Talk:Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart/Archive 2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3



"Around the time when he was five or six years old, he could play the piano blindfolded and with his hands crossed over one another." Is from the movie Amadeus. Whether this really happened outside of Hollywood I have no idea.

Ummm, I know that movie like the back of my hand, and I don't remember a quote like the one posted above. It seems to me to be a recollection of two separate scenes in the film hybridized into a quotation. Please inform me if this is a scene from the Director's Cut, as I have not seen it. I recall a scene (in the original release version) from Mozart's childhood where he played the harpsichord blindfolded (but sitting upright) for a rotund clergyman, and then proceeded to play the same tune on the violin, all while his proud father, Leopold beamed. And I also recall a scene where Mozart, now a young man, is celebrating a successful operatic performance, where he is sitting at the piano, playing for everyone's amusement, during which his friends lift him and rotate him upside-down. At this point Mozart proceeds to play the tune he had just played upside-down (and backwards, as instructed), with his hands crossed over. However, he was neither blindfolded nor 5 or 6 years old.

Am I missing something? Is my memory that bad? Eganio 01:49, 14 May 2007 (UTC)


The inclusion of K.522 as an "Excerpt showing Mozart's experiment of multitonality" seems to me to be misleading at best, ludicrous at worst. Seeing as this is from "The Musical Joke," the excerpt can hardly be a "See how far ahead Mozart predicted Ives" sort of thing.

Ursatz 21:53, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

As no one has commented one way or the other here about this, I have removed the picture.

Ursatz 11:09, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Short intro?/Amadeus

I agree with User:Karmish, and would go a bit further: I think the intro section should be quite short. Various editors keep putting in rhapsodic passages saying how wonderful Mozart was--but this is obvious, no? Since readers come to the Wikipedia to learn facts, and might even be annoyed by "gushing", we should keep the intro short, simply mentioning briefly that a lot of people love Mozart's music.

I also shortened the Amadeus discussion, on the view that discussion of this play/movie belongs in its own article, not the Mozart article.

Opus33 15:55, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I agree with these edits. The previous introduction was unencyclopedic. -- Viajero 16:06, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Viajero also lengthened the intro--but the material added is factual, not "gushing", so it's ok by me. Opus33 16:30, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Having just now read the intro for the first time in a while -- I think it's excellent, and just about the right length. Antandrus 16:41, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)
The comments under the title "Unappreciated" below, as well as some recent edits to this page, caused me to reread the opening para carefully, and it seemed to me to have become somewhat opinionated. Having looked at the introduction from the version of 2nd April when Antandrus made his comment above, I boldly decided to recast it to return to something like that version, the last time consensus was reached. The reasoning behind the edits is as follows. "Great" is a subjective adjective. "Highly unregarded" seemed to me a somewhat uncomfortable phrase. Some people's astonishment at the amount of music he composed is not encyclopedic (and not referenced); and the amount of music he composed seems to me the least of Mozartian marvels. I found the phrase "often performed today" a little woolly. I feel rather as if I set myself an impossible task, returning to that older version while not losing encyclopedic content from intervening edits. I hope the community thinks it's an improvement; if not I know my changes won't survive the day! --RobertGtalk 5 July 2005 16:21 (UTC)
It looks good to me now; I'm not even sure how it mutated to the previous version. Another recent issue is that some of us have been removing a Haydn quotation from persistent, anonymous editor who wants to insert it into the lead (the quote is already below in the biographical section). Thanks, Antandrus (talk) 5 July 2005 16:38 (UTC)

Inauthentic Portrait

I recognize from an article I've read that the portrait of Mozart in this article is not an authentic one. The seventh and tenth portraits featured on this website would be suitable replacements. I'm not sure how urgent this is though...

  • Good point. The portrait in the article is disastrous. By far the best choice, however, seems to be the recently discovered last portrait of Mozart by Edlinger from, presumably, 1790. Edlinger was one of the best portrait painters of his time, and his Mozart is indeed a masterpiece.

I would prefer not to use the newly discovered one without including another portrait (i.e. the Bologna portrait or the unfinished one by his brother-in-law) because I've read that Mozart was being treated with mercury for his illness during the time that the newer portrait was done, and that could be the cause for his bloating. The newer portrait is suprisingly unflattering if you consider his age at the time (mid-thirties). --Berserk798 23:05, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

  • I cannot see any signs of illness or anything unflattering in the new portrait. Some newspaper articles saw the most ridiculous things into the picture. That's just gossip. But I agree that it should be presented with the "Bologna" portrait from 1777. The Lange portrait (by his brother-in-law) is highly idealized: straightened nose, enlarged eyes, diminished chin. Perhaps Konstanze liked it because of that. 20:09, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I'm assuming that a 200+ year old painting would be public domain, but should I ask for permission before borrowing it from a website? --Berserk798 23:21, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

speaking of of old portraits, an actual photograph of his widow Constanze has been discovered. Taken in 1840 when she was 78, there can't be any copyright. Oughta be on wikipedia somewhere, but who knows where.
  • I think the old one was also very good, and was about Mozart... But this new looks very ugly, so I replaced it to the "original" in the hungarian Wikipedia. hu:User:NZs

What do you mean by "was about Mozart"? The previous picture showed an imagined romantic view of Mozart. The painter never saw Mozart. Perhaps we can agree that most readers of an encyclopedia would like to see authentic portraits, not fabricated ones. 20:41, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

If the Edlinger painting is of him, gentlemen, I believe that he looks more distinguished in it than in the Bolognese portrait. --Anglius 04:11, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

See for article from the Frankfurter Allgemeinen Zeitung by Renate Schostac (Kunst: Nicht Mozart, sondern ein Beamter): F.A.Z., 2005.02.03, Nr. 51 / p. 37 Bildmaterial: dpa/dpaweb. For English summary of artcle, see Basically, the subject of the Edlinger PAINTING is said to have been found out to be, by investigation of the Munich municipal archivist Richard Bauer, a well to do Muenich merchant and city councilor named Joseph Anton Steiner (and NOT Mozart). (Contributed by Vicki Volz: I recalled having read this FAZ article this spring, and remembered it now when I recognized the image of the painting of the "man in greenjacket" on your website. I read your wikipedia article to find information about Mozart's the 21st Piano concerto, its tonality and "color" and "texture" and "images" [I am a "visual" person], after having just listened to it on the radio and having been "blown" away).

If I recall correctly, the famous portrait of Mozart painted some years after his death was done with Nannerl's consultation; it is also said that the painter supposedly modeled the portrait off of Nannerl's face, because it was often remarked that Wolfgang and she looked very much alike.
Getting off the subject of the famous posthumous effort for a second, has anyone perchance ever suggested using the death mask as a portrait? Surely a cast of the man's face would do his likeness greater justice than any artist's spatial estimations. The only problem is that there appear to be some doubts about the authenticity of the mask as well. If anyone has any further information on the likelihood of the mask being genuine, please do tell us about what you know. Batman Jr. 23:13, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

The newspaper article in the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung does not report facts but a poorly presented suggestion by Richard Bauer. The details of this case can be found in the German Wikipedia (there: click on picture, then on discussion, and then, when back on the main article, click also on link below the picture). The outcome was that Bauer's suggestion could not be substantiated, whereas a new scientific study has demonstrated the authenticity of the Edlinger portrait with an error probability of less than 1 in 10,000,000. Saliente 12:05, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

Saliente: I presume that your "new scientific study" refers to this web page. If this is the case, I would have the following concerns:

Interesting questions. I will reply in the interleaved mode, because your list is long.

  • The original Bauer study has been widely reported in the musicological community, while the alleged refutation of that study has not.

The great majority of this community does not read German, and Bauer has not even presented an English abstract. In the internet discussion group "Mozart Forum" (which can be read by non-members, like me) one member described the Bauer paper as "a mess". I read this paper, and it IS a mess. Besides the low scholarly quality, the main problem is that Bauer has no indication, let alone proof, that the alleged Steiner portrait of the family Lindauer is identical with the portrait in Berlin, which is now called "Edlinger Mozart".

  • The author of the "refutation", Martin Braun, seems to have credentials in neurobiology, not in portrait authentication or as an archivist.

I have not read any "refutation" by Braun. His Edlinger study is not related to Bauer's paper. As to the credentials that are useful to have when doing biometrics, it seems to me that any investigator in the quantitative empirical sciences can do the job. The statistics seems fairly easy, as far as I can see.

  • The "refutation" contains strange statements such as "There is no longer a need for an archival confirmation of the "Edlinger" Mozart. Both in court and in research, visual evidence generally has a higher rank than all other evidence." This is not true in any of the court systems with which I am familiar (ever heard of DNA or forensic evidence?).

Yes, all forensic evidence can ultimately be seen by human eyes. And much of it has reached its status of evidence by statistics. Fingerprints are not identified by opinion.

  • The methodology of the "refutation" seems debatable, to say the least.
    1. Herr Braun finds seven "digital features" allegedly shared between an undisputed Mozart portrait and the disputed Edlinger portrait. (Herr Braun doesn't give any objective definition of the "digital features" -- he just claims that they are "obviously" either present or absent from any given portrait).

This is the definition. In most cases an object on the road is obviously A STONE or obviously NOT A STONE.

    1. He goes on to select 103 portraits comparable to the Edlinger portrait from the internet sites of galleries in Berlin and Washington, DC, and a further 103 portrait photographs from a Google web search. He claims that, given his examination of these 206 portraits, the probability of 5 of his "digital features" coexisting on the same portrait is less than 1 in 11 million.
    2. One problem with this methodology is that Herr Braun doesn't tell us what these 206 portraits and photographs were, so we could verify his claims for ourselves.

If my recollection is correct, he collected all that were available in these galleries and satisfied the search criteria. As I see it, anybody can replicate his study.

    1. Another problem is that the "digital features" that Herr Braun seem to me to be very ambiguous. For example, what is "an elevation on the ridge of the nose"? Is it "obviously" either present or absent from any given portrait?

Why not? He wrote that he selected only reference portraits that were clear enough to show this difference.

    1. Most of all, Herr Braun doesn't refer to any other peer-reviewed study that used a similar methodology. Given this, I think there is at the least some doubt on the scientific validity of his study.

Is there any such other study? Not to my knowledge. In science, where I work, it is common to develop new methods for new types of investigations.

  • Given all these points, I think it is reasonable that the main article should contain a statement that the authenticity of the Edlinger portrait is disputed. This could be accompanied by links to both the original study by Bauer (or an English-language summary thereof) and to Herr Braun's study, so that the reader could make up their own mind. Grover cleveland 17:48, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

In my view, such a statement would be misleading, because the Bauer paper reflects a singular and idiosyncratic position. More importantly, the Bauer article does not show a connection between the alleged Steiner portrait of the Lindauer family and the Berlin portrait of Edlinger. Saliente 18:01, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

That's exactly what it shows. Criminological scrutiny has furthemore shown that the earlobes of the Bologna and the Edlinger portrait don't match and that Braun obviously chose to ignore this important feature. If there's a "mess" to found in this whole affair it is Braun's publication and his credentials, which seen from the viewpoint of serious academia he seems to have received at the "University of Wikipedia".__80.66.66.217 13:04, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

First, where has this "criminological" study been published? I would love to read it. Second, if you take the Bologna Mozart and the Della Croce Mozart, you see that the earlobe difference is even greater here. According to the suggested "criminological" logic, these two portraits should therefore show two different persons. This, however, is not the case. Both show W.A. Mozart, as confirmed by contemporary documents. The reason that two portraits of the same person can have such different ear lobes is simple. An earlobe alone, with the rest of the ear covered by hair, adds little to the individual characteristics of a face. Therefore it happened easily that portrait painters paid little attention to this detail. I assume that also Braun considered these circumstances. Anyhow, his decision to exclude the earlobe from the comparison is fully justified, as the Bologna vs. Croce case strikingly demonstrates. He should have mentioned the issue in his report, though. Maybe he will update the article after having read the discussion here. Salinasa 22:37, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

What a limping argument. If a painter ignores the earlobe, he's just a bad and sloppy painter and his portrait is therefore totally unusable for any comparison that wants to be taken serious. The criminological study is referred to in a statement that Dr. Bauer published in 2005. I cannot do all the bibliographical work for you and neither can I translate the relevant German literature.-- 11:13, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

In 2005 Richard Bauer published two press releases and one article presenting his view on the Edlinger Mozart. In none of these documents does he refer to a "criminological study". By the way, a "criminological study" is a study about the causes of crime. What you seem to have in mind is called forensic study. The only forensic study of the face of the Edlinger Mozart that has been published to date is the one by Braun. Salinasa 16:58, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

In which peer-reviewed journal has Braun's study been published?-- 13:15, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

There is no peer-reviewed journal for this type of work. It should also be noted that none of the studies that have been published to date about the Edlinger Mozart appeared in a peer-reviewed journal. This can be no surprise for those who know what a peer-reviewed journal is. Peer-reviewed journals can only be founded, if in a field of expertise a community of peers exists that can review submitted manuscripts. In the field of face identification on paintings no such community of peers exist. Therefore no peer-reviewed journal exists. Salinasa 17:33, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Ah yes. So Braun more or less published what he wanted and the positive reviews are a) his own and b) from people who don't know enough about the method applied. That's exactly what I thought. I think that these testimonials only serve economical interests of the owners and are only supposed to bolster Braun's lonely and hitherto "undeservedly neglected" expertise.-- 11:30, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

The owner of the Edlinger Mozart is a large public museum in Berlin/Germany. Due to its legal status this museum is totally unable to have any "economical interest" in the painting. Salinasa 21:22, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

I guess you are wrong. The Berliner Gemaeldegalerie is not a "large museum". And since this gallery is currently fighting to raise its number of visitors and receive more funding, the economical agenda is perfectly obvious.-- 13:49, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

This is just another brick in a wall of extremely poorly informed contributions to this thread. The museum is one of the biggest and most important places you could go to for historical paintings. There is even a large Wikipedia article about it. As to attracting visitors by advertising a Mozart portrait, this idea is just ridiculous. Every Thursday admission is free for four hours. That would be long enough to see that painting. Salinasa 00:12, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

It seems that going off topic is the last resort you have to cling to. The Steiner portrait is simply not Mozart and that's it. The size of a museum is completely off the point.-- 17:51, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

It was not me who started the economical nonsense. As to the "Steiner portrait", please read the Bauer paper. It can be downloaded for free. You will then see that the chances that there once had been a "Steiner portrait" are quite good. There is some archival text evidence, but no image evidence. The chances, however, that this "Steiner portrait" is identical with the currently discussed Mozart portrait by Edlinger are close to zero. There is no evidence whatsoever for this assumption. The idea was born in Bauer's fantasy, nothing else. Please read Bauer's paper, and then see what he really has got !! Salinasa 20:01, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

At least Bauer has some archival evidence and the sources he presents are not fantasy. Braun's "identification" however is his own figment of imagination and so is his method which hitherto has not been accepted except by his propaganda staff on Wikipedia. Paintings cannot be compared like photographs. Similarities of paintings don't prove identity of the depicted person.-- 13:16, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Apparently you did not read Bauer's paper. If you did read it and could not find what's wrong with it, you might like to read these comments. Salinasa 18:32, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

You might as well read the most recent version of the talk page Image talk:Edliner Mozart.jpg, and in case it gets lost again, the diff [1] you were not supposed to read. --stefan (?!) 19:45, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
How could such a statement that "the authenticity of the portrait is disputed" possibly be misleading? The Bauer paper has undeniably called the authenticity of the portrait into dispute. Maybe some people don't find the Bauer article convincing, but that is standard for scientific/historical disputes. The standard Wikipedia practice in such cases is to report both sides of the argument, link to sources, and let readers decide for themselves. Grover cleveland 17:19, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Request for references

Hi, I am working to encourage implementation of the goals of the Wikipedia:Verifiability policy. Part of that is to make sure articles cite their sources. This is particularly important for featured articles, since they are a prominent part of Wikipedia. Further reading is not the same thing as proper references. Further reading could list works about the topic that were not ever consulted by the page authors. If some of the works listed in the further reading section were used to add or check material in the article, please list them in a references section instead. The Fact and Reference Check Project has more information. Thank you, and please leave me a message when you have added a few references to the article. - Taxman 17:18, Apr 22, 2005 (UTC)

Acc'd to "Britten's Children" by Bridcut, Benjamin Britten was yet another prominent composer who had the highest praise for Mozart. Thus, Britten should be added to the entry's list of composers who expressed awe/admiration for Mozart.

