Talk:Felix Mendelssohn/Archive 3

This is an archive of past discussions about Felix Mendelssohn. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Popularity and anti-Semitism

The end of the introduction states, "After a long period of relative denigration due to changing musical tastes and anti-Semitism in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, his creative originality has now been recognised and re-evaluated." The assertion that his popularity waned because of anti-Semitism is repeated in the "Reputation and legacy" section. No proofs are given in either case, although the very real anti-Semitic attacks on his music are mentioned.

My own impression is that Mendelssohn was simply the victim of changing tastes, Nazi Germany aside, and that the pendulum has now swung back. The impact of anti-Semitism on his popularity should be documented, or else these unproven remarks should be removed. Opus131 (talk) 00:15, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Section 3 of the article ('Reputation and legacy') discusses and gives references for Wagner's anti-Jewish attack on Mendelssohn, and the Nazi attempt to erase his music is mentioned, but not referenced - I will provide references for this as soon as I have access my sources, but I hardly think the assertion is contentious; there is ample evidence for it. I think therefore one may legitimately question your assertion that changing taste is the only element involved here. (If I were feeling cheeky, I might comment that one could similarly write, 'Nazi Germany aside, Jews prospered in the 20th century'). The reference in the lead, which you cite, clearly attributes his denigration both to "changing musical tastes and anti-Semitism in the late 19th and early 20th centuries" so no exclusivity is claimed for the latter.--Smerus 05:26, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

I have now referenced both the Nazi attitude to Mendelssohn and Orff's Nazi-approved replacement of Mendelssohn's music for 'Midsummer Night's Dream'--Smerus 06:01, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Not contentious? In this case it still is. There was plenty of anti-Semitism in turn-of-the-century England, but it seems to have had no impact on Mendelssohn's reputation there. You can document anti-Semitic attacks on Mendelssohn until the cows come home (and you'll be right) but showing a real impact on his general popularity is quite a different thing. I would be very happy if you'd at least guard these statements with some weasel words: "May have" or some such. Opus131 (talk) 06:49, 22 September 2011

(UTC)

Is there not a certian amount of contentious , or at least WP:OR, matter in your own comments here. 'Plenty of anti-Semitism in turn-of-the-century England'? - evidence please, particularly as regards cultural and historical pundits (such as e.g. Houston Stewart Chamberlain in Germany). Germany was Mendelssohn's home country; it was in Germany that a line of anti-Jewish comment, starting with Wagner and others, continuing during the growth of anti-Semitism as a popular movement, and culminating in the anti-Jewish cultural policies of the Nazis, which sidelined Mendelssohn's music in Germany and in Europe. There is no 'may have' about this. As a consequence - but not of course entirely due to this - the music of Mendelssohn lost some of its status. But the article nowhere claims that it was entirely due to this - it gives it as a factor.

You correctly raise the issue of impact on M.'s 'general popularity'. But if music is not programmed, and/or is denigrated by cultural pundits, the 'general popularity' is bound to decline as a consequence. Promoters put on music which they think will find audiences.

I again cite the present existing sentence in the lead 'After a long period of relative denigration due to changing musical tastes and anti-Semitism in the late 19th and early 20th centuries....' This sentence does not accord exclusivity or priority to the Jewish factor, (indeed placing it second) it simply mentions it was there. And it was.--Smerus 09:11, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Mendelssohn as artist, painter

Mendelssohn was a painter? At a lecture I attended last night it was pointed out that it would be unusual for someone of his social class to NOT be educated in all the arts including drawing and painting. And very bright child that he was, he did very well at it.

Of course he is not remembered as a painter and even if his drawings and paintings were not overshadowed by his musical works he would still not figure as a major figure in 19th Century art, however... He did pursue it quite a bit, many survive and many are strikingly well-done. They are interesting artifacts of his life because they document places and activities that were important to him much as we take snapshots today.

