Talk:Carl Maria von Weber

1911 EB

I've started to tidy up this typically awful 1911 article - I've made some big cuts of material not about Carl Maria at all, but about his father, and generally modernised it. I hope the changes are improvements. I'll do the rest of the article later if nobody else does (and I'd love somebody else to). I really hate these 1911 articles - they might not be so bad if the people who imported them at least tried to wikify them. Ho hum... --Camembert

Awful! Just awful. I suppose it's better than starting from scratch ... is it??? Nevilley 17:28 Jan 24, 2003 (UTC)

I sometimes wonder. One idea would be to put the 1911 text under a horizonal rule and start on something afresh, using the 1911 text as a source (this has been done at Johann Sebastian Bach for instance). Or else move the 1911 text here, to the talk page, to use as a source. But until somebody decides to write something new, I suppose it's better than nothing. Maybe. I've kept meaning to rewrite these 1911 pieces, but ... well, I'm too lazy, I guess. --Camembert

Sure, OK. Would it be less frustrating if we put a line across the top with an empty or one-line "real" article until somebody writes something better? I don't think anyone would object. I'm not sure I understand the difference, though.--amillar

This one is particularly irritating in that it's one long narrative strain. I was trying to break it up into sections, or excise large hunks, but it's just sort of one amorphous, nott terribly NPOV blob... I'll hack away at it a bit. -- Dreamword 18:49 Feb 9, 2003 (UTC)

How about I rewrite it from scratch, basing it off the Grove and Weber CD liner notes, put all the 1911 EB text here in Talk and then restore to the article only the 1911 EB stuff that can be verified as fact? Dmetric 18:00, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Birthdate

There is some inconsistency in the birthdate of Weber. Various web sources give either December 18 or November 18.
I suppose this German website resolves the matter but I will not make any amendments until a weberologist gives us his opinion. Kpjas 11:21, 23 Nov 2003 (UTC)

The Grove Concise says "?Nov 18", so they're not sure either. I've fiddled with the entry and put a note in as to the source of confusion. --Camembert

I've started the clean-up for the first three paragraphs; since this is the largest contribution so far, that I try to take on, I'd like some feedback, if possible, or customary. The birthdate, by the way IS ambiguous. Nobody really knows for sure. Chingon86 10:09, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

His birthdate used to appear in reference works as 18 December. But this could not have been correct since "he was baptised at the Landeskirche of Eutin on 20 November ... Weber himself in his later years regarded November as correct" (Grove 5). So that settles the November/December issue. Now, there seems to be a fight between 18 November and 19 November. Slonimsky (Webster's New World Dictionary) says 18 November, with no discussion of any other date. Where did the 19 November possibility come from? JackofOz 01:25, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

I apologize ... between the time I printed out the earlier version and now, I didn't realize you had made changes! I think I have restored it but please do check to make sure ... I also added a structural change from 'family' to 'biography', based on some of the linked composer pages. But you were here first, so I'll step aside! --Paulerix 12:23, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

I'm not sure what is meant by "in journalistic work, writing critics." Should it say "writing critiques", or possibly "and critical writing"? TECannon 14:54, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Hello, TECannon. It was a typo. I changed it to "critiques". Thank you. Chingon86 15:17, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Hallo, Paulerix, I finished my clean up. Thank you. Now YOU got the ball! I'm afraid I rather re-wrote the whole article. And by the way, I'd appreciate if you'd have a look at it, and tell me what you think. And tell me, please, what is going to happen now? Who decides whether the thing is fit to be taken out of CleanUp? IF and WHEN it is fit to be taken out of CleanUp. --- As for my reason for my "total re-write", in case you wonder, I felt that the emphasis on Weber's father was a little over-done. By all accounts, Weber didn't need his father to walk on the wild side. He seems to have managed that all off his own bat. By why dwell on that on Wikipedia? The man was a genuine genius and one should grant him the dignity he deserves. Again, the story of all his libretti - that was a can of worms in that time of non-existing copyrights, and would need a complete biography. The same goes for his fights with other producers. I once found out, that one could write a complete book, if so minded, about Bach's fights with the councilmen of St. Thomas' Church, Leipzig. So that was my rational for the re-write. Greetings. Chingon86 15:26, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