Mozart's name being re-merged into the main article

I noticed that the material from the Mozart's name article has been merged back into the main article, and I feel this is a bad idea.

It is off-putting for a reader, coming to this article and wanting to read about Mozart, to be immediately bogged down in a mass of detail on the meaning of Mozart's name and the various changes it underwent during his life. As is true in the other articles on major composers, we have spun off excessive detail into satellite articles (see Ludwig van Beethoven, Beethoven: life and work, Beethoven's musical style and innovations for some other examples). If we merge this detail back into the main articles they become long and rather unwieldy.

I'm open to other opinions. Antandrus 23:44, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

Yea, I undid, the placement of all of Mozart's name in the Mozart article, until a descision has been made whether or not to delete it. Rmrfstar 01:27, 11 May 2005 (UTC)


'Although highly unappreciated during his lifetime...' - Not entirely true; surely someone can expand on this. (comment by User:

Yes, we should expand on it. He was actually fairly popular in Vienna, and he was a musical idol in Prague. (comment by User:Berserk798.)

Please sign posts on talk pages. See comments above under Short intro?/Amadeus. --RobertGtalk 5 July 2005 16:21 (UTC)

He was actually appreciated very much by the majority of the public. He was however somewhat under-appreciated by some who felt strongly about preserving the traditional Italian language for operas, and as we all know the very popular "Die Entführung aus dem Serail" was written in German, and was received quite enthusiastically by the public. One of the few points that were 'somewhat' accurately portrayed in the movie Amadeus.

it states that mozart was capable of improvising "competently" on difficult passages as a wunderkind. i think this is another example of underappreciation, as mozart was so very famous for his wonderful improvisation, and he wouldnt have been so with mere competence.

Beethoven certainly appreciated Mozart's skill as a composer, but there is indirect evidence he thought less highly of his keyboard skills. In one of the Beethoven "Conversation Books" a visitor asks Beethoven if he ever heard Mozart play. Beethoven's answer is not recorded, but the visitor replies "Ah, well that was in the infancy of piano playing".Saxophobia 01:04, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Persistent insertion of Haydn quote into lead paragraph

Today the anon returned and restored the quote into the lead paragraph, this time removing the quote from the biographical section. I still feel that it is out of place in the lead: long quotes rarely if ever are useful in a lead section, which is a place for the most general statement of a composer's significance. This edit [2] leads me to doubt the good-faith capability of the anon editor, but I'm willing to extend the benefit of the doubt just a bit longer. Any other comments? Antandrus (talk) 8 July 2005 15:24 (UTC)

User formally on Wikibreak, just passing. I agree the quote is out of place in the intro, and belongs in the biography. I also feel that the anon must be ignoring us. Looking at anon's other recent edits, I can see rewordings most of which I find are other than an improvement (anon has incorrectly changed the spelling of acknowledged twice now), and nothing of substance except the persistent unsubstantiated statement that Mozart is categorically the greatest. I hope this anon can be convinced of the Wikipedian collaborative ideal; I suspect s/he just doesn't understand that this is a community, yet - but agree time is running out for the penny to drop. List anon on clueless newbies? --RobertGtalk 8 July 2005 16:04 (UTC)
Hrm. The current version within the article (and he knew Joseph Haydn, who on hearing the six string quartets Mozart dedicated to him - themselves inspired by Haydn's own set of six published as opus 33, known as his Russian quartets.) with the quote excised, makes no grammatical sense. (This apparently due to the anon's edit of 11:17 today.) So I'm doubly confused. Schissel : bowl listen July 9, 2005 03:59 (UTC)
Uh, yes, you are right; I didn't notice that this morning. I think we should move the quotation back into the place where it not only rightfully belongs, but fits grammatically. Antandrus (talk) 9 July 2005 04:16 (UTC)

Influences on Mozart

The previous version had the "influences on Mozart" partly at the wrong times, so I've rearranged and added a bit.

  • friendship with Johann Christian Bach in London
  • meeting with Haydn is believed not to have occurred until Mozart moved to Vienna in 1781
  • meeting with van Swieten and influence of the Baroque composers
  • I moved a "toddler" paragraph one section earlier. This may have messed up the arrangement of pictures, sorry.

The new Haydn section provided a spot to include the famous quote said by Haydn to Leopold. I hope the editor who keeps putting this quote into the intro paragraph will be happy, or at least content, to see it here. I really think it's too specific to put into the intro. Opus33

Probably the greatest influence om Mozart's piano concertos had Paisiello.

recent anonymous addition

This paragraph:

Another--and perhaps even more pervasive--myth about Mozart involves his prodigy as a composer, from childhood until his death. While he was indeed composing from the age of five, musicologists and historians generally agree that the work he completed before he was about 20 is simplistic and rather forgettable. Nor was his adult work as portrayed in Amadeus: finished in his head and written down uncorrected in only one draft, as if by divine inspiration. Quite the contrary, Mozart was a studiously hard worker, and by his own admission his extensive knowledge and intellect about music developed out of many years' close study of the European musical tradition.

Was recently added. It's well-written, and part of it is true. I've been staring at it for ten minutes and can't figure out what to do with it, so I'm bringing it here (for now, I left it in the article--it's at the end). This line in particular is not true: "musicologists and historians generally agree that the work he completed before he was about 20 is simplistic and rather forgettable" -- when he was 17 he wrote the "little" G minor symphony (I think), when 18 he wrote the Symphony No. 29, the violin concertos when he was 18 or 19, -- there is no "general agreement" about these pieces other than that they are spectacularly effective works by one of the most gifted composers who ever lived. The works he wrote in his early teens are deliberate imitations of Italian galant models, and are just as good as a lot of music by J.C. Bach; they are deliberately light and "simplistic" because that style was all the rage. Maybe it would be better to mention the over-promotion by his father, and that there were other child-geniuses (Mendelssohn, Bizet, Korngold come to mind) who actually attained more compositional technique earlier without quite as much hype. Antandrus (talk) 02:11, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

His prodigy has become a legend (Michael Flanders, on introducing his Ill Wind - a hilarious take on the Horn Concerto K. 495 - in At the Drop of Another Hat which I urge you to hear if you don't know it, gets a big laugh by saying that it was written "at the age of about 18 months"), but I agree with Antandrus. I also cite Mozart's Bassoon concerto and Exsultate, jubilate. How about this:
Mozart's prodigy as a composer has become something of a legend, inflated into myth by such portrayals as Amadeus in which the fictional Mozart composes entire works in his head, writing down the finished music in only one draft as if by divine inspiration. In fact Mozart was a studiously hard worker, and by his own reckoning [which I can't immediately find a reference for] his mastery of musical composition was a result of many years' close study of the European musical tradition. Although some compositions from his teens are now accounted exceptionally fine, most of his works which are now accepted as masterpieces date from his maturity..
 ? It's not quite right - has anyone else ideas on how to knock it into shape? --RobertGtalk 09:04, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
The sentence starting with "Quite the contrary" doesn't really present a contradiction - Mozart could have been both studious and draft-free. Can anyone edit / explain?
--Docom, 15:08, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

And, what of Le Chevalier de Saint-George, also known as Joseph de Boulogne? I do believe he influenced Mozart. And, Saint-George was inaccurately nicknamed the Black Mozart. He was older than Mozart. In fact, the final section of Le Petit Rien was COPIED by Mozart from a published piece thAt Saint-George had written. Mozart was a master. A master plagiarist. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talkcontribs) 06:27, 21 January 2007 (UTC).

External links

I trimmed them. is a site where an individual has posted easy keyboard arrangements of various works by many composers including trad and anon, it doesn't add any encyclopedic information about Mozart. The Mozart-Kraus link contains information about Kraus, but for Mozart it is just a list of links to Mozart sites of varying quality; if any of the sites it links to are worthy of inclusion here then add them! Some of them are here already. Amadeus Immortal is a website about the film, with a small amount of information on Mozart; it's already an external link on the Amadeus article. --RobertGtalk 10:17, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

I only wanted to understand why the site was blacklisted. Any reasons? Why consider it spam when it is the Latin American reference on Mozart, mentioned in several publications of La Fenice Opera and with and English translation in process? Why?

I ask the person who did it, please undo it.

I put the link once again. It is visited daily by hundreds of people and I don't make any money with it. If someone want to delete it, please be civilized and add your reasons here.MVO 18:44, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

I removed the link before because the software was not even allowing me to save the page without removing it. A user had misspelt "Vienna", and when I tried to save, it told me that site was blacklisted and that I couldn't save until I removed the link. Heimstern Läufer 20:16, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Unappreciated by some

I propose deleting the clause in the heading, Although his music's character was unappreciated by some during his lifetime,. It seems to me rather vague as it stands: it implies the question "unappreciated by whom?" It replaced "Although Mozart was underappreciated during his lifetime," that was there a while back [3] which I took to mean "his genius and achievements did not gain full recognition during his lifetime"; but even this on reflection seems questionable. Haydn did fully recognise his genius - this is mentioned in the main article while underappreciation is not. Any objections to its deletion? --RobertGtalk 10:17, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

I support deletion. Given that almost all of the major composers were not appreciated by some number of listers during their lifetime, Mozart was one of the most appreciated, to the point that songs from his operas were the equivalent of pops songs today. Few other classical composers have had that success. Jeremy J. Shapiro 21:15, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

Several people who bought his music tried to return it or complained to the publisher about it because it was too complex and contrapuntal for their tastes. Should we mention that in the article? --Berserk798 22:03, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

According to anecdote, when the private string quartet of Hungarian Prince Grassalkowitsch performed for him a quartet out of Mozart's famous set of six and came to a section in it filled with long strains of unsettling chromaticism, he protested that they were playing obviously wrong notes. When the musicians insisted and finally showed to him by presenting him with a copy of the parts that they were not, he took the parts he was given and, enraged, tore them to shreds. The remaining scores for the six quartets the prince had in his possession were mailed back to Antaria—the company that published the quartets—with a note enclosed with them that said, "The engraving is full of mistakes." The source of this story is Norman Lebrecht's The Book of Musical Anecdotes.
This reminds me of the story that in early performances of the Eroica, conductors "corrected" that point in the first movement development section that has the superimposed clashing chords, because they thought a "mistake" had somehow been made in the score. Jeremy J. Shapiro 02:29, 5 October 2005 (UTC) (I took the care of intending your comment, because without that bit of formatting, it looks likes you wrote the first half of my message. I just want to make it clear as to who is saying what. I hope you don't mind, Jeremy. Batman Jr.)
Though it occasionally was true that one living in the time of Mozart had musical tastes too reactionary to enjoy Mozart's sometimes unabashed use of chromaticism and dissonance, he was still generally appreciated and popular. His destitution is often misconstrued as being a consequence of his inability to find good work; in reality, he was often handsomely compensated for his compositions and concert performances as a pianist and conductor, and his poverty was actually born out of his tendency to be a spendthrift and squander his earnings on bets on pool games and just generally live beyond his means. Batman Jr. 00:40, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
I would like to see a section in the article on this contemporary view of Mozart. From this discussion it seems as if there is a lot to talk about. (I only ever hear the usual 'nobody liked him, and he died as a pauper' stuff.) -- 12:03, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Many vs. most

An anonymous editor just changed the introduction to say that "most" of M.'s works are part of the standard concert repertoire, rather than the prior "many". If we define the standard concert repertoire as what's played by major symphony orchestras and classical radio stations, only a small portion of his symphonies and concerti are regularly played, not to mention all of the rarely played cassations, concert arias, etc. So I changed it back to many. Jeremy J. Shapiro 21:15, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

information on style is seriously wanting

For a FA, this article is deficient in that it provides absolutely no information on his style. Please see the guidelines at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Composers#Guidelines_for_musical_style. Tony 04:53, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

You are right. There wasn't a word in the article about style, influence, and so forth. I took a swing at it; it's a bit rough for now. Feel free to edit mercilessly, rearrange, whatever; it could be a huge amount of material, but I tried to keep it relatively short for the start. It might need subsections by type of composition, or perhaps should be mainly chronological. Antandrus (talk) 21:14, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

OK, it's a start. I'll come back to it in the next month or so; otherwise the article should be renamed 'Biography of Mozart' or possibly lose its FA status, which no one wants to see happen. It would also be nice if the sound excerpts were not just a big lump at the bottom, unaccompanied by any helpful information. Tony 09:46, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

'... although in his later works he explored chromatic harmony to a significant degree'—can someone cite some evidence for this? Tony 00:55, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

Relative to his other work, and to what other composers were doing at the time. Have a look at the 40th symphony, both the development sections of the 1st and 4th movements, that piece for musical clock K 608, the finale of the Jupiter symphony, --there's others. Antandrus (talk) 01:02, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
Not to mention the introduction to the Dissonant quartet, "In quali eccesi" in Don Giovanni, and "Der welcher Wandert" in The Magic Flute. Jeremy J. Shapiro 01:12, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

OK, maybe this is justified; but I'm a little concerned that it may be a slight overstatement—I'd be happier saying this about Beethoven's mature period. The 'Dissonance' quartet did stand out in my mind, too, but it's out on a limb, isn't it? Let me rootle around Rosen's The Classical Style and the works themselves; I'll get back to you on this matter. Thx Tony 04:46, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

The intro again

I've moved the following passage to this talk page:

Mozart himself is universally recognized as a musical genius, having learned to compose at the age five and showing an encyclopedic grasp of every musical form of his time despite having lived only for 35 years.

Everything it says is of course true--but is also covered later in the article. And there's a lot to be said for a pithy, short introduction.

My own favorite version is Viajero's, from April 2, 2005 (see discussion of it above). It would be nice to reach a consensus, then try to keep the intro stable.

Opus33 15:55, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

I'm the one who wrote this. The present intro is much too short and non-personalized. A lead can and often should include information that are expounded in depth later in the article. It should make it difficult to mistake the person from another. That's the whole purpose of it. Mozart's lead is legions shorter than many famous people's biographies. I can give you many examples: check out Alfred Hitchcock for instance. Mandel 10:16, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
I take it that the original consensus for this article to have an especially short introduction was because Mozart is potentially such a huge subject the article itself stands as the introduction, with the reader directed to other articles for more detail. I think this was a sensible consensus. Therefore I agree with Opus33 on the whole (although I thought the recent introduction was fine - the five words about him being underappreciated in the version Opus33 refers to is either platitudinous, or implicitly opinionated - what quantity of appreciation should he have had? - we've discussed that matter here, too :-)). In any case, the addition which Opus33 removed doesn't really precis any of the article's content. I don't really agree with all of it, either: he was precocious, yes, but "learned to compose at age 5" is both more and less than the truth, and "encyclopedic grasp of every musical form" is a bold claim which I suspect it would be possible to refute. --RobertGtalk 09:39, 10 October 2005 (UTC)


Anyone find it odd that the title gives Amadeus then the article proper gives Amade? I know the article explains it, but how did scholarship arrive at Amadeus in the first place? Mandel 10:24, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

I think he should be called Amadeus, not Amadé, even though he preferred Amadé himself. Every reference book I know uses Amadeus, and he is universally known by that name. Antandrus (talk) 15:29, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
Seeing no objection, I changed it back to Amadeus. Grove, Slonimsky, the Oxford Companion, and the Encyclopedia Britannica all use Amadeus, and Google's two million hits on "wolfgang amadeus" is nothing to sneeze at. Antandrus (talk) 01:56, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
Thanks, Mandel and Antandrus. I agree completely, and think we might actually go a bit further: what if Mozart called himself "Amadé", but other people called him Amadeus? I've recently been looking at Otto Erich Deutsch's Mozart: A Documentary Biography, which is a collection of original documents. It includes the letter that Constanze, just widowed and threatened with poverty, wrote to the Emperor asking for a widow's pension. She used "Amadeus", not "Amadé". Surely this is a context in which one would tend to use person's "official" name.
I put this and other stuff into Mozart's name, and am pondering whether Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart might be made a bit less preachy about calling the composer "Amadeus".
Opus33 15:14, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

I like to think that Wolfgang Amade Mozart was the man, and Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart is the romanticised legend most people are familiar with. Is this article about a real person, then, or about a myth?