They are interesting from a biographical perspective and it might be worthwhile for someone pull together a few for a small section explaining his pursuits in the visual arts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.149.70.27 (talk) 17:09, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Who is "Mendelssohn Bartholdy"?

In subsection named "Felix's surname", it is written as "but in deference to his father signed his letters and had his visiting cards printed using the form Mendelssohn Bartholdy". Is the relative pronoun "who" dropped between "his father" and "signed"? I can't refer to source by myself but web sources say that Felix preferred not to use the name "Bartholdy". Current sentence can be read as "Felix signed using the form Mendelssohn Bartholdy". Someone, please make it clear by adding "," or "who" there.--Ponruy (talk) 19:28, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

It means what it says.--Smerus (talk) 22:42, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Thank you, Smerus. Actually, I don't demand the correction of this article. I'm now revising Japanese version of article based on this well-written English version. I'm confused because current JP version says "Felix used the surname 'Bartholdy' with his farther in mind, but he didn't think it necessary. He introduced himself just as 'Felix Mendelssohn'." A Japanese web source says "When Abraham made visiting cards for Felix, he printed as 'Felix M. Bartholdy'. This made Felix protest against his father, insisting his surname is 'Mendelssohn'. The two reached compromise that Felix introduces himself as 'Felix Mendelssohn Bartholdy'." This website cites the biography by Hans Cristoph Worbs, [1] translated into Japanese. [2] Please let me confirm the information;

Abraham requested Felix to drop the surname 'Mendelssohn'.
Felix refused his father's request but used cards printed as 'Mendelssohn Bartholdy'. Therefore he signed as 'Felix Mendelssohn Bartholdy'.
Abraham claimed that his name is 'Abraham Bartholdy'. (omitted 'Mendelssohn')
Felix orally introduced himself as 'Felix Mendelssohn'.

Are these consistent with your source?--Ponruy (talk) 15:28, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

OK. Here's the situation. Abraham tried to persuade Felix to drop Mendelssohn altogether, and to use the name Bartholdy. He arranged visiting cards to be printed for Felix as 'Felix M. Bartholdy'. Felix did not apparently use these. He signed himself Mendelssohn Bartholdy, and his works were published under the name Mendelssohn Bartholdy, which he also used on his own visiting cards. That is, he continued to use the name 'Mendelssohn' despite his father's objections. In England, Felix was generally known simply as Mendelssohn, the syurname under which he debuted in his original visits. There is no evidence of which I am aware that Felix agreed any formal compromise with his father about his surname, or that Felix ever introduced himself in conversation or otherwise as 'Felix Mendelssohn'. Nor is there any evidence that Abraham referred to himself simply as 'Abraham Bartholdy' (without Mendelssohn). See Todd (2003)208 (the standard modern biography) and Conway (2012) 182-3. See also Organ Sonatas, Op. 65 (Mendelssohn) for an 1845 English advertisement using both forms of the name. Best, --Smerus (talk) 16:53, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Thank you so much, Smerus. Now I understand how to modify Japanese article. Unfortunatly, current my circumstance does not allow me to refer to original sources. So I can not thank enough for your kind instruction which greatly helps me to improve our version. And I apologize if my words sounded offensive because of my poor English writing. --Ponruy (talk) 16:03, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Not at all, the fault was mine, I did not understand properly the reasons for your query.--Smerus (talk) 22:56, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Violin Concerti (PLURAL)

Years ago, I talked here about altering this article's references to "the Mendelssohn Violin Concerto" or "his Violin Concerto" as if there were only one. Popularity, fame, or anything else is utterly irrelevant when dealing with absolute facts, and the absolute fact is that he wrote more than one Violin Concerto. This article must be edited accordingly. Just because his second known Violin Concerto is far more popular and/or well-known than his first known Violin Concerto, this can't justify using wording indicating that he wrote only ONE. Smyslov (talk) 02:53, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