• (Just sticking my nose in for a minute) If you think the article is better and more encyclopedic, feel free to remove the cleanup tag yourself.  :) Wikibofh 15:31, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Cleanup

Obviously an ongoing task. I've done my best with the Assessment section. Does anyone know what this means: no one was far from the "Pollaca, Invitation, and Konzertsutck.[sic]? I take it to mean that "one couldn't get away from it... Suggestions, please. Orbicle 09:01, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

It probably means that it was very popular. I've removed most of that section and renamed it to "Legacy" - composers shouldn't be compared like they were in the article. This article was originally based on the 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica. However I couldn't find any mention of Schubert or comparison of composers in the first version of the article. Graham87 09:25, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

The part you were cleaning up was actually added in this edit by JJSerkas. What was there before wasn't too bad so I'll attempt to incorporate it into the current revision. Graham87 09:37, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Who add this phrase to the article: "and his mastery of the orchestra was surpassed only by Beethoven and Schubert in his time"? I think that anybody who really knows Weber's works (especially his operas) should also know that his orchestrations are, if not better, at least as good as Beethoven's or Schubert's. In fact, in many technical and expressive aspects, Weber was more innovative than Beethoven or Schubert in his "mastery of the orchestra". User: Clarihuge. 25 February 2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.3.249.199 (talk) 13:26, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

It'd be nice to have the correct pronunciation in the introduction. If someone provides a recording, I can transcribe to IPA. Benjamin.d.oakes (talk) 15:43, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Birthdate redux

He long celebrated his birthdate as 18 December, but learned later in life that the baptismal registry at Eutin recorded his baptism on 20 November; after he learned this, he began celebrating his birthday on 18 November. No current source, that I am able to find, gives 18 December as his birthdate; the current sources give ?18 November or ?19 November (the most recent Grove online gives ?19). (Infants were usually baptised the day after they were born; see the similar problem with Beethoven; we aren't sure of his birthdate either.) The most recent article in the Encyclopedia Britannica gives 18 November. Here's an interesting bit: the New Grove Dictionary of Opera (also at oxfordmusiconline.com -- the same company, same publishers) gives ?18 November; I think this is the first time I've ever seen them state two different birthdates for the same composer. (Clive Brown wrote the GDO article; Philipp Spitta the NGO article.) We could do the date controversy with a footnote. Antandrus (talk) 22:17, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Opinion

"Weber's mastery of the orchestra was surpassed in his time only by Beethoven and Schubert."

This is opinion and inappropriate to an informative, supposedly objective article. This is not even a universal opinion (as if even that would excuse it). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Smyslov (talk • contribs) 13:28, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

"one of the first significant composers of the Romantic school."

Beethoven died in 1827, one year later, and is considered to be between Romanticism and Classicism. I say this is Opinion and very close to being plainly wrong. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.123.125.244 (talk) 16:20, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Beethoven is not the subject of this article, nor do I find this claim about him here, so it doesn't really matter whether this is opinion or whether it is right or wrong. If on the other hand you are referring to the statement in the lede about Weber, how can such a vague statement be plainly wrong? Unless of course you mean that Weber was not a significant composer at all, or that he should not be classified with the Romantic school, but in neither of these cases is there anything plainly wrong about the statement. Do please clarify the nature of your complaint.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 17:36, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Composer project review

I've reviewed this article as part of the Composers project review of its B-class articles. This article is B-class; I find the short paragraphs distracting, and much of the subject matter can probably be expanded. My full review is on the comments page; questions and comments should be left here or on my talk page. Magic♪piano 19:41, 25 February 2009 (UTC)