Irishmaestro 13.10, 28 April 2007

Amadeus the Movie

An anonymous editor (User: is being quite persistent in inserting his/her personal analysis of the movie Amadeus, particularly the characterizations of Mozart and Salieri, in the articles on those composers. That movie is a fictionalized account of the lives of those two composers, and information about the movie does not belong in the articles on the composers. If made suitably NPOV and given proper references, that information can be placed in the article on the movie, and should go nowhere else. I believe I have now used up my third revert. Thanks for listening, Antandrus (talk) 19:22, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Buried under a Gas Station in Vienna

Is there any truth to this? Seems odd...

-G —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs)

Mozart was buried in Salzburg, not Vienna. This is impossible. Just another rumor. -Scm83x 21:55, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
That's wrong! Mozart died in Vienna and he is also buried in Vienna and definitely NOT in Salzburg! The funeral was 1791 in St. Stephens cathedral and he got buried in the Saint Marx cemetery - it is today in the 3rd district of Vienna. But there is some true: The gasworks is not far from the St. Marx cemetery and Zentralfriedhof-cemetery :-) --Andreas.poeschek 22:17, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
Consecration ceremonies inside St. Stephen's Cathedral were not allowed in 1791. The ceremony took place outside the church.-- 09:02, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

SeeAlso or Main for the list of works

The pointer under "Works, musical style, and innovations" refers to the list-o-works as a "main article". Now that there is significant material in this section, I think the reference is misleading: the list-o-works is definitely not a "main article" when it comes to musical style and innovations. Would it be acceptable to change this to use the "See Also" template? David Brooks 00:37, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

erm, yes. We must have missed that. Thanks! Antandrus (talk) 00:45, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
done (I was reading the article because KING is wall-to-wall WAM for some reason :-). David Brooks 00:48, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Blue tags are not "links and nothing else"

I disagree strongly with the statement recently made by in the edit summary, "Blue tags are links, and nothing else !!!" (sic). After's edit, the caption for the top image now reads "W. A. Mozart, 1790, portrait by Johann Georg Edlinger (Face only)". I point out that when the article says "Mozart was born in Salzburg", we do not think of "Salzburg" as merely a link to the Salzburg article, but a piece of information which happens to be also conveniently linked to an article. I will not revert since I have plainly touched a nerve; so what do others think? --RobertGtalk 13:26, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Could we perhaps come back to reason? It is evident that the displayed picture shows half the body and not only the face. Who on earth would misunderstand this half-body as a face? The parenthesis is a sign for ADDITIONAL information, and the blue color of the text in the parenthesis is a sign for a LINK. Please. 15:59, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Thank you for your civil explanation. However, people who might want to print the article (to read it on a train, say) might get a laugh out of the apparent silly error. Do we ignore users who might have visual disabilities? In my world, if a portrait is not a face-only portrait and the caption can be construed to say it is then it's an error. Can't we devise some means by which it cannot be so construed? What's the point of linking to the commons image anyway (which seems quite low resolution black-and-white)? It doesn't appear to give much more than the colour image on Wikipedia. --RobertGtalk 17:54, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  • "Can't we devise some means ..." Done. 15:33, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Thank you for trying to address my reservations, but I don't think that has solved it. Now it can be construed as saying it's a "view of the face only", and so it still looks as if the caption is referring to another (absent) image. The solution needs to be such that the link is somehow separate from image's caption. Something like "(click here for a view of the face only)" would satisfy me. Pedantically (but still believing there's a problem), RobertGtalk 16:35, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Done, now ? 20:20, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Thank you kindly for taking the time to address my concerns. --RobertGtalk 09:12, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

To be or not to be that is the question

The question is whether the skull Hamlet is holding possibly belongs to Mozart or not?

The links no longer work. -- Rob C (Alarob)

I REALLY don't see how that could make any sense, because Shakespeare would a) not only have to have predicted the existence of Mozart, but b) would have to be writing about events more than 200 years in the future. It's unfortunate that the links don't work...I would love to see that connection defended... Eganio 00:27, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Classical Period

"Mozart, along with Haydn and Beethoven, was a central representative of the classical style" - Mozart and Haydn, yes, but surely Beethoven is not a good example as (I was always taught) he tends to early Romanticism. Should this be removed? Gluck (or Salieri!) might be a better candidate... BarryNorton 20:45, 10 Jan 2006 (UTC)

Removed Beethoven and reworded to focus on the work, rather than the person, as an archetype of the style. --BarryNorton 15:09, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Myth or Controversy?

"Quite the contrary, Mozart was a studiously hard worker, and by his own admission his extensive knowledge and abilities developed out of many years' close study of the European musical tradition., what? Is this just vandalism that has gone unnoticed for a while? I'll leave it to someone who knows and cares to fix it. --Imperpay 21:19, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
I've removed the offending sentence. It was obviously vandalism. JackofOz 21:27, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Widely Regarded as Pinnacles of Music?

"His enormous output includes works that are widely acknowledged as pinnacles of symphonic, chamber, piano, operatic, and choral music." Inform me if I'm wrong, but I think this is an unsubstantiated statement (especially the part "widely acknowledged as pinnacles"), and should be changed to "His enormous output includes works that are widely acknowledged as pinnacles of CLASSICAL symphonic, chamber, piano, operatic, and choral music." Spartan

I wouldn't disagree with your statement, but I think it's unnecessarily specific. The point is that his works are regarded as the pinnacles of ALL music. Sure, he never wrote in lots of genres like heavy metal. But for the genres we do mention - symphonic, chamber, piano, operatic, and choral music - he is considered to be at the top. We can quibble all day about whether his solo piano music is better or more interesting than Chopin's or Liszt's or Schubert's, but nobody seriously argues with their overall quality (except maybe Glenn Gould, who recorded all the Mozart piano sonatas just to prove how worthless they were - but he was one of a kind). JackofOz 23:14, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
What I meant was, isn't it at least unsubstantiated to say that Mozart's works are WIDELY regarded as pinnacles in the symphonic (that includes both classical and romantic, including Beethoven) music? Spartan
I think this is just as a nonsensical statement as the line in the opening paragraph 'arguably the greatest composer in world history'. Madness! Can't we take an objective stance on this? 'Pinnacles of ALL music' is just as pointless, and terrible Eurocentric, canonistic, etc Gareth E Kegg 18:38, 14 January 2006 (UTC).
If you bothered reading the article, Gareth, you'd realize that it doesn't say all music. Although some may prefer Beethoven's symphonies to Mozart's, I think very few people would say that Mozart's symphonies are any less than examples of the finest composed. It's not saying that he's widely considered to be the best, just that he's widely considered to have been among the greatest composers of those genres. I think you're being a little nitpicky. --Berserk798 03:43, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
Yes, and widely regarded as one of the best composers...ever...period. Eganio 00:31, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Mozart year

I do not know whether the "Mozart year" is of significance outside of Germany and Austria, but if it is, perhaps this article could have some kind of banner to announce this fact, for the duration of 2006? Here is the city of Vienna's website on the subject.

(I assume this is, indeed, an international affair, seeing that the German press made a seamless connection between 2005 being the Einstein year and 2006 the Mozart year. The joke goes that the Mozart year is being postponed and the Einstein year repeated because no one understood it.) - Samsara 13:48, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

It is certainly being widely celebrated in Australia (cf. Austria). As I'm writing this, I'm listening to ABC Classic FM's countdown of the "Your Favourite Mozart Moment" listener poll. The top 100 "moments" are being broadcast over 3 days, culminating in a live concert tonight in which the top 10 moments will be played and broadcast live. JackofOz 02:01, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

How Quant

This text is very quaint: "Constant travel and cold weather may have contributed to his subsequent illness later in life." Did it really? Would you say the same thing about anyone in the 20th century? No? But one said such things in the 19th or 18th century. So it is okay to place this medically nonesensical statement in the article. Seminumerical 16:22, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for spotting this, Seminumerical. By 21st century standards, we'd want to locate peer-reviewed clinical studies (studying randomly selected subject populations, including a matched control population of children who didn't travel a lot in cold weather) if we wanted to accept this as valid. It sounds to me just like what you said--19th century medical ignorance. So I've taken it out. Opus33 16:28, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Google Logo Click Results

This is just a heads up that this article is in the first page of results when one clicks on the Google logo today. There might be more vandals than usual. --Dglynch 04:58, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

It's actually the sixth, don't know how many that means... --yoshi 07:20, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Happy Birthday!

Happy 250th birthday, Mr. Mozart! jayjay 10:35, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Picture by Johann Georg Edlinger doesn't show W. A. Mozart

actually it shows some Joseph Anton Steiner, a merchant and official.

Source: Article from F.A.Z. (Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung): —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs)

This is circunstancial evidence only. Where's the supposed portrait of the wife of the merchant that was on show together with it in the 1920's? The picture certainly resembles Bologna Mozart a lot and the man depicted shows that joyous face we generally associate with Mozart.

Good catch! I've changed the potrait. Hope this one is of him ;-). Shanes 12:15, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
Looking into it further, reading article linked to from the commons page and actually reading the discussion further up on this talk-page, it looks like that article is wrong, and that the portrait is indeed that of Mozart. So I've changed the portrait back. Shanes 12:39, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

You can look at Mozart all you want. Me, I'm going to go listen to him on his 250th birthday ;) - Beowulf314159 13:13, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

(As the one who put all the music on this page) You have no idea how happy it makes me to hear that :) Raul654 17:24, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

You know? There are those who believe not even his music is his: Luchesi authorship controversy

Anon. contributor changed the previous and added:+ This is not proven.Why can't people accept that Mozart portraits do exist outside of the "holy 12" It reminds me of the Mozart manuscript that resurfaced years ago and was declared inauthentic by 7 of the worlds experts, only to be declared "authentic" years later, much to the dismay of these experts.-- 21:09, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
Apart from the fact that the comparison with the authenticity of a manuscript would be totally inappropriate anyway, there never was a "Mozart manuscript that resurfaced years ago and was declared inauthentic by 7 of the worlds experts". This story is 100% fabrication.-- 21:09, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Join the flat earyth society or suspend your disbelief. Be open to change. Maybe the man is Mozart. Maybe he is not. But to declare guilt before the evidence is even compiled is just shooting from the hip.

What evidence disproves that the 'Edlinger Mozart' is not Mozart? I thought they did a split-face test tht concludes that the man in the portait was in fact Mozart? InternetHero 00:10, 22 May 2007 (UTC)


It has been speculated that Mozart suffered from Tourette syndrome. Letters he wrote to his cousin Maria Anna Thekla ("Bäsle") between 1777 and 1781 contain scatological language and he wrote canons titled Leck mich im Arsch ("Lick my ass") or variations thereof (including the pseudo-Latin Difficile lectu mihi mars).

Could we have a source for this? I note that Tourette syndrome involves tics and vocalizations. If our article on it is reliable, Tourette syndrome sufferers wouldn't write involuntary scatological language—certainly not in pseudo-Latin... It's possible that Mozart suffered from Tourette and (voluntarily) transferred his outbursts to paper, but on the other hand it's also possible he was just juvenile in some respects. So, basically, who has speculated this? 20:17, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Google is your friend. It appears to track back to one source, and one website which extensively mixed up verbatim quotes (without correct attribution) from several sources, but all relating back to the same person -- one person -- someone with Tourette's who did a documentary on Mozart in the UK. I did a lot of work in tracking down the sources, and what I came up with was questionable credentials, and what looks like it might be a lot of plagiarism. The author of the website which has fueled the speculation signs with PhD, but does not, apparently, have one (follow his "accrediting" organization via Google. It appears that the organization is not accredited, and one website even suggests that the Universal Life Church sells PhD's for about $50 -- the webmaster has another page indicating his association with Universal Life Church). Every other source that references this (Tourette Syndrome Association, Tourette Syndrome "plus" website, and statements from neurologist Oliver Sacks) states that there is not adequate evidence that Mozart had TS. I followed all of the sources from the webpage which fed this notion on the internet, and besides the lack of adequate attribution for extensive verbatim passages taken from the one UK source, and the questionable PhD credentials, the sources are either 1) all from the one person with Tourette's who did a documentary on Mozart in the UK, and who had the unsupported, speculative opinion that Mozart had TS, or 2) are not full quotes from other more reputable sources, who do not support the conclusions on the website, and offer other explanations for Mozart's scatalogical content, or 3) there IS no source for some of the more sensational quotes included in the site, and some of it has now propogated throughout the internet, with no apparent source. There appears to be no credible evidence, and most of what you do find on the internet tracks back to one questionable source. I wouldn't be surprised if you find that the same source added the info here. Here is the only credible source I found, and it appears to offer alternate explanations for the scatalogical content of Mozart's letters. [4]
Yes, the excellent documentary series recently shown in the UK utterly discredited this, not least on the basis that this is also the way his mother wrote back ("shit in the bed for me")! It's just a question of his not being subject to our Victorian taboos. --BarryNorton 19:08, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
Unfortunately, some members of the Tourette's community are enamored of the idea that Mozart had Tourette's, and promote the notion in spite of no professional consensus that he had Tourette's. I have met with resistance in attempting to remove and/or edit the entry of Mozart as a famous person on the Tourette syndrome page. Although no professionals or experts in TS have endorsed this notion, and several TS experts have come out against it, individuals (seeking website traffic and because they like the idea) continue to promote it. Good luck changing it, when a high profile webmaster promotes it, most likely to gain website hits. Here is a the discussion on the Tourette's talk page. Talk:Tourette_syndrome#FAMOUS_PEOPLE

Sandy 01:47, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

This section - of nearly 300 words! - concludes by saying that basically there's no evidence that Mozart had Tourette's. So why is it here? We have 300 words on unsubstantiated and not very interesting speculation about Tourette's and 500 words on Mozart's musical influence. May I suggest that the entire passage be cut, or at least reduced to a sentence or two? Anyone want to second this motion? --Ggbroad 18:15, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
In principle, I agree it could be shortened (and I could work on that if there's consensus). On the other hand, as soon as you shorten it, you may find that other editors continue to add the speculation back in. By providing a full summary of the situation, we've seen less speculative additions over time. So, my concern is that, if you shorten it, you may find the entry becomes unstable, and find speculative edits occurring again. Unfortunately, the unfounded speculation got enough attention that it has to be dealt with. Perhaps an inline link to this will help, but the version here is more thorough. Thoughts ?? Sandy 18:28, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
I did something bold and hacked it down to two sentences. Surely we can provide links to other sources on the dispute. I just have a problem with the idea of using what ought to be a serious entry in a reference work (and former feature article) as a sort of defacto sandbox or discussion board for disputes over whether or not a long-dead composer had a disease. But if I'm out-of-line I'll accept a rv. --Ggbroad 18:33, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
ah, well, it's done :-) I'll go back and try to work in a link when I have more time later, and copy some of what you deleted over to the TS article for reference. The goal is to avoid future speculative edits, and as long as the information is somewhere, that may be accomplished. Sandy 18:43, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Know your sources !

