Talk:String Quartets, Op. 20 (Haydn): Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 16:40, 3 October 2014

	Classical music portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Classical music, which aims to improve, expand, copy edit, and maintain all articles related to classical music, that are not covered by other classical music related projects. Please read the guidelines for writing and maintaining articles. To participate, you can edit this article or visit the project page for more details.Classical musicWikipedia:WikiProject Classical musicTemplate:WikiProject Classical musicClassical music articles
	This article is supported by Compositions task force.

A fact from String Quartets, Op. 20 (Haydn) appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 10 November 2008, and was viewed approximately 977 times (disclaimer) (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:

Did you know... that according to musical analyst Sir Donald Tovey, every page of Opus 20, composed in 1772 by Joseph Haydn (pictured), is "of historic and aesthetic importance"?

A record of the entry may be seen at Wikipedia:Recent additions/2008/November.

Wikipedia

Biographization of Great Art Belongs in College Sophomore Essays, not Encyclopaedia

nuff said — Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.232.191.16 (talk) 15:44, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, essentially what I was about to write myself.

I want to rewrite this article, to either move the criticism to a "Criticism" section or just annihilate those paragraphs altogether. Probably the latter.

Bibliography

This is a fine article. However, I've found something wrong in the bibliography: the footnotes often refer to "Geiringer (1962)", yet there is no corresponding entry for that in the bibliography section. The same is true for "Geiringer (1961)". Is this a typo, or were other works cited that aren't mentioned in the bibliography section? Graham87 07:12, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am in awe at the eagle eye. Yes, it was a goof. Geiringer revised the book in 1962, and again in 1982. I used the 1982 edition. 1961 was a typo. --Ravpapa (talk) 14:25, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think James Webster has written important stuff on Haydn, especially his str. quartets. I suggest browsing through his publications. Another reference can be found in Charles Rosen's The Classical Style. Gidip (talk) 09:36, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Great work

What an unexpectedly valuble Wikipedia page - thanks to the people involved with this! To think, in 10 years time WP will be full of such amazing articles on specific musical pieces, but at the moment they are the exception rather than the rule, and to be treasured. Antienne (talk) 04:30, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This article with a few improvements could be GA, I think! OboeCrack (talk) 13:59, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with OboeCrack. The article exhibits a great perspective on this op. I think rough and tumble nature of the recordings are actually working in their favor, lending them a "folkish" quality that allows the listener to get a visceral sense of the music. The sheen and distance that is often found on professional recordings can be off putting at times! Kudos ravpapa. Btj (talk) 17:22, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 5: / Line 5: @@
 nuff said  <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/205.232.191.16|205.232.191.16]] ([[User talk:205.232.191.16|talk]]) 15:44, 2 October 2012 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
+Thank you, essentially what I was about to write myself.
+I want to rewrite this article, to either move the criticism to a "Criticism" section or just annihilate those paragraphs altogether. Probably the latter.
 == Bibliography ==