Talk:Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart/Archive 10

Archive 5

←

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

→

Archive 15

Mozart Visiting bach in 1764?

Check the following text from the explanation in "Years of Travel":

"A long concert tour spanning three and a half years followed, taking the family to the courts of Munich, Mannheim, Paris, London, The Hague, again to Paris, and back home via Zürich, Donaueschingen, and Munich. During this trip Mozart met a great number of musicians and acquainted himself with the works of other composers. A particularly important influence was Johann Christian Bach, whom Mozart visited in London in 1764 and 1765. The family again went to Vienna in late 1767 and remained there until December 1768."

It says that he visited Bach in 1764 while the link about Bach says that his death was in 1750.

Is this is an error?.

Thanks.

-Rubén Darío Silva. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.196.232.198 (talk) 23:43, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Is the link to Johann Christian Bach or Johann Sebastian Bach? The later, the 'famous' one, died in 1750 and is the father of the former, who indeed was a huge influence on the young Mozart. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 00:10, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

I can't figure out what the problem is here. I looked at the links in the article and they are to Johann Christian Bach where it's supposed to be Johann Christian Bach (early personal encounter in London), and Johann Sebastian Bach where it's supposed to be Johann Sebastian Bach (later encounter with the music in Vienna). If Rubén Darío Silva believes there is a problem could he please make it clearer what it is? Thanks, Opus33 (talk) 02:59, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

I forgot is Christian not Sebastian, it would be nice to say that is his son.

Thanks... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.198.15.238 (talk) 17:43, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

TOC

Do we really need the table of contents in this talkpage? It lists the Composers' assessment of Nov 2008 twice and even then only jumps to it if either that project's banner is fully extended (from the first occurance) or the BIOG project's banner is fully extended (from the second occurance). Could we change TOC to NOTOC with impunity? --Jubilee♫clipman 08:27, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Dealt with on the /Comments subpage. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 10:42, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Mozart's Nationality

The article effectively sidesteps the issue of whether Mozart was "German" or "Austrian." I know this has been debated ad nauseum (especially on German Wikipedia). However, rather than just ignoring the debate, I wanted to summarize the points on both sides for reference:

MOZART WAS "AUSTRIAN":

• Mozart was born in Salzburg, now part of Austria.
• He spent most of his life in Vienna, capital of the Archduchy of Austria, the Holy Roman Empire and the Hapsburg monarchy.
• If he's not considered "Austrian" because the Austrian Empire was not created until 1804, then he shouldn't be considered "German," because Germany was not united until 1871.

MOZART WAS "GERMAN":

• Mozart always referred to himself as "German." In a letter of Aug. 17, 1782, he refers to "Germany, my beloved fatherland - of which I am proud, as you know."
• Salzburg was an independent city-state, had closer ties to Bavaria and was not part of Austria during Mozart's life.
• People in Vienna did not refer to themselves as "Austrian" until after the Austrian Empire was created in 1804 and the Napoleonic Wars.
• Mozart has been appropriated by Austrians (as seen on their Euro coin) but it is not politically correct for Germans to dispute this for historical reasons.

The problem is that Germanic borders have always fluctuated over time. Also the nation-state as we know it only came to dominate in the 19th and 20th centuries, and before that there were hundreds of empires, duchies, bishoprics, city-states etc. However, rather than ignoring the debate, one could at least acknowledge it and the historical complexities involved. Personally, I think the term "German-Austrian" might be appropriate. 92.78.104.28 (talk) 16:44, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

---

Customarily, we use indentation to separate different posts by different users. At a glance, a regular here will think there's been an extended debate when really it's just you. Moreover I cannot see that this formatting eccentricity serves any useful purpose. Vranak (talk) 05:52, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

After all my effort to make a useful contribution, thanks for criticizing the formatting. I stated clearly I am summarizing a debate - that is the "purpose" - and that should also be clear from the user talk notes. I thought this was more useful than reading lengthy, meandering debates in the archives.88.74.208.114 (talk) 11:17, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

If I appear to overlook the value of your contribution it's only because I think getting too caught up in matters of nationality isn't always a profitable discussion, given that this is one matter that people tend to be highly inflexible on. Vranak (talk) 12:56, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

I hear what you are saying. I hope by summarizing the arguments on both sides, the debate can evolve. Rather than "Mozart is German!" "Mozart is Austrian!" the debate should evolve as to how to present the evidence on both sides. Rather than ignore the debate, one could acknowledge the controversy. This BBC article is a good source. 88.74.208.114 (talk) 13:19, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

I suggest that this article itself is not the place to document discussions and arguments on this matter; an article "Mozart's nationality" might be a better place. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 09:11, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree an article on "Mozart's nationality" would be a good idea. But I have never created a new article before and don't know how to do it. Until that time, I do not see why discussion of it here is out of place. The matter is handled quite well for Copernicus' nationality - here it is just ignored. 94.222.118.188 (talk) 17:17, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

I have refactored your points to make it clearer for other readers. Thanks for the summary - we have had this debate and, as I recall, we agreed to follow the practice in Grove. Eusebeus (talk) 09:51, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for that. I have refactored my summary again using bullet points. My IP address has changed, but I am the same author. What exactly is the practice in Grove? Not to mention it at all? My hope is someone might use the sources I cite to acknowledge the debate. But I can't do this because of page protection. 88.74.208.114 (talk) 13:02, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

I'ver recently made the following statement about the topic on the talk page of the 'List of Germans' article: Maybe the category Swabian people would also fit. His father came from Augsburg and was temporary engaged in Salzburg, where Wolfgang was born. But apart from this: He was neither a citizen of the modern Federal Republic of Germany nor of the modern Republic of Austria, but of the Holy Roman Empire of the German nation, whose head was the Emperor in Vienna. German speaking inhabitants considered themselves Swabians, Bavarians, Austrians, Prussians etc, perhaps even in the first instance, but all considered themselves as Germans. One should not try to apply current imaginations to former times. --Henrig (talk) 09:35, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Interesting approach, but I think it would need a reliable source to withstand criticism. Shall we create a new article called "Mozart's nationality"? 94.222.118.188 (talk) 17:20, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

The article mentions no nationality. Hence there is no need for more explanation.

