Talk:Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart

---

How to make the Table of Contents visible?

Hello, something that I hadn't anticipated when we earlier discussed the possibility of a lengthy intro section is this: the long intro makes the Contents invisible from the opening screen (what the reader sees on her screen, when first arriving at the article). I've tried to address this problem by adding a new header, "Article summary", at the top of the long summary section. (This has the further advantage that anyone who wanted to just plunge in to the article without reading a summary first would have this option made clear.) I know that putting a section heading over the intro (as I have just done) is not standard Wikipedia practice, but on the other hand it strikes me as the best way to solve this problem. Comments welcome. Opus33 (talk) 16:38, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

• To remove a carefully-written introduction that fully accords with Wikipedia's style guides, on the trivial grounds that the whole table of contents cannot be seen at first sight, is peremptory to say the least. I attempted to establsh a consensus before posting, you have simply gone ahead. At the very least you could have contacted my talkpage and let me know what you had in mind. If you want this change to be carried out, please consult around, find out what others have to say, get some sort of approval rather than taking action of this kind. I am reverting your change until there is evidence of a consensus for your proposed change. Brianboulton (talk) 22:48, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

For heavens' sake, Brian, I did not remove your introduction. I only put a section title above it. Please take another look and you will see this. So the issue at hand is much more minor, I believe, than you were imagining. Opus33 (talk) 06:11, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

I've made an attempt to solve this problem. Pls revert if you don't think it works. The tech stuff is at TOC. Best. --Kleinzach 01:13, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

My preferred option would be to leave the Croce image "right" and place the __TOC__ after the first paragraph, before "Mozart was born in …". That way, it looks more standard and the way it used to look while still pulling the TOC up into a visible position. (Note that editors can play with the settings and assess the appearance via "Preview".)Michael Bednarek (talk) 01:23, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Try it if you like, but I have a feeling it won't balance. --Kleinzach 01:31, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Michael, your change opens acres of empty white space. It looks very odd . . . Sorry, but I don't think it works. --Kleinzach 13:08, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

There is the same amount of white space visible to me (IE7) to the right of the TOC as there was in the established version. That could probably be reduced slightly (by one line of text) by sizing the Croce to 220px, which it was originally and which I forgot to reestablish. Even better, by moving the image to the end of the first paragraph, just befor the TOC, it would occupy most of the white space to the right of the TOC. Michael Bednarek (talk) 13:39, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

IMO the 'established version' didn't work very well - the first screen is OK, but no text flowing around the TOC. On the other hand "moving the image to the end of the first paragraph" looks even worse - two boxes out of position instead of one!. It would be better to have text flowing around the boxes as I suggest before [1] with maximum accessibility of information in the first screenful. --Kleinzach 02:23, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I reacted to appearance rather than reality. Long day, late in the evening, etc.... With a cool and rested mind this morning I will say, first, that I'd still prefer the lead not to be split. The problem with the Kleinzach solution, which I quite like, is that it is non-standard format, and it is likely that someone will come along and change it. Also, if at some time the article was reassessed for FA, it would no doubt have to be changed. With the smaller Croce, on my screen the top of the table of contents is visible in the normal format, i.e. image on right, table under lead. Would that not deal with the problem? Sorry, Opus, for my initial over-reaction, I think I'll go and play some Mozart. Brianboulton (talk) 08:57, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, missed this discussion. I think it works pretty well the way it is as of this writing (Michael was the last editor -- this version) -- the TOC is easily visible and is within the lead. To my eye it works in both Firefox and IE. Antandrus (talk) 15:44, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

EARLY Carrier stuff people might find interesting and relating to there lives

Mozart wrote "Twinkle, twinkle, little star". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.224.38.246 (talk • contribs)

Actually, no he didn't -- it's a French folk song, Ah! vous dirai-je, Maman, fitted with English lyrics. Mozart wrote a (lovely) set of piano variations on it. Antandrus (talk) 01:43, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

How to make the Table of Contents visible? (continued)

Hello, this seems to be quite a knotty problem (and one which is surely found throughout the Wikipedia). When you have a really long lead section, how to you keep the table of contents from disappearing from the opening screen? For the past couple weeks the strategy has been to put the TOC in the middle of the lead. This attracted many meant-to-be-helpful edits from editors who don't otherwise visit this page. It's been really a drag to keep reverting them, and probably not a great way to make new friends.