It is wrong to refer in the lead to 'his Second Violin Concerto', as it is never referred to under that name. The early violin concerto was not given an opus number and is rarely performed (though it cetainly deserves performance). The existing WP article on the op. 64 concerto, Violin concerto (Mendelssohn), is imo fully justified by WP:COMMONNAME. ("The most common name for a subject, as determined by its prevalence in reliable English-language sources, is often used as a title because it is recognizable and natural.") When and if you get the title of that changed to Violin concerto no. 2 (Mendelssohn), then further changes to this article could be made. In the meantime I have changed the reference in the lead to 'his mature Violin Concerto'. I would also point out that the 'concerto' section of this article already mentions the earlier concerto.--Smerus (talk) 05:41, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Unfinished piano concerto

Should one perhaps have a page on his unfinished piano concerto in E minor (begun 1844, there are substantial manuscripts in two different places - see e.g. IMSLP? Might be able to work such a stub up sometime if so... Schissel | Sound the Note! 04:03, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Who forbids it?--Smerus (talk) 04:45, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Choral Music

The Psalms were not mentioned under choral music. What is wrong in introducing them ? please explain, thanks. רסטיניאק (talk) 11:18, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Dear Rastignac, Who forbids it? Feel free to add to the article, but make sure you cite sources, please.--Smerus (talk) 13:27, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Nothing, but your addition needs to be rewritten, per WP:PEA. Toccata quarta (talk) 13:30, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Is Larry Todd's book 'Mendelssohn: A life in Music' acceptable as reference ? On page 361, he wrote: "During his lifetime, op. 42 became one of his most popular sacred Choral works. For Robert Schumann it attained the "highest summit" available to "modern church music". However, I am not familiar with introducing book references...so thanks for any help. רסטיניאק (talk) 18:25, 13 May 2013 (UTC)רסטיניאק

Yes, that quotation seems to be fine. Toccata quarta (talk) 18:53, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

About Mendelssohn's pupils...

wasn't there someone in the 19th century who went around claiming he was one of Mendelssohn's students (indeed his concert notices would claim that he was Mendelssohn's "last pupil", but wasn't on any list of the composer's pupils at all or in any letters anyone has found (or of his sister's, I'm guessing, if she took music pupils at any point? I should look into that)? Can't seem to find the name now. Names of pupils or claimed-to-be-pupils included (I have little doubt about most of these) Reinecke, Verhulst, Sterndale Bennett, Rocksto/Rackstraw, Hermann Wichmann, perhaps Joseph Joachim, briefly Joachim Raff as well maybe... a bit of searching suggests Eduard Franck also (ah, good stuff there) and Ferdinand David (ah right!), also Ferdinand Quentin Dulcken (wrote some medium-scale choral music in addition to slighter piano music, a fun discovery there too from the Library of Congress. Wonder who the odd one out was who didn't belong in the list- maybe someone I haven't mentioned, though. Hrm. Any idea?... ) Schissel | Sound the Note! 15:31, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Picture

The first picture in the section Life appears to be of a woman. I know the picture could well be true, but should this be clarified to avoid confusion? George8211 (talk | contribs) 16:27, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

No need to clarify it, the caption is accurate.--Smerus (talk) 09:54, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Hat note

"Mendelssohn" redirects to this article. Therefore the hatnote should refer on to Mendelssohn (surname), and not to Bartholdy. --Smerus (talk) 15:06, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

'Bartholdy' in hatnote.

