Jump to content

Talk:George Onslow (composer)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Truth of fancy?

[edit]

This article seems to have been written by an enthusiast. For instance: "His work was admired by both Beethoven and Schubert, the latter modelling his own 2-cello quintet (D.956) on those of Onslow and not, as is so often claimed, on those of Boccherini. Robert Schumann, perhaps the foremost music critic during the first part of the 19th century, regarded Onslow’s chamber music on a par with that of Mozart, Haydn and Beethoven. Mendelssohn was also of this opinion."

I know of no indication that Beethoven was even aware of Onslow. The rest I can't speak to, but it seems more than mildly surprising. There are, of course, no footnotes for any of this. I hope somebody can truth-check this, or remove the unsupported statements.Opus131 (talk) 03:20, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's also completely uncited. There is a long list of references, which is highly improbably used in so short and so slight an article. Definitely needs major work.HammerFilmFan (talk) 17:16, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I am now rewriting.--Smerus (talk) 12:35, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

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

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:41, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]