The new solution now in place is to have a short lead, and label the extended article summary as such, with a separate section heading. This solution is likewise not a standard one on the WP, but I rather like it because it gives the reader a clear choice: they can read the quickie summary if that's all they want, or they can cut to the chase and read the full detailed version if that's what they want, or they can read both. I hope people will think this is reasonable. Cheers, Opus33 (talk) 23:18, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

This makes absolutely no sense. Is there a real reason that the TOC has to be in the first screen? And different screen sizes invalidate that anyway. Readers should know that the lead is the article summary; that's exactly what a well-written lead is. Readers should not need a Summary section to make their decision. No, this lead section is not too long at all. Look at any FA; a good article has a nice lead no shorter than this. And this is in violation of WP:LEAD: "an 'Introduction' heading should not be added at the beginning of an article." "The lead should be no longer than four paragraphs" Well, that's just what this very long (51 kb) article has, so there is no need to split it up.

And there should not be a Biography header per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (biographies). The entire article is a biography, not just those sections. Reywas92^Talk 22:37, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

The whole article is terrific. There's nothing wrong with the 4-paragraph lead and the standard location of the TOC. I think moving the TOC about is a solution in search of a problem. --RobertG ♬ talk 23:04, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

I like the longer lead, except that I have now merged the two middle paragraphs to make one that covers the entire course of his life from birth to death. Three thematically distinct paragraphs, making a fine and well-proportioned lead – considering the length of the fine article it introduces.

I also like the "Biography" heading, which I think works perfectly naturally to group the sections devoted to the stages of Mozart's life. No, it is not true that the whole article is a biography. WP:MOSBIO applies to those articles that are just biographies (although you'd wonder about some of its examples). This article is about Mozart's life, but also about his compositions and his situation in Western art music. Even if WP:MOSBIO were strictly applicable, a strong case can be made for overriding it here. I would suggest that we do so.

I should add that it was you, Reywas92, who on 14 January 2009 unilaterally added the relevant provision to WP:MOSBIO.

–_⊥^{¡ɐɔıʇǝo}Noetica!^T– 00:17, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

I've read the new lead through several times and I think it's too long. It goes a little beyond what is expected of a lead - as if the editors were (understandably!) a bit in awe of the subject. I agree with Noetica about the Biography heading - my compliments also on some very good copyediting! --Kleinzach 00:26, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Kleinzach! Responding to your very reasonable concern I have now polished and compressed the lead even more. If it had gone "a little beyond what is expected of a lead", I hope we can agree that it is now well proportioned, and not overweight for such a comprehensive article.

–_⊥^{¡ɐɔıʇǝo}Noetica!^T– 01:17, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

I've cut it a little more - removing Constanze - please say if you disagree! --Kleinzach 01:25, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

I like what you have done, but I restored briefer mention of Constanze and two sons. I now suggest that we leave it alone! Don't overdo it; it now looks just great.

–_⊥^{¡ɐɔıʇǝo}Noetica!^T– 01:28, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, Noetica, I added that, but I'm not the only one with that opinion. Someone else did agree and add to it. I understand that it is not applicable in all places, but even if the article includes other information like lists of works, the entire thing is a biography. I would prefer a header such as "Life" that would distinguish it from the other parts of the article but is not redundant. Reywas92^Talk 02:29, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't think anyone objects to your adding that provision Reywas, but I also don't think it's a good one. I think it should be challenged, but I will not do it myself since I have retired (for now) from my own long commitment to developing WP's Manual of Style.