Can someone give a rationale for the additonal hatnote referring readers to 'Bartholdy'? Mendelssohn leads direct to this article. Other folk with Mendelssohn in their surname can be accessed from Mendelssohn (surname). This latter page includes those with the surname 'Mendelssohn Bartholdy'. The only person on the Bartholdy page who does not appear on the Mendelssohn (surname) page is Jakob Salomon Bartholdy - but no-one seeking him would have arrived at Felix Mendelssohn. If other editors agree with me in finding it irrelevant, I will remove the hatnote referring to Bartholdy. --Smerus (talk) 13:35, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

I agree. In the meantime, I've combined them into one hatnote. Having two separate ones was truly pointless clutter. Voceditenore (talk) 14:22, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

While Bartholdy is not a REDIRECT to this page, quite a few with that name are. Given that at least in Germany he is invariably referred to as "Mendelssohn Bartholdy", I think the current, post-VdT, arrangement is satisfactory. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 15:51, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Hats off to an acceptable solution! --Smerus (talk) 19:39, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Although on further thought I should add that there is something not entirely satisfactory in Felix being referred to in the hatnote as 'the German musician'. There's also Fanny Mendelssohn who fits that description....and Arnold Mendelssohn .....~~(whom I've just added to Mendelssohn (surname)~~ (just realised he was already there in fact).....--Smerus (talk) 20:33, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Not Jewish

Mendelsohn was clearly of Jewish descent, but he was not ethnically Jewish in any meaningful way. His parents converted to Christianity and he was clearly a Christian who participated in German culture, not Jewish culture. The idea you could be a Jew while rejecting the religion of Judaism did not exist yet at this point. Mendelssohn was a Jew by race, not by ethnicity, and we classify people by ethnicity, not race, therefore he was not a Jew for our purposes. Just because the Nazis considered someone a Jew does not mean they were. The Jewish community of Mendelssohn's contemporaries would have clearly rejected him as a Jew. Even a few hundred years later when Jews had come to accept that people who had rejected the religion might still be Jews, the law of return would have excluded Mendelssohn as a baptized Christian from coming to Israel as a Jew. He is clearly not a Jew in any way that does not classify people by race.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:13, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

This is true up to a point, and I don't disagree with the recategorization. But in fact (as a matter of interest) Mendelssohn remained, as one of the Neuchristen, culturally associated with Jews and Jewish converts, and with his Jewish ancestry. I don't think it can be said that he 'was not ethnicially Jewish in any way'- the reverse is true: he was in fact ethnically Jewish in every way, as both his parents were ethnic Jews. But it is true that he never practised the Jewish religion. See Conway (2012), 173-84. --Smerus (talk) 19:39, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

if you are a Christian (like Felix Mendelssohn was all of his life) you are not really a jew , aren't you? 91.89.243.218 (talk) 16:33, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

It is not claimed that Mendelssohn was a Jew (i.e. by religion), but that he was Jewish (i.e. by ethnicity).--Smerus (talk) 06:01, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Other way around - a Jew (nationality) - Jewish (religion, in this context.) The large majority of Jews practice Judaism, but there are significant numbers of Christian Jews, and even the odd Muslim or Buddhist Jew - very rare, of course. Mendelssohn seems to have been proud of his heritage, but was a follower of Jesus, identified as a German, and just got on with it.HammerFilmFan (talk) 20:49, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

These are opinions, not facts. To some, he was a Jew because his parents were, regardless if he saw himself as such, and to others he was not because he was baptized and lived as a Christian (and thus left the "Jewish people" also, not just the religion). So it's all opinions of different individuals. Yuvn86 (talk) 15:10, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Nietzsche's 'condescending' comment

I challenge the idea that Friedrich Nietzsche's 'lovely interlude' comment is an example of condescenscion.

In the same chapter of Beyond Good and Evil from which this comment is taken (245), Nietzsche praises M. beyond all German composers after Beethoven's death. He is "that halcyon master", with a "lighter, purer, happier soul" than his contemporaries. Anyone who has read Nietzsche will recognize that "lighter and happier" are the highest terms of praise in his writings.