Wikipedia shouldn't be in the business of quoting unauthoritative sources for such an important item.

"Although this alone isn't an indicator of Tourette's, he also had strong physical tics and twitches, poor impulse control, and several other aspects which do strongly point to the disorder. [1]"

Poor impulse control is not a symptom of Tourette's, just because one "sufferer" in the UK may think it is. There are alternate explanations for all of the alleged symptoms attributed to Mozart, not the least of which is the prevailing culture at the time.

There is NO indication from any credible source that Mozart had tics or twitches, again, just because a musician/composer with Tourette's says so. And there are no tics mentioned in the referenced articles or the original sources from which all the writing was taken, verbatim.

No credible neurologist, TS expert, or authoritative source endorses the notion that Mozart had Tourette's, and multiple sources have indicated that there is no evidence to support this (see the Tourette syndrome entry).

The reference given on the Mozart entry claiming he had Tourette's is to a website written by a layperson, not an official source for information about Tourette's disorder, and using writing all taken from basically one other source (a documentary by a Tourette's musician in the UK), without correct attribution. Nothing in any of those sources credibly attributes tics to Mozart. Did the [| author of that website] add the entry? tsk, tsk.

Referencing Wikipedia:Verifiability, that website is a source of dubious reliability, as well as a self-published source. The "accredited PhD" alone makes it a source of dubious reliability. This is how "Mozart with Tourette's" becomes an internet urban legend. 05:48, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Nonauthentic portraits

Some author of a study, Martin Braun, tries to place links to his site and studies about mozart-portraits. He claims to have proven the authenticy of two portraits, the edlinger-portrait and the hagenauer-portrait. Both are questionable, the latter absolutely. In en both portraits and the according weblinks were inserted by User:Salinasa. You can find more discussion on de:Diskussion:Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart (in german). --stefan (?!) 12:50, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

User:Saliente is also active in this case. --stefan (?!) 13:03, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
and so is User: Contributions (also active in "neurobiologic articles", another field of interest of Mr. Braun, see [5]). IP is from sweden. Braun lives in sweden. --stefan (?!) 20:32, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
  • The one that was there until recently looked more like a portrait of Tom Hulce dressed like Mozart. Wahkeenah 18:17, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
For totally unknown reasons Braun calls his portrait "Hagenauer-Mozart". It should really be called "Wikipedia-Mozart".-- 12:57, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
Somebody, I don't say it's Braun himself, is spreading Brauns two Mozarts throughout all wikipedias with a lot of energy. I'd name the Hagenauer "Brauns-Mozart". --stefan (?!) 11:17, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Constanze and Weber

The article describes Constanze as a "would-be" cousin of Carl Maria von Weber. What does this mean? Was she his cousin or not? (I must admit, I had always thought she was Weber's sister, but have been recently brought up to speed on that). JackofOz 01:56, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm answering my own question here. Constanze's father was Fridolin (jr) (1733-79). Carl Maria's father was Franz Anton (1734-1812). Fridolin and Franz Anton were brothers (their father was Fridolin sr). That makes Carl Maria and Constanze first cousins. I've made the necessary change. JackofOz 10:10, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
Fridolin and Franz Anton were half-brothers because they had different mothers. The entry is now correct.-- 15:05, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Inconclusive DNA?

Concerning the sentence:

"However, test results were inconclusive, showing that none of the DNA samples were related to each other."

If none the DNA samples were related to each other, doesn't that mean the results WERE conclusive?

Yes indeed, they were. The alleged "Mozart grave" does not contain Mozart's relatives and the samples of "Mozart's hair" did not grow on Mozart's head. The alleged "Mozart skull" is nothing but a clumsy fake.-- 12:59, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Know your sources !: Not such Coprolalia

The so related use words like ass, fart, shit, and so, that appears on his letters, or the description of some scatological actions related with the before mentioned terms, wouldnt have to be linked to any pathological behavior, taking for granted that he had the proper manners for working in the highest level of the age´s society.

The use of that vocabulary in a private level, has not got more relation with a supossed affliction than with a humoristic wit-humour not far from outstanding artists. Searching in the life of promminent people must be accomplished with a human angle. Perhaps a wrong understanding of an icon lead us to assume an excessive importance in its phobias or philias.

It could be an error if we try to realize any psichological evaluation in every single aspect of a creator. And useless, creating another myth when is a matter of our historical mentality. The preceding unsigned comment was added by Conejolunar (talk • contribs) .

Still being Vandalized

By Reverted 2/28/06 7:23 PM


Maybe I'm just being pedantic, but I don't like having this article justified. Although justification looks nice on a page, it actually makes the page harder to read, because of the uneven spaces between words. I think there is a reason that the wikipedia style sheet does not have all pages justified, and I think we should stick to that (see Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Miscellaneous notes). I'm gonna change it back per the MOS, and if people feel strongly they can talk about it here. Makemi 16:30, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Lead image

Can we agree on what the lead image is to be? I know this has been under discussion before - but I can't find a consensus. The image name was "broken" by an anon, then the image was deleted as broken, and then a different image was used to replace it. I put it back to the drawing by Doris Stock which was there yesterday because I think it is preferable as a contemporary portrait. Was this right? Can we agree that this (or another) image is the best for the top of the article, and then stick with it? --RobertGtalk 16:16, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree that it's nice to have the contemporary drawing in the lead. It gives a clearer likeness than the painting down the page, and it's better to have something contemporary than a later extrapolation. Makemi 22:15, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Met J.S.Bach?

"When he went to London as a child, he met J.C. Bach and heard his music..." says the article. However, as the article states, Mozart was born in 1756, as Bach died already in 1750. Where's the error or don't I now get something?

He did meet J.C. Bach (Johann Christian Bach) -- J.S. Bach's son (1735-1782). JC's music was extremely influential in the early development of the classical style. Antandrus (talk) 22:00, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
Ah, my bad indeed. Back to the studying I guess :-)

KV 570

A piece that is labeled kv570 is available in the download section, however, I'm not sure that it actualy is kv570. 570 is a sonata for piano only (blacklisted link removed). Both seem to be in B major though. Can someone identify the piece? --Blackfield 22:45, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Alternative source:
This piece is not kv. 570, but it is infact kv. 317d, a piano/violin sonata. --Funper 22:32, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Retarded criticism

"Another area of debate involves Mozart's prodigy as a composer from childhood until his death. While some have criticised many of his earlier works as simplistic or forgettable, others revere even Mozart's juvenilia."

People actually debate this? What kind of music were they writing as children? XAlpha 11:47, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

The problem is not that people see the works as bad for a child, they just don't think they should be held up as pinnacles of awesomeness. Because they're by a child, and thus not quite so awesome. Makemi 18:23, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
But they were pretty awesome for a child. I mean, I can understand qualifying it, I can see saying "Well, it's not the greatest music ever written, but it's pretty damn amazing considering Mozart was 5 years old." Saying "Mozart's music just sucks!" just sounds like jealousy to me. XAlpha 14:41, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
I doesn't say that. It says that some think that his music from childhood was forgettable (qua music, not qua child), but others basically worship it. I think you're seeing a problem that doesn't really exist. Makemi 16:35, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Reference format

How about switching over to the <ref>Source</ref> referencing format for individual statements? That would make the article more verifiable. Shawnc 13:41, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Also on referencing, generally: shouldn't there be one uniform way of doing the Köchel numbers? I've just lightly coopyedited the whole article, and I regularised the form to "K. xxx" (which seemed to dominate); except that in the long list towards the end we have the form "Kxxx". I prefer this last, myself. Should we adopt it throughout? Noetica 23:28, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

about poverty and money

please someone put some facts from here [6] to the article. thank you! --Monk 08:02, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Material overlap

Some sentences seem like they belong to different sections. Eg. "it has been popularly assumed that Mozart was penniless" seems to fit under "Myths and controversies". The section "Mozart in popular culture" is very short and doesn't contain fictional works such as "Amadeus" which is actually mentioned elsewhere. There should be better organization of the article's structure. Shawnc 06:32, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Ages four and five

I removed the unsourced statement ... "By the age of four he could play the violin extraordinarily well. He would approach ladies in the street and amaze them with his music, some of which he had written himself." and replaced it with sourced info for ages 4 and 5. I'd be happy to see this stuff reintroduced if someone has a source. — Stumps 12:21, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Mozart portraits in Austria

I recently visited Austria, and noticed that in almost all of the portraits of Mozart around Vienna, he is drawn with his eyes looking upward, almost like he's having a seizure, or about to sneeze out something awful. Also, Sigmund Freud was also portrayed this way. Can somebody explain this? -Taco325i 18:55, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

This is an advertisement for the festival Wiener Festwochen.
see Vienna Festival. --stefan (?!) 13:08, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for that info. But any explanation as to why he's looking up? -Taco325i 13:34, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
Have you tried to sneak up from behind some bushes to view these portraits? Dilbird 18:44, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

It's supposed to symbolise that, in the year of anniversaries of both Mozart and Freud, there is an over-excitement. After all, since january we can buy Mozart-sausages, mozart-joghurt, mozart milk.... it's rather ridiculous, that's why they are 'rolling their eyes'. It's not an official explanation but I deduced it from this huge hype.


My changes bring the information about Mozart's nationality in line with the correct formulation achieved in German-language Wikipedia after lengthy discussions. Mozart was both German and Austrian, which was no contradiction until the divisive war of 1866. Mozart himself in multiple letters leaves absolutely no doubt about his German identity (see German-language Mozart Wikipedia discussion). As given in the article, Salzburg was an independent state in the Holy Roman Empire, but indeed Mozart flourished later within Viennese classicism, so one may call him Austrian as well (as much as at that time, a composer active in Munich would have been both Bavarian and German). However, the previous formulation was as ahistoric as calling Julius Caesar Italian, and one should avoid fruitless discussions whether he was "more Austrian" or "more German". Dhh28 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dhh28 (talkcontribs)

@ Dhh28: You are right, that at the time of Mozarts birth, being Austrian AND German was possible due to the "Holy Roman Empire of the German(ic) Nation" which consisted mostly of those regions who form nowadays Austria and Germany. But I have to correct you in one specific date: The divise war from 1866 between Preussen (Northern-Germany) and Austria was important for the end of all (resting) unification-ideas between Austria and Germany. But the real split-up began already in 1806 when the "Holy Roman Empire of the German(ic) Nations" was liquidated - mainly due to strong military and political pressure from Napoleon. It was the Austrian emperor Franz I. (as Franz II. also the last emperor of the "Holy Roman Empire of the German(ic) Nations") who had to fulfill this unpleasing task in summer 1806. -- 23:31, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

He's obviously been more attributed to Austria, and it's the general conception not only there, but also in Germany. I guess it's fine to keep him as 'Austrian'; Austria's history is known to be very diverse and ambigious, since most famous 'austrians' also had the blood of neighbouring countries: most people would know this I assume. (ok, that ended up really confused- I hope you understand it).

This has been discussed before. Sensible comments are here and above. Please can we come to a consensus if we are to say he was "German"? I happen to think that calling him "Austrian" or "German" is pretty meaningless if people are to understand today's usage of those attributions, but "Austrian" is slightly less meaningless than "German" in Mozart's case. --RobertGtalk 10:53, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Why Mozart was a "German" composer...

Beethoven was born in Bonn (modern-day Germany). Mozart was born in Salzburg (modern day Austria). Both worked in Vienna (modern-day Austria) which was arguably the cultural and political centre of the Holy Roman Empire and central Europe. When Beethoven was born, Bonn was within the boundaries of the Electorate of Cologne, which had an arguably stronger link to Vienna than the more sovereign Archbishopric of Salzburg. Cologne was militarily linked to the Habsburgs, and supplied troops in a more direct fashion to the Emperor's army than other principalities. In Beethoven's day, Bonn was more politically "Austrian" than Salzburg, if you want to use such terms. Neither composer was born in lands directly controlled by the Habsburg family. Both considered themselves German. How is Mozart not a German composer, when Beethoven is? To call Mozart anything but German is to change history. The modern states of "Germany" and "Austria" have a shared history in a German Holy Roman Empire that never managed to politically unite in the way France or other countries would. Caesar was a Roman, not an Italian. A German-speaking man born in Alsace prior to Louis XIV's invasion is not to be remembered as a Frenchman, simply because said territory is now under a different flag. -- Annonymous history student, November 30, 2006
The annonymous history student is absolutely right! How did Mozart write in a letter from 1782: "Keinem Monarchen der Welt diene ich lieber als dem Kaiser, aber erbetteln will ich keinen Dienst. Will mich Deutschland, mein geliebtes Vaterland, worauf ich, wie Sie wissen, stolz bin, nicht aufnehmen, so muß in Gottes Namen England oder Frankreich wieder um einen geschickten Deutschen reicher werden, und das zur Schande der deutschen Nation".

I'm German, so my English is rather bad, but I try to translate it: "I like serving the emperor more than any other monarch (...) If Germany, my beloved fatherland, on which I'm proud as you know, doesn't want to have me, then England or France will again get one good German to the disgrace of the German nation." —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk) 14:51, 25 December 2006 (UTC).

One way to resolve this (as the meaning of both "German" and "Austrian" have changed) is to refer to him as European. -- Rob C (Alarob) 15:25, 10 February 2007 (UTC)


Recently someone – a Wikipedia editor of all people – deleted the word "greatest" from the first paragraph at this article and did so with barely a word of explanation. Our article says that Mozart was "one of the greatest" European composers, not the greatest, and it's a view that's very widely held. It's a given – a truism – in musical scholarship. If he ranked in the top twenty – out of all the hundreds and hundreds of classical European composers whose music is performed today - he'd still qualify as "one of the greatest". Of course there are naysayers, people who would have you believe that he ranked somewhere alongside Boccherini or Correlli or other second-tier composers of his day, but, come on. His operatic achievements alone place him among the foremost European composers. Indeed, one can make a case for Mozart as the greatest European composer for the breadth of his accomplishment. One might argue that other individual composers had greater symphonic achievements or greater operatic achievements or did more marvelous things with the piano, etc., but I'm not aware of another composers who produced so many masterpieces in so many genres. Certainly a serious case can be made for only a very few, maybe two or three, classical (using the word broadly) composers as being greater. Beethoven, perhaps. Not many others.