I hope others will challenge it.

There is no explicit boundary drawn at WP:MOSBIO between articles that are pure biography and articles such as the present one. There should be, and that needs to be fixed too. This Mozart article has a clearly biographical portion and also sections that are clearly not biographical. Even if a whole article is loosely speaking biographical (as opposed to an article dealing with a musical genre or period, or some form or some technical matter), that internal distinction is a reasonable one to make; and the term biography is the natural decriptor for those parts covering the course of the subject's life.

If I may dare to offer a little advice, I would suggest keeping some questions more open than you are inclined to do. There is a long-established body of practice for excellent articles such as this one, and sweeping changes based on some abstract principle of propriety may be seen as disruptive – and even, in some quarters, as half-baked.

–_⊥^{¡ɐɔıʇǝo}Noetica!^T– 02:51, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Copy editing issue

Noetica, I'm sure you mean well in copy editing this article. However, in changing it to say that Beethoven "directed" Mozart's operas while in Bonn, you've introduced a factual error. Beethoven was quite young at the time and he was only a player in the orchestra, not its director. Aside from this, my general feeling is that the prose of the article was fine as it was, and that your changes reflect differences of taste, not improvements in quality. Isn't there some better way (e.g., by reading reference sources) that you could improve this article? Yours sincerely, Opus33 (talk) 00:43, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Good to hear from an esteemed old hand, Opus! Two points to deal with separately:

Beethoven and Mozart's operas in Bonn: I took the ambiguous original the wrong way. The text has this wording: "(he is thought to have played Mozart's operas in the court orchestra in Bonn)". The meaning is unclear. As a member of an orchestra one hardly "plays an opera". Given Beethoven's own precocity, the alternative reading looked likely. Since that is the specific basis of your objection in that section, I am now restoring what I see as valuable in my editing, suitably amended.

My copyediting of the whole article: You may not like the polishing for style, accuracy, clarity, and consistency that I have attempted to bring to the article. Myself, I think that such renovation was overdue. The style was growing clunky and verbose. Kleinzach seems to like what I have done; let's see what others think. That's all part of the rich WP tapestry.

Best wishes to you.

–_⊥^{¡ɐɔıʇǝo}Noetica!^T– 01:22, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for an extraordinarily courteous reply, Noetica. I do continue to disagree with you on the substantive issues, but I appreciate your patience in responding so collegially to my somewhat crabby remarks. Regards, Opus33 (talk) 20:40, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

That's all fine, Opus. I had already finished a first pass through the article, but in my opinion more refinements are needed. I'll do some of those now; and of course anyone else can do the same.

–_⊥^{¡ɐɔıʇǝo}Noetica!^T– 20:55, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Infobox

I added an infobox to this page; I then came across a comment in the discussion archive stating infoboxes are not preferred for classical composers? This seems odd to me. The infobox certainly gives a nice summary of biographical stats, and looks good at the top of the page. Anybody know why these aren't being used? FusionKnight (talk) 14:20, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

To elaborate, I wanted to find out how old Mozart was when he died. In order to do this without an infobox, I had to scan the intro, get out my calculator and subtract. Had I been further down in the article when I wanted to know, I might have had to scroll down to the death section, then up to the intro for the birth date, then get out the calculator. It seems silly to obfuscate basic biographical facts in favor of... what? FusionKnight (talk) 14:47, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

• Those are good points. You may wish to review this debate and then raise the matter at the Composer Project's talk page. As it stands, consensus is against including infoboxes - hence my revert. But, discussion is welcome. Eusebeus (talk) 14:56, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Simple info on Wolfgang Mozart

I beleive Mozart created/composed many beautiful pieces of music.At a young age he listend and made songs and melodys.His music was spread all over the world and people enjoyed listening to it.

Katie Hercock 11 years of age —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.21.174.213 (talk) 22:05, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Can one of you lock holders fix the poor grammar?

