Talk:String Quartets, Op. 76 (Haydn)

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

Thanks for all the help--I like the merge--sorry it was so messy to begin with, this was my first time... Cstan09 03:16, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Clean up still in progress

This could still use some cleanup after the big merge. Many of the sections have common info that could be left to the header above. Much wikifying to still be done. DavidRF 19:18, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK. I'm done cleaning up for now. (Of course wikipedia articles are never "done"... but that's it for me for a little while).DavidRF 07:00, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Articles Merged

I merged the six articles into this one as the merge tags were suggesting. It ends up being a fairly long article. After the article is fully cleaned up and wikified, we could decide if the article should be re-split into individual articles for each quartet. I could go either way on that point. I hope the original author is not too annoyed with the merge. Let me know. DavidRF 19:21, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Emperor

Is is worth mentioning that the melody of the second movement of the Emperor quartet is better known - unfortunately - to many modern listeners as Deutschland Uber Alles, or is that verging on trivia? - Vedexent (talk) - 19:04, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I guess I didn't know that how commonly known it was that Das Lied der Deutschen and Gott erhalte Franz den Kaiser had the same melody. It can't hurt to add additional point. The article for Gott erhalte Franz den Kaiser mentions several other uses for the melody, but I suppose a current national anthem is a big enough deal for a extra remark. DavidRF 17:14, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do we want in-depth analysis?

Hi there. I've begun a copy-edit on this page, which I hope is helping. Because this page discusses all six quartets in Op.76, I wonder if it is the place for such an in-depth analysis as we have of the first movement of 76/4. If there were discussion of all twenty-four movements at this level, this page would be too heavy to lift.

Option 1: move this analysis to a new page; leave a sentence or two about the movement here. The quartet would need a complete analysis on a similar level. I oppose.

Option 2: edit analysis down to about a quarter of the length it is at the moment. (Note, I haven't read it for sense yet, it might be easily shortened). I support.

My own view is that Wikipedia is not the place for a bar-by-bar analysis; but if it is (I've been wrong before...) then certainly not on this page.

I'll leave it for a few days, and then move it here. In the meantime, any comments?

JH(emendator) 08:56, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't the original author of the content, but I did the major cleanup to put the page in its original format. There were originally six pages, but since they were all stubs some editors were complaining so they were merged into one larger article. When 76/4 had its own page, the detailed analysis of 76/4i did not look so out of place. Still, its a little too much more of a bar-by-bar replay of the movement than is usually placed in these types of articles. Usually this type of analysis is left in because as out of place at it seems, no one feels good deleting it. Of the two options you present, I would vote for the second one, but I would copy the section in its current form to this talk page. I know the history is preserved, but it can't hurt to copy it here to the talk page. Then, I would edit the analysis down to something that was less "bar by bar". It doesn't have to be as short as the other quartets -- I see the analysis of those fleshing out a bit more over time. That's my two cents. DavidRF 17:48, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think the "analysis" is jejune and way too poor a verbosity/content ratio. It doesn't tell anyone anything that they could observe for themselves by looking at the score. I think it should be dropped. CPKS (talk) 22:32, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Two Nicholas Esterhazy's

Could some clarification be added as to the two Nicholas Esterhazy's? Haydn worked for the elder for many years as Kappelmeister, but this article refers to the younger... I don't think his working relationship with the younger was quite as exclusive. That could be clarified as well.DavidRF (talk) 21:27, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The article is a bit misleading at this point as Haydn was not employed in a "formal" way by Nicolaus II. He was only commissioned to write a mass each year for the prince's wife. I'm not sure, though, that this is such an important detail which must be mentioned in this article. AdamSiska (talk) 22:28, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Largo"

I must confess to never having heard that nickname.

Me neither, and a web/Google Books search only got this: [1], from a not-specifically-musical reference source. I will take this out. Opus33 (talk) 15:48, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(Also, I wonder if anyone has remarked upon the fact that Haydn almost uses the same keys in Op.76 as Mozart did in his Op.10 set dedicated to Haydn? He replaces A major with D major. He even starts with a G-major quartet and continues with a D-minor quartet!) Double sharp (talk) 15:06, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Seems worth including if there is a reference source for it. Opus33 (talk) 15:48, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]