Mozart did have many masterpieces in many genres, but not masterpieces of Beethovenian proportions. It seems to make more sense (to me at least) to judge a composer's greatness by the impact he made on music history rather than on his prolificness. Neverthless, I do not, of course, dispute Mozart's status as one of the greatest composers. Spartan
It seems to make more sense to you because Beethoveen was no prolific at all...Besides, the impact of Mozart on music history is a subtle subject, it is not as easy as you believe...Worlfel2007 04:43, 1 August 2007 (UTC)Worlfel2007
From what I said, nowhere did I imply that Beethoven was not prolific. In fact, a look at Beethoven's list of works will convince you that quite the opposite is true. While the impact of Mozart on music history is a subtle subject (and nowhere did I imply he was not influential), the impact of Beethoven on music history has been well-established and widely quoted.
Saying "one of the greatest" is nore more POV than saying "one of the most significant." --Ggbroad 00:39, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
Just while I'm on the topic, can I point out that the entry on Beethoven calls him "one the greatest" and the entry on Shakespeare refers to him as "THE greatest" writer in the English language. --Ggbroad 00:42, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
You're correct. It caught me by suprise the first time I read it. Browsing quickly around a few other Classical composer articles(about a dozen)...I found the words "one of the greatest" appeared on all of them. It's an unprovable statement on its own and if it were on this article alone would be incorrect. Being on so many other articles validates it somewhat. Although technically it falls under WP:AWW but I won't argue it on the grounds of Wiki-consistency. Good day. 00:57, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
Hi. I removed it because I was rather amazed there should be such a peacock term in the leading sentences, and because it's redundant when immediately followed by most significant. I don't think I would describe it as POV unless there were opinions to the contrary which weren't accounted for (are there?). It's more of a grammar thing. I know the use of this term has been discussed elsewhere on Wikipedia, with mixed consensus, but I think this is a poor example of its use. -- zzuuzz (talk) 01:15, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
Well, one can be great but not significant, and significant without being great. The one does not imply the other. So I don't agree that it's redundant at all. --Ggbroad 01:23, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
Following up, I don't quite get the hesitation about the use of words such as "greatest". In Mozart's case, as in Beethoven's, Shakespeare's, and Muhammad Ali's, it's widely held and widely used in other reference works by major publishing houses. Or perhaps we're all supposed to be relativists who believe that it's not possible to make esthetic judgments of any kind. But don't get me started on that. --Ggbroad 01:27, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
To follow up that, it is not your position to make any such judgment. If he is widely considered to be the greatest then you should say so, not state it as an objective fact. Look at Ludwig van Beethoven and the other examples mentioned here. Note that Beethoven is is widely regarded as one of history's greatest, and not one of the greatest. The distinction is subtle, but important in terms of objectivity and verifiability. -- zzuuzz (talk) 21:44, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
Wrong, look at Beethoven`s article and see that the expression "ONE OF THE GREATEST" is used ("He is regarded as one of the greatest composers in the history of music")Worlfel2007 04:17, 1 August 2007 (UTC)Worlfel2007
My problem is that this seems to deny the possibility of making any value judgment of any kind without qualification in order to create some pretense of "objectivity". Hence, for instance, on Wikipedia, I apparently can't say what hundreds of art historians have said in print and claim that, for instance, Michaelangelo's Davidis a masterpiece, or Shakespeare's Hamlet is a work of genius or Mozart's Marriage of Figaro is a great opera, I have to say that "it's widely considered to be". This seems to me to suck the life out of writing for the very dubious goal of producing a pretense of objectivity. Moreover, I must point out that the words and phrases that follow upon "greatest" in the Mozart article - "most significant" and "enduringly popular" are also judgments - do we have to say "widely considered to be" in front of those as well? --Ggbroad 12:26, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

15 Languages

The claim is made under "triva" that Mozart spoke 15 languages, and the source is the Dallas Symphony Orchestra's website for kids, which I don't consider authoritative. I'd like to see a source for this from a scholarly biography. Obviously he spoke fluent German and Italian, presumably had some significant ability in Latin and (I assume) Greek, probably good French, some Spanish, some English. So there's a very generous seven. How do we get to fifteen? --Ggbroad 14:34, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

I deleted it, since really "speaking" 15 languages arguably requires extreme, insular linguistic talent and/or full-time work as a linguist or translater etc. Try it yourself. If knowing some phrases of politeness in a language already counts as speaking, then the information becomes even more trivial. Might be good to have clear information about his linguistic abilities; however, 1) if it is roughly as Ggbroad described, then his knowledge seems quite normal for a traveling educated musician of his time, 2) a "Trivia" section seems a direct contradiction to "encyclopedia" to me. Arguably, all information in this section should be distributed over the article or deleted.--Dhh28 19:48, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Oh my gosh, this information is also found in the book, "Lives of the Musicians" by Kathleen Krull and illustrated by Kathryn Hewitt. I wouldn't have put such information in the article if I hadn't seen it in several other sources. Here is another source for this information. Direct quote from the article, "By that time, Mozart spoke 15 languages and had composed numerous major pieces of music, including an opera." [7] The bottom line is, I have found this information in too many places to keep it out of the article. I am adding it back into the article. If you will delete it again, even with sources then I give up. --Stardust6000 14:58, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Is this supposed to be an interesting fact about Mozart, or an interesting fact about travellers and/or professional musicians of the period? (Consider analogous case - most professional musicians could probably pick out a simple tune on dozens of different instruments - but would we be comfortable saying one could play dozens of instruments?) If we are worried about making excessively strong claims about Mozart's linguistic abilities, then maybe the statement needs to be reworded rather than deleted. --RichardVeryard 11:02, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Einstein Quote

The quote about Mozart and purity is commonly attributed to Albert Einstein. But it was Alfred Einstein who wrote the book about Mozart. Do we have a more exact source?--RichardVeryard 22:05, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

You make an excellent point. I think it's far more likely that Alfred said it than Albert, but I don't have a source right now. Mak (talk) 22:11, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
I'd be amazed if it was Albert. Alfred is the one who revised the Köchel catalog. An Albert/Alfred confusion is common, especially with ghostwriters for orchestra programs, but I'm guessing, and like Makemi, don't have a source in front of me. Antandrus (talk) 18:00, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
I agree with the above. The confusion is common - they even made the mistake quite recently in the New York Review of Books. I'm assuming Alfred. --Ggbroad 19:38, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
Based on the above comments, I propose we change the article to Alfred with a [citation needed] notice, and remove the unreliable reference to the Tuscon orchestra programme. I presume this discussion will be retained on the Talk page until a proper citation is found. --RichardVeryard 10:48, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
Agreed. --Ggbroad 10:56, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Albert was very fond of Mozart's music. He would play his violin sonatas when he was young with his mother. He is quoted as once saying “If I were not a physicist, I would probably be a musician.” While this does not in any way prove that he said the quote, it would not be crazy to think it possible. Also, the Mozart page, and the Mozart quote page of this site have a differnt name for the quote on each. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talkcontribs) .

Why would anybody think that it was not Albert Einstein, the physicist? Do you guys actually know anything about his life and what were his interests? I've read a biography about Albert, and recall reading from it that he often mentioned his love of Mozart, whom he thought to be the greatest of all composers. I can't recall which biography, but I would be surprised if this information weren't mentioned in every decent biography about Einstein. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talkcontribs) .
Why would you think that it is Albert, the scientist, and not Alfred, who was a musicologist and biographer of Mozart? Becuase you've heard of Albert but not Alfred? I have Abraham Paris's biographies. of Einstein and can't find this quotation in it. It's clearly more likely that Alfred was the source of this quotation, although I think that the quotation should be removed until such time as we can verify that Alfred or Albert or anybody, for that matter, actually said it.--Ggbroad 16:55, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
Why? I suggest you reread my previous comment. As for Paris, surely he at least mentions that Albert thought more highly of Mozart than any other composer, and that Albert was born in a very musical family and also played the violin as a child and mainly the piano as an adult? Moreover, the quote sounds more like a physicist might have said it than a musicologist, don't you think? In any case, I agree that somebody should check the source...—Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs)
While there is a small chance it may have been Albert, and I've been wrong before, --have you read any of Alfred's works? such as The Italian Madrigal, his magnum opus? his writing style is inimitable. It's bubbly and enthusiastic and full of POV and just utterly fun to read. Now I don't have a source in front of me, but this statement is so utterly Alfredesque that I simply can't imagine it being by anyone else, and Alfred devoted a good portion of his life and work as a musicologist to studying Mozart and cataloguing his works. But having said that, do I realize we need to track this back to a source and cite it. Antandrus (talk) 15:29, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
See my comment at "Alfred Einstein Quote" below. JackofOz 01:53, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Playing Piano Blindfolded

I tried to find a source. The best I could find was this. There are some good sources at the bottom of the article on this site. Could we use this? 23:53, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

That was not a piano. That was a harpsichord.


Well, the article says its a piano. I know he played the harpsichord, but is this a good source? 20:18, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Constanze and Mozart lying together in Mozart Deathbed

"There is another legend, it is about Mozart final days, it tells that Constanze lyed down at Mozart side in his deathbed in order to dead with him."

well ok it is ridiculous. But also I read a book (written by an expert, I don't remember the title) about Mozart telling this story and referring to that as a legend. It is ridiculous because is a LEGEND. Also if you see the article history you will see that I put it in Myths and Controversies. User:Atenea26 00:05, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Bonjour, I remember reading that Constanze told this years after to the Novellos or some other friends of hers. This doesn't prove it to be true, of course, merely that this is not some legend created afterwards but what the widow told. You may find some details on Agnes Selby's 'Constanze, Mozart's Beloved' Turton & Armstrong Pty. Ltd. (November 1999) [still anonymous, don't know how to register... 21:07, 6 January 2007]

No mention of ...

Shouldn't there be a mention that he could reputedly hear musical patterns in everyday sound? 01:43, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Can't you? Can't everybody? I don't think that's a skill that's particular to Mozart.
Yeah, many skilled musicians/composers (and even the not so skilled) can find musical patterns in everyday sound. He was a great musician, but I don't think it was just him. 13:28, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Major Cleanup in Order

Who is up for a major cleanup of this article? It's too long, uncited, and unbalanced (there's more "myths and controversies" and "triva" than there is stuff about music, more about whether or not he had Tourette's than about his operas, too much about the criticism and defense of the movie and the play) I can write, have some historical knowledge, but know something less than nothing about the mechanics of musical composition. But I'm up for a major rewrite if other people are. --Ggbroad 18:06, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

May I suggest that the passage concerning the Amadeus film under myths and controversies be moved to a separate section concerning the film and that it be made more concise? I could be rewritten in about two short paragraphs. Would anyone object if I tried it? --Ggbroad 18:44, 1 August 2006 (UTC)


Former featured article

Linked at the top of the page, and here. Sandy 20:25, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Influence section reads like a gossip column

There are many interesting anecdotes in the influences section, and intriguing (but rhetorical) statements about paralleles between Mozart and his successors - none of which seem to be supported with any authority whatsoever! Good read, maybe, but certainly not convincing.. Seems a shame for such an important topic. 07:23, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Amadeus film section should be moved out

I agree with the person who suggested that the Amadeus section (on the film) should not be here, in this article. This article is about the man, not the films about the man. A link to the film would be more appropriate. 07:51, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

I disagree for a lot of reasons. One, before the film section existed, there was an even larger discussion of the film under "myths and controversies." Two, the article on the film is not very good. Three, most of what the general public knows about Mozart comes from the film - ie) far more people have seen the film than will ever read a serious biography of Mozart. I see no reason why a brief, one paragraph section on the film detracts from the rest of the article.Ggbroad 12:06, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
Having a section on Amadeus is like having a section for "Downfall" and a hundred other Hitler films on Hitler (instead we have a film link section: or having a section on Kundun in the Dalai Lama: - instead there is a link. Come on people - the page is about the man, not the films about the man. 13:37, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
No, it's not at all the same, because Downfall didn't have anything remotely like the impact on the public's perception of Hitler than Amadeus has had for Mozart. As Neville Marriner once observed, the film Amadeus did more to popularize Mozart and his music with the general public than everything that had happened in the two hundred years prior to it. Over on the Salieri page, for instance, about half the page is devoted to refuting the stuff about Salieri in the Amadeus film. So, in brief, the movie Amadeus is part of the story of Mozart the man. It's just a short passage, it's not hurting the article, it helps to clear up common misconceptions. I say leave it. --Ggbroad 13:51, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
I have a feeling that you'll keep arguing this point, so I'm make a final observations. One, the section on the film is 250 words out of total of 4700 words in the article. It's 5% of the total length of the article and can be read in about one minute. Removing it would add nothing to the article, detract some important information about the relationship between Mozart and one of his contemporaries, and remove answers to common questions that the general public has about Mozart. That, it seems to me, is the whole point of Wikipedia.--Ggbroad 13:59, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
I don't object to having a reference to Amadeus in the Mozart article. It has indeed helped to popularise Mozart to many people who would otherwise have known nothing much (or nothing at all) about him. However, please read my comment under "Mozart Requiem" below - the film should NEVER be used as a source for biographical material about him - particularly his relationship with Salieri. Shaffer never claimed it was biographically accurate, and often acknowledged it was not. It was never intended with that purpose in mind. It contains "some important information" about Mozart - such as the beauty of his music and the ease and rapidity with which he wrote it. But much of the "information" about Mozart vs. Salieri is historically inaccurate. We can't use ANYTHING in the movie as a source for the information in our article, just as we couldn't use "JFK" as a source for our article on the Kennedy assassination, or "Gandhi" as a source for our article about Gandhi. We can report that a film called Amadeus exists, and that it has had a major cultural infuence on the world's appreciation of Mozart, and we can give other information about the film, but using the film as a source for a life of Mozart is not appropriate. JackofOz 01:49, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Help me please.

I have heard rumors that Mozart was a let's just say how the person I know said it "pervert".I don't know if this is true and don't know if anyone else knows if it is true but I need it to be cleared in my mind.I'm truly sorry if this offends anyone in any way I don't mean for it to be that way I just need some input so I can clear it as I said above and to correct the person I know if it is false.Thankyou

I believe Mozart's "perverted" status was spread by the movie Amadeus, but I seem to recall that Mozart did do "dirty" puns before. You might want to ask the reference desk. bibliomaniac15 03:09, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Perversion implies so many things. By many accounts, Mozart was petulant, tawdry, and lewd, at the extreme (I think the article itself makes mention of it), but it depends on your definition of what constitutes a pervert...just enjoy his music. I don't think a truly accurate representation of Mozart can ever be authenticated to everyone's satisfaction, especially in the dramatic arts. Eganio 22:19, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Alfred Einstein quote

I found the quote on a site that predates Wikipedia (1998):

""Mozart is the greatest composer of all. Beethoven created his music, but the music of Mozart is of such purity and beauty that one feels he merely found it - that it has always existed as part of the inner beauty of the universe waiting to be revealed." Albert Einstein, well known for his revolutionary discoveries and theories in physics, found the music of this 18th-Century composer worthy of such praise." [8]

I'd put it as a citation, but this source says it's Albert Einstein not Alfred.