The sentence should read: "Mozart would sometimes switch his focus between operatic and instrumental music." I'm a little unclear as to what the real meaning of this statement is, did he write any libretto for his operaS, or did someone else? I admit the corrected sentence starts to reveal the awkwardness of the underlying thought. Come to think of it, a memory just came rushing back to me. I remember listening to a vinyl record many years ago. I believe it was a Mozart piece. Before the singer began, an announcer would proclaim "And now, we shall sing." They didn't know how to make the transition smoothly at that time! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.26.140.180 (talk) 04:13, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Anonymous, it is an easy matter to edit the article. Just register an account so that you are no longer anonymous, and off you go. This article is locked to all except registered uses because it is often vandalised.

Now, let's look at the sentence you object to as it stands:

Mozart would sometimes switch his focus between operas and instrumental music.

Really, I can't see the problem with this. Obviously Mozart is a composer – a composer of music. There is no suggestion that he wrote librettos. I wonder if you find the same uncertainty is this sentence, also from the present article:

Despite the great success of Die Entführung aus dem Serail, Mozart did little operatic writing for the next four years, producing only two unfinished works and the one-act Der Schauspieldirektor.

Anyone following those links, or reading what follows two sentences later, would be left in no doubt that Mozart did the musical settings, of texts that were written by others.

Finally, none of this concerns grammar, precisely. Your concern is with what a sentence says, rather than with its grammar.

Why not get an account, and join in? :)

–_⊥^{¡ɐɔıʇǝo}Noetica!^T– 05:06, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Point taken - it's the semantics that are confusing. Opera is a category, and instrumental music is a category. I still feel grammatically it is pretty weak, because structurally the sentence should apply operatic and instrumental to the later word Music. As it stands, Mozart has a bunch of his operaS (not just one at a time of the Opera category) lying around, and some instrumental music. He switches between this portfolio of operas he is concurrently working on, and the field of wholly instrumental music? Or what? It's late now, I may revisit the issue. It's a good article, and it's just the one sentence that is cumbersome to me.

Mea (talk) 05:21, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Welcome aboard, Mea! See how we use colons to indent our posts, so that it's clear when a new contribution begins? I've added two at the start of each paragraph of yours, and I've got three at the start of each paragraph in this post.

Thanks for making your concern clearer. I should point out that opera can be a count noun ("He wrote many operas") or a mass noun ("He spent more time on opera"). Music, occurring within the phrase instrumental music in the sentence we are concerned with, is in its standard sense only a mass noun. Hence the structure of the sentence as you see it, which I take to be perfectly normal. If it causes you some difficulty, it may do the same for others; still, I find operatic music somewhat strained, for our sentence. Mozart's concern was with operas as whole structures, since it is the composer whom we take to have prime responsibility for the final product – at least as composed, abstract entities "on the page". We do not often speak of the operas of Metastasio or da Ponte; we speak of the operas of Mozart.

–_⊥^{¡ɐɔıʇǝo}Noetica!^T– 06:19, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Spelling of Amadè

There is an error in spelling: Wrong "Amadè" right "Amadé" i.e. the accent should be an acutus not a gravis. 87.166.111.145 as of 18:01, 8 February 2009

Hello, I agree completely that "Amadè" looks as it were an error. However, according to scholars, it really is what Mozart normally called himself. See in particular Otto Erich Deutsch's Mozart: A Documentary Biography (1965, 9). Maynard Solomon's Mozart biography mentions that Mozart sometimes used "Amadé" and "Amade" in addition to "Amadè", but I think the safest course (i.e., the most likely to be accurate) would be to follow Deutsch, whose scholarly reputation seems to be quite high.

For further information, see Mozart's name. Cheers, Opus33 (talk) 21:20, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

P.S. to User:MichaelBednarek: thanks very much for your skillful cleanup of Difficile lectu (Mozart); it needed it...