It seems to me that this quote was taken completely out of context, or given a negative reading by the Grove editor who used it. I would like to include more of the relevant passage, given that Nietszche is one of the few 'fans' Mendelssohn had at that time. --AgonRex (talk) 21:49, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Interesting point. I will edit the article accordingly.--Smerus (talk) 07:07, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

I have edited the section to include the passage from Beyond Good and Evil. Feel free to revise. --AgonRex (talk) 15:46, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for this. I am stuck in Kiev at present.--Smerus (talk) 06:40, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Was so glad to see this. Please make these changes. Was over the moon to find this then that horrible nonsense ruined it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Codeslubber (talk • contribs) 03:07, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Mendelßohn?

Being German, his name would be spelt with an eszet, would it not? I know in English we use "ss" instead, but should the German spelling be mentioned somewhere (if I am indeed correct)?82.9.62.44 (talk) 15:16, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

I've seen some daft comments in WP, but this ranks high for being the most pointless bit of smart-assery (or maybe smart-aßery). Etymologically it is wrong anyway: the name parses as 'Mendels [i.e. genitive of Mendel] - sohn', so the 'ß', which represents an integral 'double-s', doesn't apply here. If you don't believe me, look at German Wikipedia.--Smerus (talk) 18:41, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Oh the irony! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.250.168.229 (talk) 02:00, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Smart-assery or just a wrong assumption? Rothorpe (talk) 17:57, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

It is probably a good example of a rule that I also unfortunately break from time to time -'if you don't know what you're talking about, shut up!' Or, as Ludwig Wittgenstein put it more elegantly, 'wovon man nicht sprechen kann, davon muss man schweigen'. The anonymous comment on 'irony' is curious - did the editor mean 'sarcasm'? Alas we may never know.... :-}--Smerus (talk) 13:28, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

I did a bit of a double take at the IPA sz and checked here; the Westphalian informant is especially (and I think a bit unusually) careful to pronounce both S's. Sparafucil (talk) 00:06, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

CADASIL

From my user page, about this edit:

You are, of course, entitled to edit whatever you like on Wikipedia. However, I would expect that an intelligent person such as yourself might have tried to learn a bit about the CADASIL syndrome before deleting my entry on Felix Mendelssohn so perfunctorily. I am a Professor of Pathology at the University of Virginia, and do not idly throw medical opinions around.

MRWick1 Mrwick1 (talk) 16:31, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Nu? I am a PhD and have published books and papers, am a Grade VIII piano player and speak mediocre Slovak, but despite these emblems of glory I stick to Wikipedia rules about citation. I don't think being a Professor exempts you from this, but you could try pinging Jimmy Wales to see if he will give you a dispensation. Best, --Smerus (talk) 16:42, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

But seriously, folks, I did read CADASIL syndrome and found it interesting, (to the extent that a non-Professor of Pathology could understand it). I do think however that we should have a citation that links it to the Mendelssohns before we incorporate it into the article. If anyone has such, do be forthcoming with it.--Smerus (talk) 20:01, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

I've removed this again, since apparently the only source that professor Mrwick could find for his assertion was a chamber music blog in 2008 (?which perhaps he authored?). This is not an acceptable source for a medical fact (see WP:CITE), and in any case anonymous blogs are not appropriate sources for GA (or imo any other) articles.--Smerus (talk) 06:41, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Ancestry

An editor is insistent on including the section 'Ancestry', a table which they have inserted at the end of the article before the notes and references. This lists three generations for Mendelssohn's ancestors (where known) and is not sourced or referenced. The more significant of these ancestors are anyway mentioned in the article. A number of others a red linked, although it is not clear whether the editor concerned is going to create articles for them, or whether indeed there is any claim for them to be they are WP:NOTABLE in their own right. In any case, there already references in the article to the existing articles Mendelssohn family and Itzig family (the families of Felix's parents). As table is both superfluous in itself, and serves no purpose in the article, I am in favour of removing it, but would welcome the opinions of other editors. Thanks, --Smerus (talk) 17:30, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Whatever the pros or cons, our usual procedure per WP:BRD is that once an edit has been reverted it should be discussed here to try to reach a consensus, rather than just repeated. Since this is deemed both a "good article" and a "vital article" it is particularly important that controversial changes are agreed on the talk page and that the main article is not subject to edit warring. On the issue itself, the "ancestry" chart that has been added, I honestly can't see that it adds anything of value to the article. --Deskford (talk) 19:55, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