It was indeed "Albert Einstein" who said this about Mozart, not Alfred. Typing the quote into the search engine will bring up a very high number of links. This is because the quote is somewhat famous. There is not one single source that says Alfred Einstein said this. Here are a few more sources confirming that this is Albert Einstein's quote.[9][10][11][12]--Stardust6000 16:18, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

What we really need is the original source of the quote, i.e. the letter, address, article, interview, or book in which it appeared, whether by Albert or Alfred, and not one of these unreliable web "sources". I know it's widely attributed to Albert--and it indeed may be by Albert--but if it is truly an Albert quote, it should be traceable. Most of the people who put up these websites don't know who Alfred is, let alone know his writing style, which closely matches that of the quote. Just my two cents. Antandrus (talk) 17:03, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

These sources are quite reliable. Many of them are from festival organizations. There is absolutely no proof that Alfred said this. This is just simply not his quote, it is Albert's. So unless you or anyone can find a source that says it is Alfred's quote, It should be left as Albert's and not changed anymore. Remember that there is only information that confirms it is what Albert Einstein said.--Stardust6000 17:16, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

I disagree entirely. "Reliable sources" are forever confusing Alfred and Albert, since everybody has heard of Albert and comparatively few know Alfred. This exact mistake (confusing the two) was made - and subsequently corrected - in the New York Review of Books, of all places, in a recent discussion of some biographies of Mozart. So I find it entirely plausible that half a dozen internet sites, replicating one another's content, could get this wrong. Alfred devoted much of his life to Mozart. I do not think you can conclusively state, "this is just simply not his quote" (quotation). I agree we should delete the quotation until positive attribution from a reliable, scholarly *print* source can be found. Ggbroad 18:52, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

And who is the one who decided that it might be Alfred's quote, there is no evidence to support this. I just keep pulling up sources confirming that this is Albert's quote. How do you know that these Reliable sources are forever confusing Alfred and Albert. That is your opinion. Albert Einstein happened to be quite fond of Mozart. To remove this information even with sources is utterly rediculous, and to change Albert to Alfred without any sources is spreading incorrect information to people that read this article. Here is another source.[13]--Stardust6000 19:07, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

I also think the quote should come out unless you can find a reliable print source giving Albert as the author. Most of these internet sites just copy misattributed quotes from each other. Antandrus (talk) 19:19, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

The Mizel Center is not one of those sites, it is an official website. Why is it so hard for you to believe. Why do wish to continue arguing about this when I've provided so many sources. These sites that I have listed are not unreliable. Many of them are organizations that could not afford to get their information wrong like this. I can't find anything that points to this being Alfred's quote. What more do you all want? What about this symphony orchestra website.[14]--Stardust6000 19:29, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

What more we all want is a reliable source by Wikipedia's official policy. Websites that scrape quotes off of each other are NOT reliable sources.
Albert might have said it. Alfred may have written it. Either way, if it goes in the article, it needs a source to the original. Your use of proof by assertion -- "it is an official website" "These sources are quite reliable" "This is just simply not his quote, it is Albert's" is not helpful. Would you please read the page on reliable sources? I see from your talk page that we're not the first to ask. Thanks, Antandrus (talk) 23:15, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Have you checked the sources yourself. I don't use a method of proof by assertion, I have provided sources, you haven't. I don't see how it would be possible to find a link to the original. You have absolutely no proof at all that Albert Einstein didn't say this. I have also read the page on reliable sources, and I have given you reliable sources. This quote is famous, so it does surprise me that some of the people here didn't know about it. This is also not the only time that Albert has praised Mozart. One thing has been confirmed to me through my research, that is there is no evidence at all that Alfred said this. I also don't understand why you have decided that the information from these websites is misattributed. Where are getting this evidence from, please tell me when you get the chance. Goodbye for now, and thank you for your time.[15]--Stardust6000 04:05, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

None of these sources you've provided give a source to the original, though. We need to know the exact source of the quote, and therefore Antandrus is quite right to raise these concerns. I'm not saying Albert didn't say this; I think it's likely that he did, despite the resemblence to Alfred's writing style. But we still definitely need a solid reference. Heimstern Läufer 04:29, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Thank you, I'll try my best to find out where this quote comes from. The only problem is, is that this quote could originate from a variety of things. All we know is that Albert did say this somewhere, otherwise, the quote wouldn't be present.--Stardust6000 04:39, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

That is still an assertion. All we really know is that someone said or wrote it, but exactly who is not clear. I have a copy of "The New Quotable Einstein" (Albert, not Alfred) (ed. Alice Calaprice; Princeton Paperbacks, ISBN 0-691-12075-7), which contains a number of references to Mozart, but not the above quote per se. However, it does include the following: "Mozart's music is so pure and beautiful that I see it as a reflection of the inner beauty of the universe". This is annoted "as recalled by Peter Bucky in "The Private Albert Einstein" (1933)". It uses similar words to the quote in question, so it would be good to get hold of a copy of Peter Bucky's 1933 book to see the full context in which Einstein is reported as having said this, and whether or not the sentence quoted in my book was part of a longer comment on Mozart. JackofOz 01:33, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Playing the piano blindfolded with arms crossed

Around the time when he was five or six years old, he could play the piano blindfolded and with his hands crossed over one another. [citation needed]

This is mentioned twice in the article, once in the "Family and early years" section and later under "Myths and Controversies". As has already been disucussed on this talk page, we have no citation, and I rather wonder if this is really just one of unsubstantiated statements in the Mozart legend. If we can't get a source, I suggest we remove this statement from the opening and keep it in the "Myths and Controveries" section (where it surely has a place). Heimstern Läufer 03:15, 7 October 2006 (UTC)


Since school started, back in September, this article has been the subject of frequent (and really quite childish) vandalism. Should we / can we semi-protect it for a while? --Ggbroad 12:50, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Just wanted to restate my point above. This article is being vandalized 3 to 4 times per day.--Ggbroad 18:33, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
I'm noticing it too, and considering the semiprotect. There was a recent post on the administrators' noticeboard about the similar situation at Albert Einstein; if the vandalism continues tomorrow, and I don't do it first, just bug me and I'll do it. Antandrus (talk) 01:40, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
Okay. This article is being vandalized literally DOZENS of times a week now. I think it's time to semiprotect, at least temporarily. My Watchlist fills up with vandalism from this page. --Ggbroad 19:34, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Well, I'm afraid my watchlist is pretty much jammed with vandalism from my page. I don't have the authority to protect it, but I do have the means of removing it from my watchlist and leaving it to its own devices. Damn, I'd just read Gutman's cultural bio, too, and was going to add some stuff and some citations in the hopes of making this a FA again. But what's the point? --Ggbroad 01:11, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Cultural depictions of Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart

I've started an approach that may apply to Wikipedia's Core Biography articles: creating a branching list page based on in popular culture information. I started that last year while I raised Joan of Arc to featured article when I created Cultural depictions of Joan of Arc, which has become a featured list. Recently I also created Cultural depictions of Alexander the Great out of material that had been deleted from the biography article. Since cultural references sometimes get deleted without discussion, I'd like to suggest this as a model for the editors here. Regards, Durova 15:47, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

I think it's a good idea. We may already have a few "Composer X in popular culture" articles. I for one am irritated by the weed-patches that those "trivia" or "so-and-so in popular culture" sections become, as they gradually accrete micro-factoids. Is there a more general discussion of this somewhere? -- i.e. since this doesn't just apply to the Mozart article. Antandrus (talk) 15:55, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
I've left notes at Wikipedia talk:Core biographies and started a worksheet at User:Durova/Cultural depictions of core biography figures. For now I'm inviting people to discuss this in my user space (since the idea is in such an initial stage). Thank you for your interest! Durova 18:31, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Would any of the editors here object if I created the proposed branching page? Durova 22:47, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

It's fine with me! Antandrus (talk) 23:15, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
I've done a simple cut and paste of the trivia section. The new page should probably also contain at least some of the material from the previous section, about plays and films, but since that's already written in paragraph form I'll leave it untouched for now. Durova 02:50, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Mozart's Requiem

Wasn't it the rival composer, Antonio Salieri who was believed to compose most of Mozart's Requiem? I cannot source this but have strong reason to believe it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talkcontribs) .

Actually a lot was completed by Franz Xaver Süssmayr. Our article on the Requiem (Mozart) covers a lot of it. The movie Amadeus of course showed Salieri taking dictation from Mozart as he lay in bed, specifically the "Lacrimosa". Antandrus (talk) 02:57, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
Wasn't Amadeus rather fictionalised, though? (I myself have never seen it.) —  $PЯINGεrαgђ  01:31, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
Oh, yes, it certainly was: let me clarify: the movie showed Salieri taking dictation and hearing those angelic trombones and all, but that probably didn't happen quite the way it was portrayed, if at all. Antandrus (talk) 01:37, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Ah, similar to the somewhat fictionalised Impromptu (1991 fim) vs. the somewhat truer-to-the-fact Chopin: Desire for Love. —  $PЯINGεrαgђ  01:44, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
Amadeus is, IMO, a great film. But please, please, NEVER use anything you see in it as a source for anything that actually happened. Peter Shaffer has made it clear it was intended as a play inspired by Mozart's life, NOT as an as-it-happened accurate biography. JackofOz 01:16, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
Umm, as I remember it, it wasn't as though Salieri was hearing the angelic my eyes, those were provided as a guide for the audience as to what Mozart himself was hearing, all the while directing Antonio as to the musical notation (i.e. the orchestration). Meanwhile, Salieri is a competent enough composer and musician to understand the musical concepts Mozart is dictating to him, which is why he becomes excited (unusual for the reserved, snarky Salieri) while scribing the Confutatis Maledictus (not the Lacrimosa Dies Illa, BTW - that is played during Mozart's funeral scene) of the Requiem for Mozart just prior to his death, and starts to sing along to the ostinato they are working on, exclaiming, "Wonderful!". Eganio 22:44, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Source for Mozart's "Hand Problems"

Hi Wikipedians, I'm new to Wikipedia so I'm not sure how much to change the text in the article. As you can see below, it is not quite accurate.

The article currently reads "Maynard Solomon conjectures that he may have suffered from hand injuries [citation needed]"

Maynard Solomon's book is called Mozart: a Life

It is copyright dated 1995, and published by HarperCollins Publishers, NYC, NY

Here is the quote in its entirety from pp. 301, 302

A chance comment by Beethoven's nephew in early 1824 offers other food for speculation regarding Mozart's shift away from a piano viruoso's career, which had been the foundation of his popularity as well as of his most lucrative endeavors, both in public halls and aristocratic salons: "Mozart's fingers were so bent by the constant playing," wrote Karl van Beethoven in the deaf composer's conversation book, "that he couldn't even cut his meat." (footnote number 48) The most startling aspect of the story--Mozart's awkwardness in using his hands--is apparently confirmed by Nissen, who wrote: "One knows that apart from clavier playing he was very clumsy in the use of his hands, that he couldn't cut meat and so forth and that his wife had to cut his meat as though he were a child." (footnote number 49) Schlichtegroll had already told the story somewhat differently, emphasizing Mozart's fear of cutting his fingers. (footnote number 50)
One possible inference to be drawn from these reports is that Mozart was suffering from a painful condition in his hands that might have adversely affected or threatened to affect his pianistic abilities and compelled him to think about alternative ways of making a living. Such a condition is consistent with Mozart's repeated bouts of rheumatic fever--in 1762, 1766, 1784 and perhaps 1787--a disease that can be cumulative in its effects and that probably was the main cause of his death. Arthritis is the most common clinical manifestation of rheumatic fever; typically the affected joints become painful and tender, and may also become inflamed and swollen. We know from Leopold Mozart that when Mozart was a child, his joints were so severely affected after the early bouts that "he could not stand on his feet or move his toes or knees." (footnote 51) The joints affected are usually the ankles, knees, elbows, or wrists, but in the days before anti-inflammatory therapy, migration of the arthritic condition to the shoulders, hips, and the small joints of the extremities, including the fingers and toes, frequently resulted. If this speculation has any merit--for there is no contemporary report that his virtuoso powers were affected--Mozart's condition naturally was not to be advertised, because he would not have wanted to abandon piano-playing after 1786. And he did continue to perform occasionally, although such performances as he gave were either in foreign cities--his playing was highly praised in both Prague and Dresden--or in the privacy of his own home rather than in the major arenas where his capacities were well known. Additional arguments against this speculation are the consistently fine calligraphy of his scores and his reported skill at billiards. In the end, this story of a grown man unable to cut his food may turn out to be just another aspect of the myth of the eternal child.'

Ljprice 03:01, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

'Mozart and Prague'

I've just come back from Prague and was astonished at the amount of Mozart advertisement and paraphernalia there. I understand that Moazart allegedly (or definetly) said that quote, but I was interested in other reasons why the Pragers attributed him to their city to such an extent. In my guide book (I know, not the best source) I read about his relationship to the city and it said he had been there 4 times, and although the first visits featured his success with the inhabitants of the city (contrarirarily the Viennese were, as they still are today, very critical) his last visit was in summer of 1791; a new piece of music he had composed for the people there was received very negatively and he left the city 'bitter and ill'; and as we know, he died in the december of that year... Is there any significance or 'truth' to this?

My dear Viennese and Austrians, jelaousy will not help you here. Successfull opening night of Don Giovanni in Prague is a fact beyond question, also famous quote "Meine Prager verstehen mich" (My Praguers understand me) is well documented in historical writtings. Further, most scenes from the famous movie Amadeus were shot in Prague as the location was deemed authentic. Also glamour of Prague as the home of the richest german/jew audience of the time attracted Mozart much. Don't forget Prague was the seat of Holy Roman Emperors during the golden era of the Empire, in Mozart's time the city was still very rich. Even in present day Prague dwarfs Vienna in every way. For example the seat of Holy Roman Emperor's the Prague Castle is the biggest castle in the world, the oldest university in central Europe, oldest and greatest jewish settlement etc. Prague was de-facto capital of central europe that attracted many and not Mozart only..
...aha, accusing the Viennese of jealousy and then producing that ramble! It was in Prague where I found out that the authenticity of that quote is doubted! Ok, I'll go through your arguments in chronological order.. Of course Don Giovanni was successful in Prague, I never denied that, just said that he suffered some not-so-great treatment by the Praguers LATER (admittedly reflected in Vienna throughout Mozart's career). True, Prague was definetely a rich city (both economically and culturally) but he apparently was only there 3 or 4 times, and there's no doubt there was a similar, if not greater 'german/jew' audience in Vienna. Even if Prague was the seat of the Holy Roman Empire at one point or other, the Emperor was Austrian(!). And to your statement 'Prague dwarfs Vienna', are you being sarcastic? Prague was the de-facto capital of central Europe?!? How come so many famous artists (also those from Prague) were in Vienna at the turn of the century? Plus, the fact that Vienna was the capital of the empire which ruled Over Prague and also a key city in cultural terms.

I'm not in any way jealous of Prague! It's a beautiful city. I'm just questioning an opinion, probably spread by the likes of you (dont mean that negatively). I thought that everything on this article deserves historical authenticity. I'm astounded by your response which borders on nationalism (ok, I might be being a little hyperbolic). Forgot about the movie.. I don't think it's a great loss for Vienna that it was not filmed here. Some modern buildings would have anyway made it impossible. And even if Prague was more 'authentic' it was still meant to represent Vienna, so I don't understand your point. The movie is not that wonderful either, it lacks the Viennese landmarks which to some extent determined Mozarts life (Stephansdom: marriage and funeral, he also lived very close to it). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk) 20:34, 5 December 2006 (UTC).

his death

I know there is a lot if speculation about his death but why isn't there anything mentioned about Antonio Salieri? Isn't it a popular rumour that Salieri killed him?

It is indeed a popular rumour, but one largely discredited by historians. That's probably why the information about it is in the Myths and controversies section rather than in the section about his death. Heimstern Läufer 00:45, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Save me from the Mozart POV pushers

On commons there has been a long running edit war[16] over one of the portraits of Mozart. I protected the gallery page with the images removed in the hopes that it would cause people to talk rather than revert, but mostly their talking has consisted of people calling each other vandals. Please contribute to the discussion on commons:Talk:Wolfgang_Amadeus_Mozart. I'll unprotect the page on commons as soon as there is any evidence of consensus.--Gmaxwell 15:30, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Okay, solved. I turned out that one of the parties had a pretty aggressive (by commons standards) sock campaign going on. It doesn't appear to have spilled over to enwiki, so all is good. --Gmaxwell 07:39, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Death greatest tragedy in all of music history

One publication I read ended with the remark "The early death of Mozart was the greatest tragedy in all of music history." That is probably true and would the "manager" of this Wikipedia topic consider including that quote somewhere in the topic? The quote makes/covers a pretty important point and, if the "manager" agrees with the point, I'd say it should become part of the article. I don't offhand recall where the quote comes from but I can research that if the quote ends up being included in the Mozart article. Wiki1791 18:50, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Hi; there is no one "manager" of this or any article--see WP:OWN--but I'll answer your question. This statement is problematic because it is so blunt and necessarily demeans an enormous number of other events in music history--see WP:NPOV. However, if you would really like the quote included, please find the source and we'll discuss it. I do think there may be room to include a brief discussion of Mozart's early death in, say, the "Influence" section, as it is somewhat hinted at but never mentioned. —Sesquialtera II (talk) 17:37, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
The source of the statement is the book "1791 Mozart's Last Year" by H. C. Robbins Landon, published in 1999 by Thames and Hudson. The statement appears on page 147 as the last sentence and paragraph of Chapter X. Let me quote the last two paragraphs of that chapter --

There can be no doubt that The Magic Flute was already the greatest opera success of Mozart's life. It should have been the beginning of a new era for its composer; and yet the new era was to be over exactly one month after Zinzendorf attended the twenty fourth performance. (new paragraph) That last month witnessed what is surely the greatest tragedy in the history of music.

