52, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
I think one can resolve the apparent contradiction perhaps as follows. Felix Otto Dessoff, according to the WP article on him, was conductor of the Vienna Philharmonic 1860-1875 and was a very close friend of Brahms: Brahms was invited to dinner at the Dessoffs' home after every Sunday concert. Clapham (1979, Norton, p. 35) says Dvořák made his submission for the 1874 prize in the summer of that year (which we can take as a fact, I think). Clapham was under the impression that Brahms was already on the jury at that time, but it seems to me Clapham could not have known that for certain. Hanslick in November 1879 disagreed (Clapham, p. 36, footnote), and Hanslick had first-hand knowledge. So it seems that as of summer 1874 Dessoff was probably still on the jury. But there is good evidence that Brahms saw Dvořák's 1874 submission (Botstein footnote to the Dvořák article) and very strong evidence, from the Vienna archives (Clapham, p. 36, footnote) that Brahms was on the jury that actually gave the "1874" award in February 1875. It seems to me that Brahms must have replaced Dessoff on the jury no later than the beginning of 1875. It also seems to me possible in view of Dessoff and Brahms's friendship that Dessoff may have shown part or all of Dvořák's submission to Brahms sometime in the latter half of 1974. Marlindale (talk) 23:41, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
Dvořák entered the competition again in 1875 but did not win (he won again in 1876 and 1877). For Brahms to join the jury in 1875 does not necessarily mean he began with judging submissions made in 1875, as I just argued. After the "massive submission" of 1874 Dvořák must have submitted relatively few pieces in 1875. Marlindale (talk) 23:54, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
To answer the original question, Clapham says he is sure the third and fourth were submitted in 1874, among other compositions. The WP article on the second says Dvořák had given the MS to be bound but could not afford to pay for the binding, so the binder kept it. This would have made the MS unavailable to be submitted. (Sometime later when Dvořák could afford it the MS was presumably redeemed but the second symphony was premiered much later, 1888?) So I agree with Clapham. Marlindale (talk) 04:40, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Remarkable WP article on the 6th symphony[edit]

The Sixth Symphony has a (to me) surprisingly long article, about 38,500 bytes at present, by far the longest on any of the symphonies; the symphony "From the New World" article only 15,500 bytes, the one on the 8th symphony 11,200, and all others less than 6,000 each. Moreover the article on the Sixth gives very interesting background information about attitudes in Austria at the time of composition, and of course much else besides. I wonder if wording can be found to indicate the interest in the No. 6 WP article in the main article? Marlindale (talk) 04:46, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Spirituals[edit]

The WP article Spirituals mentions collections of them published early: "Slave Songs of the United States", 1867, and "Jubilee Singers of Fisk University, Songs", 1872, 25 and 20 years before Dvořák arrived. There may be other such collections, and the Jubilee Singers were touring, performing spirituals. I did not notice any mention of Burleigh in the Spirituals article. So I think the statement about Burleigh's importance in making spirituals well known is an exaggeration (what he did was, make them known to Dvořák), so I plan to revise accordingly. Also it has been more than two years since a tag was posted calling for documentation of the "Influence in America" section which still lacks references. Marlindale (talk) 02:16, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Influence in America[edit]

It seems to me that section is not very convincing. What influence did Dvořák have on such composers as Aaron Copland, Leonard Bernstein, or George Gershwin? In the Copland article there is a long section on Influences with, as far as I see, no mention of Dvořák. These three and other 20th century American composers were influenced by jazz, part of what makes their works sound American. If one can hear an element of Spirituals in Porgy and Bess, why should we think that Dvořák was intermediary? If one does not make a sweeping claim about Dvořák's contribution to a new American style of music, then about the lesser known but interesting composers Amy Beach and William Grant Still, one should at least provide documentation of Dvořák's influence on them - notable in some of their compositions more than others? With reference to some expert source such as a book? And/or, provide some more other examples, with cited sources, about influence in America. Lacking such improvements, I would be inclined after a month or two to delete the entire section. Marlindale (talk) 23:51, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Josef Foersters, father and son[edit]

In the article as of now under "Early Years" is it said that at the organ school, Dvořák studied organ under Josef Foerster, without elaboration. Then later, in the next section, it is said that Dvořák became organist at St. Adalbert's church under Josef Foerster, the father of the composer Josef Bohuslav Foerster. It seems to me that the elaboration might better come after the first mention. Also, the article on the son, Josef Bohuslav Foerster, says that the father was also a composer, although evidently a lesser known one, and taught at the Prague Conservatory. The footnote, in Czech, if I understand it right, just confirms the father-son relationship. In general, footnotes to published books are preferable to references to other WP articles, which could be subject to change. But if we are to keep the Czech footnote in this case, could it be expanded to include the further information? Was the Organ School part of the Conservatory or a separate institution? Marlindale (talk) 20:43, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

I put in a reference to a Universal Edition web address at the first point the elder Josef Foerster was mentioned. But that may be too commercial a site? I could have used other references, both one from Encyclopedia Britannica online (for being an "organ composer") and another from www.czechmusic.net (for being a professor at Prague Conservatory). Marlindale (talk) 04:26, 14 December 2014 (UTC)