I agree that adding that table here is unnecessary and makes the article worse. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 10:08, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Once again I have removed the table which an editor reinserted.--Smerus (talk) 13:08, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

And again.--Smerus (talk) 18:49, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Jenny Lind

I don't understand this controversy. There's fairly recent "investigation" into an unreleased affidavit from Lind's husband in which he accuses Mendelssohn, apparently, of something. Of course, the document isn't public, so it's hard to verify. Based on this apparent rumor, the article draws together some other quotes and facts, apparently trying to show that Mendelssohn did have an affair with Lind and did threaten suicide. This certainly does not seem to be a very neutral point of view; it seems that the author of this section, even in calling it "ambiguous" instead of a "rumor," appears to have already decided what Mendelssohn's relationship with Lind was. Furthermore, research contradicting the accusation is not mentioned (e.g., [Icons of Europe]). If it's just a rumor, I don't see why his personal life should be suddenly referred to as "conventional ... save as regards his ambiguous relationship with..." If it's unconfirmed and ambiguous, then his personal life is still fairly conventional/conservative/"moral" from what we know, and there is a controversy surrounding some unknowns. If anything else, his conventional personal life is vastly different from many of his artistic contemporaries in that there is only one unproven rumor/accusation about his personal life, even though many have sought to discount him (e.g., Wagner). Even the cited sources for this ambiguous relationship use vague terms and refer to it as a possibility or something for investigation. 129.42.184.35 (talk) 20:57, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

There is no 'controversy' here. Mendelssohn's relationship with Lind is a matter of interest - why not? Their friendship is undoubted and was important to both of them, as the sources indicate. The sources cited indicate the nature of the supposed evidence involved as regards any further intimacy. Readers can form their own opinions ; the article does not take sides.--Smerus (talk) 07:05, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

PS I of course agree that the source you mention should also be cited, and I am including this in the article.--Smerus (talk) 07:07, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

In the past day or two, a statement about some correspondence being destroyed has been supplemented by putting in "book burning" inside double left brackets before "destroyed" giving destroyed. That doesn't seem right to me, so I propose to change it back to just "destroyed". Marlindale (talk) 02:15, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

I removed that link just now, because it didn't seem right to me, either. I couldn't check the source to see if it said that's how the letters were destroyed, but even if it's true, it seems an inconsequential fact. And the link to the book burning article doesn't really provide any further information to this article. Willondon (talk) 12:41, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

NB: More recent evidence (referred to now in the article) indicates that there was indeed a serious involvement, at least on Mendelssohn's side, which led him to propose elopement and threaten suicide. I have therefore removed reference to the 'Icons of Europe' article, which denied any possibility of this.--Smerus (talk) 18:31, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Felix Mendelssohn. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100228075600/http://www.saw-leipzig.de:80/aktuelles/mendelssohn-werkverzeichnis-ankuendigungsflyer-englisch to http://www.saw-leipzig.de/aktuelles/mendelssohn-werkverzeichnis-ankuendigungsflyer-englisch

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:58, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Gymnast?

I have rad somewhere that he was an outstanding gymnast, with his other talents. Can this be confirmed, and, if so, might it not be mentioned?Seadowns (talk) 00:44, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

'Popular'

Please note : statements that any of Mendelssohn's (or any other composer's) works are 'popular' should be backed up with citations to prove the claim. Without this, they are just WP:OR. It's no good citing the opinions of musicians 100 years (as in a claim I have just deleted). Only contemporary concert or broadcast statistics will give the backing required. For example, the violin concerto came 75th in the 2017 Classic FM Hall of Fame, with twelve other concerti ahead of it, (see here), which would doubtfully justify it as "one of the most popular of all concertos". And in any case comments on popularity belong in the reception section, not the music section. Be precise when commenting; after all the article has GA status. Smerus (talk) 16:43, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

Popular where and when? Instead, "great"?