I personally consider Mozart so precious and unequaled that I have a strong wish to see Landon's point made somewhere in the Mozart entry. However I agree that it is a rather blunt statement and some people will not even agree with it. Any suggestions on how to incorporate the point, perhaps by quoting Landon, would be appreciated. Wiki1791 20:25, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

"The greatest tragedy in music history"--what does that mean? By the context and the responses to this statement, it would seem to imply that the works Mozart did not live to compose would have been more influential, sublime, or otherwise great than those that some other composer who died young did not write. Schubert, Bix, Pergolesi, Arriaga, Chopin, Buddy Holly: just how would each of them have blown the lid off what we think of as music if they'd lived another 5 or 10 or 20 years? Or not? What would it be like to go to a concert of the music they didn't get to write? What if Mozart's survival had thrown a monkey wrench into Beethoven's plans, his local success in Vienna, his psychological response to going deaf?

While we're working on this problem (in utterly NPOV terms, of course) let's celebrate one of the great miracles in music history: that Mozart, despite any number of childhood illnesses, the hazards of travel, and perhaps even the occasional overindulgence in this or that, lived as long as he did, worked as hard as he did, and could produce great music even when the rent was overdue.RogerLustig 03:40, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Of course the untimely death of Mozart was a great tragedy. There is no reason to think him incapable of producing even more magnificent creations than the last few piano concertos, those pinnacles of chamber music represented by the clarinet quintet and the string quintets, an intricately wrought final fugue even more transcendentally Olympian than the Jupiter's – and so much more. But there is an even greater tragedy in music history. I speak, of course, of the completely untimely non-birth of Eugenio dei Mainati, who would have been born in Milan in 1745, but wasn't because of a curious accident that befell the young woman who would have been his mother (a practical joke involving a carrot and a bottle of Schnapps; don't ask). Dei Mainati would have played the violin and the cello at the age of four (drawing the line, of course, at the viola). He would have been recognised as a prodigy to eclipse all prodigies, and fêted by the crowned heads of Europe. He would have written thirty-eight symphonies by the age of seventeen (only the trio of the minuet in the second requiring any assistance from his doting uncle), before challenging and bettering the young Mozart in a fortepiano play-off at dawn on the banks of the Tiber, handcuffed and blindfolded. He would have lived to the age of eighty, with a harvest of one hundred and four piano concertos to his credit, each better than the previous one (except the very first, of course; we are not dealing here with the logically impossible). One weeps to think of the six quartets for basset horn, violin, cello, and piano he would have composed shortly before his death – especially the melting and lyrical slow movement of the sixth (MWV1653). But alas, Eugenio dei Mainati was never born. We have to be content with Mozart; and for so short a time.
– Noetica♬♩Talk 05:14, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Links to add ?

MozartForum " This free educational site is dedicated to the discussion of the music, persona and world of Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart. Whether Mozart is found on CDs or the stage, in books or articles, at international festivals or websites, we want to bring it all together here! As well, we shall explore overall the world of Classical-Era Music (1770-1827), encompassing the music, personalities and accomplishments of Mozart’s contemporaries.

It is the intent of the Founders of the MozartForum to improve the intelligent discussion and discourse of Mozart and his world as found on the Internet. The Founders, coming from all backgrounds and with different perspectives on the ever-fascinating subject of Mozart, have decided to pool their resources and talents to create and maintain such a website.

We hope that it will become a place where Mozart admirers the world over can come and ask questions, learn, share information, resources and experiences, and generally relish indulging their common interest in this amazing individual and his spectacular legacy." —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs)

Please see WP:EL for information on what external links are acceptable on Wikipedia. Forums are for the most part not acceptable, and I would suggest that this forum not be included. Mak (talk) 22:31, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Where is the evidence?

You write: "Amadeus (1984)Milos Forman’s 1984 motion picture Amadeus, based on the play by Peter Shaffer, won eight Academy Awards and was one of the year’s most popular films. While the film did a great deal to popularize Mozart’s work with the general public, it has been criticized for its historical inaccuracies, and in particular for its portrayal of Antonio Salieri’s intrigues against Mozart, for which little historical evidence can be found." Well, can you tell me where is the "historical evidence" of intrigues? About Salieri I know there is no historical proof and that rumors started/spread with Puskin. If there is no reliable source that can demonstrate the "historical evidence", we should cut or modify the piece. Also, we should mention Emanuele Conegliano aka Lorenzo Da Ponte, who wrote the librettos to three Mozart operas: Le nozze di Figaro, Don Giovanni, and, Così fan tutte. We should add the info about Mozart and his "violations of copyright". Mozart copied many works made by other musicians and composers: i.e. Giovanni Battista Pergolesi, Domenico Cimarosa, Muzio Clementi, Domenico Scarlatti. In this connection, try reading articles and books written by professor Giovanni Carlo Ballola, Luciano Chailly and other authors. E.Amato, KonSequenz Anno 2002 n.7, Articolo "Il Plagio Mozartiano". Jamie 02:01, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

  • The article is saying that the film was inaccurate in portraying intrigues by Salieri against Mozart, for which historically there is little (read, virtually none) evidence. We seem to be in agreement.
  • Re Da Ponte: the main article doesn't mention him but List of compositions by Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart certainly does. If you think the main article could be improved by references to Da Ponte, you're entirely welcome to edit it accordingly. Same for the "violations of copyright". Cheers. JackofOz 03:58, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

The volume of his work

I did not see here any mention of the tremendous volume of his work. Should there be a special mention of that. To me it seems one of his most outstanding accomplishments.

In the second line of the intro on the main page, it reads, "His output of over 600 compositions includes works widely acknowledged as pinnacles of..." Did you have something more detailed in mind? Eganio 21:08, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Demonic power?

Greetings... first talk post in here ;)

Check this out, from the Style section:

"The central traits of the classical style can all be identified in Mozart's music. Clarity, balance, and transparency are hallmarks, though a simplistic notion of the delicacy of his music obscures for us the exceptional and even demonic power of some of his finest masterpieces..."

What's that about the exceptional and even demonic power?? Granted, my first language isn't English, but it strikes me as strange. Any thoughts? Pablo Dotro - The Mage of the Many Shadows 00:21, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Uhhhhh, sounds like an attempt at remarking on Mozart's inherent genius, i.e. that his music was practically perfect in form and essence, while being artistically relevant in terms of his ability to infuse emotion and drama into the constraining musical milieu in which he found himself. His musical intellect was superior to those of his counterparts in his ability to a priori understand how music should be conceived and constructed, creating masterpieces that have, for over 200 years, been considered at the pinnacle of musical composition. I think the exceptional and demonic power referred to is this unfathomable genius that the man seemed to possess, i.e. the ability to elicit such a powerful emotional presence from a musical form constrained by so many formalities. I think this is what Miloš Forman was attempting to emulate in the film version of Amadeus with making such a specific point of Salieri going mad while attending a performance of Don Giovanni, and concocting his master plan to murder Mozart through fear-induced exhaustion, and thereafter take credit for arguably one of Mozart's greatest accomplishments, his Requiem in D minor. I think it was supposed to be relevant and impactful within the context of the deific quality Salieri perceives in Mozart's music. In fact, this may be way too tangential, but in HBO's Mr. Show (mid-nineties), they spoof Amadeus, using fictitious composers of marching band music as Mozart and Salieri. In one scene, the Salieri-esque character, Salini (played by David Cross), wonders in awe at the music of his rival, John Baptiste Philouza (a spoof on John Philip Sousa, of course), asking himself, "was it God and the angels conversing...or was it the devil? Or was it God...and the devil...interrupting each other?" Thought it was interesting to mention in light of the "demonic" statement quoted above. Some of this is original research (although the Mr. Show reference is verifiable - Season 3, Episode 7 ("Bush Is a Pussy"), original release 11/7/97), so I know the Wikipedia folks are writhing, but the prompt was for "thoughts". Any comments? Eganio 21:03, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
From a strictly philosophical point of view/IMO, I think this 'demonic power' he was referring too was the fact that his genuis was so well hidden. When I first listened to classical music, I liked Beeth but after analyzing it again and again, I came to realize the power of Mozart's heart and the sometimes sad/complete understanding of human nature he possesed. In this respect of being lonely as a genuis, his pain that is sometimes portrayed in his most intimate compositions seems to be the devil himself. *Wipes tear.

GA Fail

  • Insufficient lead - should be two or three paragraphs
  • Insufficient references - An article this long should have roughly 50-60
  • The heading 'Life" should be renamed to biography
  • Wayyyy toooo many external links.

Main reason i'm failing this is because of lack of citations and numerous [Citation needed] tags. M3tal H3ad 08:56, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

A rigorous peer review is needed--ppm 01:58, 28 February 2007 (UTC)


the articla says, Mozart was pronounced [ˈvɔlfgaŋk amaˈdɔʏs ˈmotsaɐt]. I am German and I pronounce him [ˈvɔlfgaŋ amaˈdeːʊs ˈmotsaɐt]. Is the first the "English" way to pronounce him, or just wrong? --androl 09:48, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, this got me a little confused at first, I know a bit of German and have heard the name Amadeus in it before, pronounced as you have said. Even the Latin and Italian pronunciation of Amadeus should be as you have said, the de and us are separate syllables and do not form a diphthong here. It is not normally sounded amaˈdɔʏs in English, I think this is a faux-German pronunciation.--Darthanakin 15:20, 15 May 2007 (UTC)


On Mozart's name, his first name is quoted as "Joannes Chrysostomus", not "Johannes Chrysostomus". The page is protected so I can't change it. --Ibendiber 18:04, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

BBC documentary "The Genius of Mozart"

In 2004 the BBC broadcasted an excellent 3-piece dramatized documentary on Mozart's life and work, "The Genius of Mozart". I would like to weave that into the article somehow, but I can't find the right spot. Any suggestions? AxelBoldt 01:30, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

If you can use it for in-line references that would be great and especially where the citation needed tags are. I was able to use Marcia Davenport's book to give a citation for his joining of the Freemasons, but I can cannot find the other {{fact}} claims in the book. Remember that the major thing keeping this article from GA is in-line references.--Jorfer 21:56, 3 April 2007 (UTC)


Wolfgang-amadeus-mozart 1.jpg This user is an admirer of Mozart.

--Funper 22:32, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Weasel words

"One famous demonstration..." well, I've never heard of that. I think that either some references should be added, or the claim removed. --Leonard Vertighel 20:17, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

You and me must have seen it at exactly the same time. I removed it as uncited/OR/weasel. Antandrus (talk) 20:21, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
Thanks :) --Leonard Vertighel 20:40, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

NPOV problems

The section on the film Amadeus is patently POV. Thoughts? ausa کui × 21:46, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't think so -- in that section, various points are raised and discussed in a way that is in keeping with current Wikipaedia practice. The information in that section is also referenced (see Einstein's biography, No. 14 in the references section) as well as the page on Salieri in this encyclopaedia. If only the first sentence or two is to be that section, i.e. "It is a good/popular film" this does not provide the reader with any understanding of the context in which the film is set -- either historically or what the writers have said were their intentions. There is a wider arguement about the mis-use Hollywood makes on a regular basis of historical information and events, which it is clearly not appropriate to discuss in that section or even in the article, but to leave it as that initial comment about the film being good is undoubtedly factually simplistic and not encyclopaedic. After all, if someone watched that film knowing nothing else of WAM's life and took it to be fact (as it is presented), they would have been grossly misinformed historically. Showjumpersam 23:50, 9 April 2007 (UTC)showjumpersam

Ryan, mind if you elaborate a little? bibliomaniac15 23:52, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

I think the section is non-neutral because of its excessive and unwieldy use of rhetorical terms that make too clear the article's taking sides on the issue. "Strongly and justifiably criticised", "easily destroyed by an even cursory examination", etc. There is no reason to talk like this. State the facts and let the reader make up his mind. You might even say that consensus among historians is that the story in Amadeus is fictionalized, but nothing is accomplished by having the article take up an argumentative tone like this. If anything, it encourages people to argue against this position, because it creates the impression that the facts need to be defended and we need to make sure that everyone accepts our own view. That is not what Wikipedia is about. If Salieri was publicly very friendly with Mozart, and there is no historical evidence to show that there was animosity between them, then it's fine to say that, but only in an encyclopedic tone. ausa کui × 17:48, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps you are not aware, but you are unhappy with contributions from a number of editors in that section. With that in mind I am not going to go into individual phrases in nit-picking detail as this would serve no useful purpose. Suffice it to say the facts have been presented -- in a bold manner, and befitting artistic interpretation -- whether one agrees with them or not. There has been critical acclaim for that film, but there has also been serious criticism of the historical inaccuracies, which has been responded to by at least one of the writers in a recorded interview. The tone of the section in question could be made bland but I think this would detract from its value, not least because this is a controversial subject and so should be presented as such. If you want to look for evidence for that, we are also having this debate, of course ;-) Showjumpersam 19:59, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but this view is strictly incompatible with the Wikipedia:Neutrality policy and the Wikipedia:Manual of style. Specifically:
  • The policy requires that, where there are or have been conflicting views, these should be presented fairly. None of the views should be given undue weight or asserted as being the truth, and all significant published points of view are to be presented, not just the most popular one. It should also not be asserted that the most popular view or some sort of intermediate view among the different views is the correct one. Readers are left to form their own opinions.
  • Wikipedia is not the place to publish your opinions, experiences, or arguments.
Further, according to Jimbo Wales, neutrality is "absolute and non-negotiable."
ausa کui × 01:09, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm. I think you're missing the point of what I've been saying -- that's exactly what this section upholds. There are conflicting opinions which are presented and discussed. This is done in the light of the apparent historical inaccuracies, but this too is given a fair hearing. I really don't know what you have to object to, and there is certainly no justification in deleting the whole section, just like that. Do you seek to do that just because you don't like to hear anything but praise for that film? Showjumpersam 00:20, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

To claim that the text in this revision fairly handles the issue is just patently false. I can't begin to argue this point because it would be like arguing that P is not ~P. I think this might need an RFC. ausa کui × 05:27, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

If you think it handles the issues unfairly, have you considered editing it -- as opposed to dismissing it out of hand and deleting all of it? As a point of reference, you may also like to look up in a dictionary the word 'neutral'. I think you'll find it to be a superlative and therefore not something that can be "absolute". I can't imagine why you thought it necessary to quote from some other wikipaedia user above, but I don't think it does what you have to say any good. I am afraid it just sounds slightly pompous. Showjumpersam 09:27, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

I wasn't quoting some other Wikipedia user, I was quoting (A) The neutrality policy, which you should read and (B) Jimbo Wales, the founder and owner of the Wikimeda Foundation, whose authority is the basis of all these rules. I understand that you are new and unfamiliar with Wikipedia policy, and I don't want to bite you, but I really think that you are not understanding these fundamental Wikipedia policies. ausa کui × 19:18, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
All that doesn't change the fact that you don't clearly don't like the stated truths. I really don't know why you're making this fuss, you're blowing it all very much out of proportion and I would suggest you concentrate your obvious energy on something more productive than telling the editors who have contributed to that section that they are wrong. Ralph Campbell—Preceding unsigned comment added by Showjumpersam (talkcontribs)
As something of an outsider, I will say that I think the material in question needs to be better cited. I don't see it as POV, but it may fly afoul of our verifiablility and no original reasearch policies. Heimstern Läufer 03:55, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

I have added two citations for the disputed section (for Salieri being the teacher of Mozart's son and for Mozart's compositional approach). I am still looking for a good citation to show that "the film has been strongly criticised" (there are so many, it is hard to pick a good one). I may add that among musicologists and Mozart scholars there is a wide consensus concerning the issues raised in the section under scrutiny here. From a musicological point this section of the article is strictly neutral. I therefore propose to get rid of the "neutrality warning." Respectfully, Matthias Röder 06:44, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Miserere - illegal copy?