For what it's worth, the current article in the New Grove (Cliff Eisen) lists "Amadè" as Mozart's most common preference, with Amadé second. Cheers, Antandrus (talk) 22:50, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

First, can we agree that "Amadè" (grave) is a misspelling? (Which doesn't by itself prove or disprove anything, given the general state of spelling in those days, and Mozart's in particular.) Second, the article Mozart's name does not itself provide conclusive proof: "Mozart's preference for 'Wolfgang Amadè' can be seen on the wedding contract […] where the composer's signature is 'Wolfgang Amade Mozart'." — seems a non-sequitur to me. Third, after page 9, Deutsch uses mostly "Amade" without accent. Fourth, I am rather doubtful of sources written in English on this matter; any German-language sources? A quick search seems to suggest indeed "Amade" without any accent. Michael Bednarek (talk) 04:49, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Hello Michael, Deutsch (1965) in one sense is a German-language source; it's the English translation of a work that Deutsch originally wrote in German. Deutsch is hardly a negligible figure; he gets cited over and over by other Mozart scholars. So I'd want to see some scholarly work that directly addresses the "accents-on-e" question (e.g. by actually counting the variants in Mozart's letters) before overriding Deutsch.

B.t.w. I didn't mean Mozart's name to count as evidence on this point--it's only a Wikipedia article!--merely as further background. Cheers, Opus33 (talk) 06:24, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Interesting that this issue pops up here as well. A Mozart Forum Thread was just talking about this. None of that thread is citable, though. It looks like the name is an odd hybrid between the French "Amédé" and the Italian "Amadeo". Normally, Italian doesn't use accents, but dropping the o in the Italian name forces the need for an accent on the final e to signify the accent is on that syllable (instead of the usual penultimate syllable). I'm not 100% sure which one it should be, though. Googling around for non-Mozart examples, I see both Amadè and Amadé. Sometimes for the same name or place, too. Interesting discussion.DavidRF (talk) 06:27, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

I am aware that Deutsch's "Mozart: A Documentary Biography" (1966) is based on/translated from "Mozart: Die Dokumente seines Lebens" (1961); I would just have preferred a citation on "Amadè" from the German edition. Note that, as I wrote above, the English version of Deutsch uses mostly "Amade" without accent.

I didn't want to revisit this issue (and I still don't), but as DavidRF mentioned coincidences: our German Wikipedia colleagues just renamed "Franz von Suppé" to "Franz von Suppè" — which seems just as grating to me as "Amadè". See my note at Talk:Franz von Suppé. Michael Bednarek (talk) 14:40, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Nationality

Please include the fact that Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart was German. He not only felt himself "German", he was born and raised in the Holy Roman Empire of German Nation. This fact is not disputable! Hyperboreer (talk) 17:23, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

I choose not to dispute it myself because I think Mozart's nationality is his least interesting aspect. However, your opinion that it is not disputable is incorrect. Please see the archives of this discussion page, particularly number 6. --RobertG ♬ talk 17:36, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for replying, Robert, but the fact is indisputable - all scientific records in Germany and Austria agree on this.(Österreich war ein deutscher Bundesstaat, gehört erst seit 1871 nicht mehr zum deutschen Staat. Mozart ist 1791 gestorben.) Austria was a German Federal State until 1871. Mozart died 1791, he is therefore German - and, you are so right, a brilliant composer and musical artist! By the way, here an excerpt from a letter (1782) from Mozart to his beloved father: "Germany, my beloved fatherland, whom, as you know, I am proud of." (1782 an seinen Vater:"Teutschland, mein geliebtes vatterland, worauf ich, wie Sie wissen, stolz bin.") Hyperboreer (talk) 18:31, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Bleah, I find this nationalist stuff to be really seriously distasteful. I hope someone is watching this editor, who is new.