I agree as regards popularity. I suppose Classic FM may be the best available source on current popularity. Is its audience mainly in the UK? Competitors in the US (WQXR, New York) and Australia (WABC) oriduce much shorter lists, with less polling.

Anyhow, I suggest saying "great" rather than "popular" Marlindale (talk) 18:47, 3 May 2017 (UTC).

Yes, that's of course fair where it can be cited (as with the Joachim quote). Classic FM is a UK station btw. Best, Smerus (talk) 08:25, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Felix Mendelssohn. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:40, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Ref 198

Smerus, heads up before FAC, ref 198 is dead. English Heritage are now Historic England. Shall review in the next few days. Cassianto^Talk 19:38, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

Check, also, page ranges ending in either three digits or two. They will need to be consistent. Cassianto^Talk 19:54, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, I will check! Best, --Smerus (talk) 20:51, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

Congratulations and thanks...

...to the editors who got this article to featured article status and on it appearing on the main page as today's featured article. — AjaxSmack 03:29, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

Thanks from me too. - Dank (push to talk) 12:46, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

Mendelssohn as prodigy: put into the lead?

I recently put a reference to Felix Mendelssohn's reputation as a composing prodigy into the lead paragraph. I had written that he "is now widely considered the greatest composer prodigy in the history of Western 'classical' music." and I referenced a source from a BBC survey Mendelssohn takes top spot as greatest child prodigy of all time. But where’s Mozart?, although other sources can be found.

My edit was reverted by an experienced editor, the estimable Gerda Arendt, because "the lead should be a summary". So I moved my "offending" material into a lower part of the piece, about M's early maturity.

However, I would like to suggest that Mendelssohn's prodigy-ness may truly be worthy of being in the lead. Searching for support, I found the Oxford University Grove Dictionary of Music. Here is how it begins:

Mendelssohn(-Bartholdy), ( Jacob Ludwig ) Felix ( b Hamburg , Feb 3, 1809 ; d Leipzig , Nov 4, 1847 ). German composer . One of the most gifted and versatile prodigies, Mendelssohn stood at the forefront of German music during the 1830s and 40s, as conductor, pianist, organist and, above all, composer. His musical style, fully developed before he was 20, drew upon a variety of influences, including the complex chromatic counterpoint of Bach, the formal clarity and gracefulness of Mozart and the dramatic power of Beethoven and Weber.

In Grove, his prodiy-ness is the FIRST thing mentioned in the narrative (after the simple identifying fact/phrase that he was a German composer).

Maybe at some point we could reconsider putting such a comment into the lead paragraph about Felix? What do others think?David Couch (talk) 20:16, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

I'm not sure exactly what the issue is here. His being a child prodigy is already mentioned in the lead, and is discussed further in the article (including a comparison with Mozart's prodigality). Whether he is "the greatest prodigy in the history of music", (a view with which, incidentally, I personally agree, at least as regards Western music as I am generally ignorant of other music traditions), is essentially a matter of opinion; there is no universally agreed scale of prodigality. Such statements are imo (and therefore yes, it's just my opinion) rather like saying "Beethoven was a greater composer than Mozart" or whatever. And just because Grove puts something first doesn't mean that Wikipedia has to. Of course I referred extensively to Grove in developing this article, but if WP articles on music were just to be paraphrases of Grove there would not be much point to any of us doing anything here. --Smerus (talk) 08:50, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Nomination of Portal:Felix Mendelssohn for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether Portal:Felix Mendelssohn is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The page will be discussed at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Felix Mendelssohn until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the page during the discussion, including to improve the page to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the deletion notice from the top of the page. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:20, 26 March 2019 (UTC)