The entry notes:

"A highlight of the Italian journey, now an almost legendary tale, occurred when he heard Gregorio Allegri's Miserere once in performance in the Sistine Chapel then wrote it out in its entirety from memory, only returning to correct minor errors; thus producing the first illegal copy of this closely-guarded property of the Vatican."

Is the use of the word 'illegal' correct here? For this copy to be illegal, a law would have to be broken; did Mozart break any laws in making this copy? If not, I would suggest the word 'illegal' be substituted for 'unofficial' or 'unauthorised'. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Lindsay40k (talkcontribs) 16:44, 11 April 2007 (UTC).

Paragraph on Mozart's Berlin Journey needed

I suggest we start work on a few sentences mentioning Mozart's 1789 journey to Berlin. During this trip he visited Leipzig where he encountered some of J. S. Bach's music. I think this paragraph should go into the "Mozart in Vienna" section. Matthias Röder 06:57, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

I just added a bit myself. The text may need heavy revision, though. Matthias Röder 09:17, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Box at the top

This article needs a box on the top right hand side, like on Ludwig van Beethoven. I'd add it myself, but I'm not too sure how it works yet. Thanks! Aillema 21:00, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi Aillema! From the WikiProject Composers page: "Current consensus among project participants holds that the use of currently-available biographical infoboxes is often counterproductive on composer biographies. They should not be used without first obtaining consensus on the article's talk page." The reason why these infoboxes are no longer used is that they often contain inaccurate information. For example, it would be difficult to put the riht flag for Mozart's nationality (Austrian is wrong, as is German, will people recognize the flag of the archdiocese of Salzburg? etc) Matthias Röder 23:04, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Bologna Mozart vs. Barbara Mozart

I know a womans touch to such a great man would be ideal, but to be fair, I think a dramatization or fictional representation of Mozart is far from what the man stood for. His membership in the Freemason induced the sense of justice and his deep hatred for any lack of it. I think the just thing to do here is to put his actual portrate. Leopold Mozart, W. A. Mozart’s father, wrote about this portrait:

„It has little value as a piece of art, but as to the issue of resemblance, I can assure you that it is perfect.”

(Original text: „Malerisch hat es wenig wert, aber was die Ähnlichkeit anbetrifft, so versichere ich Ihnen, daß es ihm ganz und gar ähnlich sieht.“)

I'm just curious to why the opinion of a person who had no physical contact with the man should be prefered as a reference over his own FATHER. They say she used the Lange, de la Croce, and the Stock portraits, but I still think the relaying of all these perceptions have to be taken into account. I think people mistake Constanze's approval of the Lange painting as it captured the character of his constant relevations and deep modes of thought, rather than his actual appearance. Their maid often said when he ate his supper (while his wife cut up his steak for the fear of damaging hishands) he always seemed to be distant in eyes always masked by his high sprits. The Bologna Moazrt may not capture the 'essense' of Mozart character, but I do believe it captures the 'essense' of his physicality. Maybe the Lange portrait is better then both for the intro? As for the de la Croce and Stock portraits, I think there not very well done. Even Leopold's appearance resembles nothing of his other portraits. Please leave a discussion before reverting. User:InternetHero 23:09, 21 May 2007 (UTC)


I don´t understand include a media section with a lot of files and a link to Commons. I would directly prefer the link to Commons. --Mac 21:19, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

External links

I notice that the External Links - General References section contains a link to a non-peer-reviewed on-line article by Robert Newman about the so-called Luchesi authorship controversy. This is a crackpot conspiracy theory that has gained no acceptance whatsoever among professional scholars. It doesn't belong in an encyclopedia article. I would suggest that it be removed. 21:55, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Feel free to remove it, then, and thanks for discussing it here. -- Rob C (Alarob) 21:44, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Awful sound example

The sound sample of Der Holle Rache is terrible. I would suggest its deletion. Dave Foster 21:32, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

By all means delete it, then. -- Rob C (Alarob) 21:44, 17 June 2007 (UTC)


"He wrote operas in each of the styles current in Europe: opera buffa, such as The Marriage of Figaro, Don Giovanni, or Così fan tutte; opera seria, such as Idomeneo; and Singspiel, of which Die Zauberflöte is probably the most famous example by any composer."

Do you mean Die Zauberflöte is the most famous opera every composed? What sources do you have backing this claim? Reading this, I get a feeling that this section (as well as many other parts of the article) had been edited by Mozart fans/POV-pushers. Spartan 23:25, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

I think it means that Die Zauberflöte is the most famous example of Singspiel. No? -- Kleinzach 00:16, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
I see what you're saying. I certainly would agree that Die Zauberflöte is a famous example of the Singspiel. However, what qualifies it to be the MOST famous? For instance, isn't Beethoven's Fidelio another famous example? Spartan 01:33, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
Fidelio is not a Singspiel, its a quite serious opera! The difference is: To a performance of the Zauberflöte you can even go with children and they will like it, due to the funny story and the nice songs (And there are special perfomings of the Zauberflöte here in Vienna for children). Not so with Fidelio, which is too complicated and serious. So in the genre of Singspiel, the Zauberflöte IS the most well known example - even when the Zauberflöte has a second level of meaning which is quite serious and which will only be understood by the mature viewers, hopefully ;-) -- Rfortner 09:14, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
PS: In Fidelio, only the first act is in some way considered to be a Singspiel.

The IPA pronunciation

Hello, someone put up an IPA pronunciation for Mozart's name, [ˈvɔlfgaŋ amaˈdɔʏs ˈmotsaɐt], that rendered the "eu" of "Amadeus" as [ɔʏ], if it were the normal German value heard for instance in "Freude". This IPA transcription attracted a talk page complaint (see above), and also attracted my notice just now.

The "eu" seen here is indeed not a normal German "eu". "Amadeus" is a Latinized form of Mozart's middle name, and in German they pronounce Latin words more or less in Latin fashion. So I've changed the transcription to end in "[eus]", which (leaving aside issues of vowel length, about which I'm not sure) is at least closer to the truth than what we had before. I have verified the pronunciation by posting a query on the German Wikipedia, which you can view at:

Opus33 00:37, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your research,you're totally right. --Catgut 02:06, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Time for another archive!

Hi there. This page is rather long and could do with being archived! Is this something anyone can do?

JH(emendator) 15:31, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

The European Library

I like to suggest to include a link titled 783 Digitised Works of and about Mozart in The European Library "mozart") Please let me know what you think. Thank you. Fleurstigter 10:34, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

I think this link is very helpful Matthias Röder 11:48, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
Ok. I have added it. Thanks. Have a nice day, Fleurstigter 12:08, 19 July 2007 (UTC)


The first paragraph states that "Mozart is among the most enduringly popular of European composers and many of his works are part of the standard concert repertoire". Mozart was reduced to only be "among the most enduringly popular of European composers"!!! Many people consider him the greatest of all composers, but there is no mention to this in the introduction. On another hand, "today Bach is considered perhaps the greatest composer of all time." (J.S. Bach wikipedia article) and Beethoven "is regarded as one of the greatest composers in the history of music" (Beethoven`s wikipedia article). Why Mozart fans cannot express the same about him? Do you think that the level of tribute that has being paid to Mozart is the same that Bach and Beethoven have on their respective articles? Bach and Beethoven have near complete articles because they are unprotected and can be updated constantly... Worlfel2007 03:55, 1 August 2007 (UTC)Worlfel2007

You are very welcome to Wikipedia, Worlfel2007.
What wording do you propose? I happen to think that the article lead makes it nicely clear that his œvre includes works that are considered "pinnacles" in many genres (there aren't that many composers about whom that could be said), and that he is precisely "among the most enduringly popular". What would you have it say? Wikipedia is not a forum for fans' panegyrics.
By the way, I have no view on whether the page should be unprotected, but you may be interested to learn that it is only "semi-protected", which only prevents anonymous and brand-new users from editing: even if it is not unprotected you will surely be able to edit this article shortly. Both the Beethoven and Bach articles have been protected or semi-protected at times. --RobertGtalk 09:34, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
Hi Worlfel2007 and welcome to the editing team of the Mozart article! Thanks for your comments about the introduction of the article. Like RobertG I think it would be great if you proposed your own wording for the introduction.
I thought it would be interesting to read what the New Grove Dictionary of Music and Musicians writes about Mozart in their first paragraph. The New Grove is the most common music encyclopedia in the English speaking world and is used widely by professionals and music lovers alike. Here is what they are saying: "Austrian composer, son of (1) Leopold Mozart. His style essentially represents a synthesis of many different elements, which coalesced in his Viennese years, from 1781 on, into an idiom now regarded as a peak of Viennese Classicism. The mature music, distinguished by its melodic beauty, its formal elegance and its richness of harmony and texture, is deeply coloured by Italian opera though also rooted in Austrian and south German instrumental traditions. Unlike Haydn, his senior by 24 years, and Beethoven, his junior by 15, he excelled in every medium current in his time. He may thus be regarded as the most universal composer in the history of Western music." Taken from CLIFF EISEN, STANLEY SADIE: '(Johann Chrysostom) Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart', Grove Music Online ed. L. Macy (Accessed 1 August, 2007), <> Matthias Röder 10:09, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Mozart tower

A link to a "Mozart tower" site with all of Mozart's compositions in MP3 has been added. Of course, it's very sweet, but we need to make sure that it's not a pirate site, because WP isn't supposed to link to pirate sites. So - is it?

From the Polish wikipedia:

Mój mailing z redakcją strony

Display all headersSubject: Re: A question about music on your web site. From: "SEBASTIAN TROPP" <mozart-turm(at)> To: "Jakub Kuryluk" <xxxxxx@xxxxx.xx> Date: 22 Jun 2006 09:00 GMT


"Jakub Kuryluk" <mailto:xxxxxx@xxxxx.xx> schrieb:
Dear Mr. Tropp,
I know, that Mr. Mozart died in 1851. This year we have the 250th anniversary of his birth. The licenses are free for scripts only. Records on your website are younger than 50 years (I am sure of that). So what about performers' rights to these recordings?
Dnia 22-06-2006 o 08:59:00 SEBASTIAN TROPP <mailto:mozart-turm(at)> napisał:
Dear Mr. Kuryluk,
MOZART is dead since 1791, and since 1851, the licenses are free. Additionally, we are a non profit company for worldwide cultural intentions, without financial interests.
"Jakub Kuryluk" <mailto:xxxxxx@xxxxx.xx> schrieb:
Dear Redactors,
i have w question about mp3 files included on ("Mozart-Archiv" -> "Mozart->Muzik"). What kind of licence are they? I am a Wikipedian and I woould like to add a links to your mp3s on polish Wikipedia ( But these links where remooved (from Wikipedia web page), because this source seems to be illegal to some members of Wikipedia Community. I would like to know, do you have a right to these mp3. I need to heave a sureness about it.

All in all think I that Mr Tropp's case not convincing is, and that the link removed be should :). -- 19:03, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Mozart was a Roman Catholic

This is an established fact. I thus ask whoever is removing the category "Roman Catholics" from Mozart's profile to stop doing so.-Schlier22 04:30, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Hello, no one says he wasn't, the question is whether it's an important or relevant enough fact about him that it belongs as a category. Mozart wasn't a zealot or enthusiast for his religion, he just practiced it on a normal basis like almost everyone else in Austria. So it's really a pretty incidental fact about him, and not, in my opinion, category-worthy. Opus33 05:14, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
As far as one can judge from his biography, he had a quite ambiguous relation to this church: He was treaten quite bad by the catholic church in Salzburg (namely by Archeduce Coloredo), but on the other hand he wrote a lot of compositions with a religious utilisation (Requiem, a lot of "Mass" etc.). But that was a phenomen of his time, as the roman catholic church in Austria was quite rich at his time and was (beside the aristrocracy) one of the main "buyers" (and therefore also employers) for composers. Personally he was a freemason and his most famous opera Die Zauberflöte contains a lot of references in this direction. -- Rfortner 09:11, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
Agree with Opus. Categories as broad as this add nothing useful. The fact of religion can go in the article, but not in a category, as it's just not important enough. Antandrus (talk) 14:41, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

I believe that Mozart's Catholicism is important and relevant enough to both his person and his music to justify categorization as Roman Catholic. For instance, we know from his correspondence that he would often recite to himself the Agnus Dei prayer from the Roman mass (Agnus dei qui tollis peccata mundi, miserere nobis: Lamb of God, who takes away the sins of the world, have mercy on us) if he was in need of inspiration. As to his involvement in Freemasonry-- this says nothing against his Catholic beliefs; and he would not have perceived the teachings of Freemasonry to be incompatible with Catholicism. While the Church always looked with suspicion on Freemasonry, it did not forbid its members from entry into that society under pain of excommunication until 1917 (though it did "ban" the society from Catholic membership in 1738, there were some Catholic priests who were actually members during this time). Antandrus has stated that religion cannot got into categorization, which an opinion at variance with Wikipedia policy-Schlier22 23:37, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

The argument is not entirely whether Mozart was a Roman Catholic, but whether the Wikipedia article about Mozart should be classified in the Roman Catholics category which is a question of a different order.
So, while I agree with Opus33's analysis that Mozart's Roman Catholicism is peripheral, I have different worries also.
Firstly, nowhere in this article is Mozart's Catholicism mentioned or discussed, so as it stands it amounts to an unreferenced assertion that he was a Catholic. That is probably quite easily fixed.
My second worry is less easily addressed: the Roman Catholic category itself is rendered meaningless by the grouping together of Mozart with (to pick random examples of people whose personal Catholicism probably had little in common with Mozart's) Matthew Gannon (Catholicism is an unreferenced assertion), Scott Joplin (another unreferenced assertion), Raphael (whose Catholicism is not mentioned in the article), Jeane Dixon (an astrologer and psychic, the only one in this short list whose Catholicism is mentioned), François Truffaut (Catholicism is an unreferenced assertion) and Jacques Tati (Catholicism is an unreferenced assertion).
Thirdly, according to the Roman Catholic Church article, approximately one sixth of the world's population belongs. As of 1 September 2007, there are 218,712 articles in Category:Living people, so elementary arithmetic shows that Category:Roman Catholics should contain roughly 36,000 articles just about living people. Most Austrian, South German, Italian, French, and Hungarian nominal Christians between 1400 and 1900 probably practised Roman Catholicism, whether through devotion or conformity. So I worry about the utility of a category that has the potential to grow so enormously.
Quite apart from this, there is a history of concern expressed at Category talk:Roman Catholics about the utility and maintainability of the category. The category itself has a {{Categorisation of people disputed}} tag on it.
I think the Roman Catholics category should be kept for articles where the subject's Roman Catholicism is a defining characteristic. You will find plenty of articles for which that is true. It appears that the consensus here will probably be that it isn't true for Mozart. --RobertGtalk 09:21, 4 September 2007 (UTC)