In other news, the Cambridge Mozart Encyclopedia has a couple of very nice articles on "Austria" and "Germany", which explain what these terms meant in Mozart's day, as well as how Mozart felt about his own nationality. These articles are quite NPOV, as far as I can tell. I propose to channel them into a satellite article, assuming no one seriously objects. Cheers, Opus33 (talk) 01:17, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Historical facts and information are "nationalist stuff" and "distasteful"??? Is that the free spirit of academic brains or just anti-German filerbusting. It astonishes me somewhat, if it were an other country, things would be more relaxed, but when it is about Germany, the blood of some gets hot. Almost 70 years after WW II, when can we finally talk straight without the stalinistic, fascist speach prohibition of evil, darker times??? I'm still hoping and praying!!! Hyperboreer (talk)

Perhaps you have not been here long. Editors with a nationalist agenda visit many composer articles, and while they may account for only 1% of the article edits, they may account for an enormous percentage of the talk archive space, and waste a colossal amount of the volunteer time of the editors that watch the articles in question. We have had Chopin become French, Haydn become Slovenian, Tchaikovsky become Ukrainian (and Polish), Schoenberg become American, Beethoven become African (and Flemish), Ravel become Basque, Mendelssohn become ... non-Jewish, and Mozart become ... but why? Is not the music more important than nationalist bickering?

Remember that everything in Wikipedia must be reliably sourced. When arguments go on ad nauseum on talk pages, we can always reach for a reliable source, such as the huge articles on Mozart in the New Grove and quote what the scholars there wrote. Hope this helps, Antandrus (talk) 02:48, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Oh yes, I agree, the music, the art are so very important, and so very beautiful, but we also have the duty to report historically correct, because young people learn and use these WP-pages as "sacral" ... and Mozart is German, that is a given fact, and I do not see the problem with this. I say this without emotion and "nationalist" tune! Hyperboreer (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added on 14:30, 21 February 2009 (UTC).

It seems to me that we already cover it exactly right. We have him categorized as a German composer (jawohl?), as an Austrian composer (certainly), as a Viennese composer (indisputably), as being from Salzburg (oh yes), and we take no direct position in the opening sentence, as we do on many other composer articles ("Kotan Háček (1680 - 1712) was a Slovogarian composer of the late Baroque era ...") Mozart was quite an international figure; indeed spectacularly so. It defines him. The trips to Italy and France; the influence from those places; really, looking at the lead, the categories, and the biography, to my eye we get it right on this one. All the best, Antandrus (talk) 18:47, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I think it's good that we leave nationality out of the opening sentence, and also that we don't get sidetracked here into the least important aspect of Mozart's personality. It's absolutely indisputable that Mozart belonged to the species Homo sapiens sapiens but let's not dwell on this. Best to all! --Kleinzach 23:18, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

• Please be adviced that user Hyperboreer is constantly editing all kind of Germany related articles in a highly questionable if not clearly right wing orientated way. His comments above on the constitutional relationship between Austria and Germany of the times of Mozart (if you can ever call the countries of those days Austria and Germany...) are simply wrong. In other articles he makes references to web pages that are indexed by various German domestic intelligence agencies. I strongly propose deletion of his user name. Feel free to point me to other pages to bring this to the community's attention. Henning Blatt (talk) 11:17, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

An error I found but cannot fix due to the lock

Y Done

The second sentence of section 1.5 - "1781: Departure to Vienna" - reads "The following March the composer was summoned to Vienna, where his employer where Archbishop Colloredo was attending the celebrations for the installation of Holy Roman Emperor Joseph II."

This sentence needs to be edited to remove the second "where" and, perhaps, add some punctuation.

The sentence would be improved if it read: "The following March, the composer was summoned to Vienna, where his employer, Archbishop Colloredo, was attending the celebrations for the installation of Holy Roman Emperor Joseph II." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.51.114.90 (talk) 14:32, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Fixed. Thank you for pointing it out. --RobertG ♬ talk 14:53, 27 February 2009 (UTC)