Talk:String Quartets, Op. 33 (Haydn)

	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.

rename

We should probably rename the article. Haydn quartets are never referred to by their canonical numbers. Perhaps "The Joke Quartet", or "String Quartet, Op. 33 No. 2"... or maybe expand to a full Op.33 article. (Many thanks to the initial editor for creating this, though!) DavidRF (talk) 21:32, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK. I expanded this to cover all of Op. 33. The Joke rondo should probably be trimmed back a bit while the other quartets should be expanded. DavidRF (talk) 05:33, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Joke

User:DoctorJoeE, you restored an edit by User:Dawnseeker2000 about the coda of the Joke quartet. In your edit summary you said this was restoring "unexplained removal of sourced content." But the material your restored (in part) was not sourced, and, in fact, is probably mere speculation on the part of the author.On what does Dawnseeker base the contention that "Haydn used this coda not only to make fun of audiences confused as to where to applaud, but also amateur musicians who were too "beat-driven," and what he deemed a redundant rondo form"? Sounds pretty fishy to me.

If Dawnseeker doesn't come up with a source for that statement in the next day or two, we should delete it, don't you think?

Ravpapa (talk) 14:59, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm wondering why you are not asking these questions of User:Dawnseeker2000. Most of what I restored was sourced, and the removal was indisputably unexplained. DoctorJoeE ^{review transgressions}/_{talk to me!} 16:00, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The central part of Ravpapa's point is correct. Te sentence they quote above is marked as needing a citation since May 2016 and ought to be removed. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 02:53, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Moreover, the sourced sentence that you restored is redundant - the substance of the joke is amply covered in the following paragraph. Just because it is attributed doesn't make it, in itself, relevant or important.

06:26, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Had any of this been explained in the original edit, I would have left it alone. And since we haven't heard from User:Dawnseeker2000, I guess that settles it. I'll revert my revert. DoctorJoeE ^{review transgressions}/_{talk to me!} 16:27, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, and thank you for having such a civil discussion about it. 08:59, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

Mozart's favorite works by Haydn

Someone had added the following (which I deleted) - "The "Russian" quartets were some of Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart's favorite works by Haydn and in 1785 Mozart dedicated six string quartets to Haydn in admiration of the quartets."

What's the evidence for this? There's not a single mention of these works in Mozart's own letters, (unlike for example, Michael Haydn's quintets). Wikiwickedness (talk) 23:34, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have restored a revised version of the deleted sentence and added a footnote. Of course I could add another six or seven, as the connection between these quartets and Mozart's Haydn quartets is almost universally acknowledged. Wikiwickedness is welcome to add a paragraph discussing the relationship between the two sets of quartets, including, of course, dissenting views (other than his own) from reliable sources. That would be a valuable addition to the article. Ravpapa (talk) 07:05, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]