The family's connections to Augsburg are well-known. Augsburg carries officially the title 'Mozartstadt', Wolfgang's father's roots were in Augsburg and he never abdicated his citizenship there. Five stays of his son in Augsburg are documented. Nine letter of a quite open correspondence between Wolfgang and his Augsburg cousin, who was called by him 'Bäsle' (Swabian expression for a female cousin) survived. Many people from Augsburg and surrounding with the names 'Mozer', 'Motzer' and 'Mozart' consider themselves to have any relation to Wolfgang. An article about his connections to Augsburg and the correspondence with the 'Bäsle', in which Mozart used a language, totally different to the language, which was accepted in upper circles, would be an interesting article. Maybe someone, writes it some day. (Would perhaps be a convenient challenge for a 'Mozer' from Augsburg.) --Henrig (talk) 18:21, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

'Influential'...?

To my mind the use of the term 'influential' is ludicrously inappropiate here. What's more, the section purporting to demonstrate it fails completely: inevitably there just isn't proper factual support. I submit that use of the notion in connection with Mozart is just lazy cheer-leading: "Mozart was a great composer, so lots of other composers admired him, so ... he must have been ... influential...".

Mozart is in fact unusually *un*-influential for a great composer. And it's not difficult to see why: 'Romanticism' very quickly moved musical style and expression away from what were his concerns; he didn't leave loose ends in his work for people to pick up; he didn't innovate in formal or harmonic ways that provoked imitation; and the things he did that were particularly unique and pioneering were things that required an ear and a technique as refined as his -- things which simply did not exist, Mendelssohn perhaps apart.

The entry ought to make a very different point -- drawing attention to the *paucity* of actual inheritors and influencees, and listing the handful of Beethoven works that draw on Mozartian models. Pfistermeister (talk) 00:30, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

The section Influence seems to me populated with well chosen examples and I can't find your quotes in it. There is one questionable paragraph, which should either be sourced or removed:

"More important is the influence Mozart had on composers of later generations. Ever since the surge in his reputation after his death, studying his scores has been a standard part of the training of classical musicians."

A section elaborating on Mozart's un-influentialness might be illuminating, but I suggest to discuss its wording here first. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 13:47, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Just to have one example, I can't imagine anyone reading any good source on Chopin and have it not mention Mozart's influence. Or hell, the influence he had on Haydn. Or Tchaikovsky. Etc etc. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 13:54, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Keyboard query

Mozart played the harpsichord not keyboard. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.102.30.106 (talk) 23:22, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Hello 71.102.30.106, please look at: [1]

Note to other Mozart editors: this is the third such comment we have received so far. It looks like inexperienced readers get really confused by our usage of the work "keyboard". Evidently, the only meaning of the word that they know is "electronic keyboard." Is there anything we should be doing to help them or should we just continue the current wording? Opus33 (talk) 17:33, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Purple prose?

The last paragraph of the lead currently says:

Mozart learned voraciously from others, and developed a brilliance and maturity of style that encompassed the light and graceful along with the dark and passionate—the whole informed by a vision of humanity "redeemed through art, forgiven, and reconciled with nature and the absolute."[2] His influence on subsequent Western art music is profound. Beethoven wrote his own early compositions in the shadow of Mozart, of whom Joseph Haydn wrote that "posterity will not see such a talent again in 100 years."[3]

I'm concerned with the bit taken from Nicholas Till (who is cited in fn. 2):

"informed by a vision of humanity "redeemed through art, forgiven, and reconciled with nature and the absolute."[2]".

Perhaps this appropriately describes the way certain listeners feel about Mozart, but it doesn't strike me as being an objective or encyclopedic observation about the composer himself. Unless there are objections in the next few days, I propose to take it out.

Thanks, Opus33 (talk) 16:37, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

The way I understand how Wikipedia operates, it doesn't matter whether the prose is purple or objective or encyclopedic (or even untrue or false) as long as it can be reliably cited from a reputable source, which seems to be the case here. Having said that, I would not object to the removal that paragraph. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 03:31, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

True enough re. purple. My intention was only to excise "the whole informed ... and the absolute," not the whole paragraph. Opus33 (talk) 05:22, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Nothing wrong culling that, IMHO. It doesn't make much sense: "a vision of humanity redeemed through art, forgiven, …"? Into the bin! -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 07:23, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Austrian vs. German

Please clarify: how can Mozart be an Austrian pianist, when Salzburg, at the time of his birth, was part of Germany? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.233.2.127 (talk) 04:21, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Neither Austria nor Germany existed at the time of his birth, and Salzburg was an independent principality within the Holy Roman Empire. See above (and archives of this talk page) for further discussion on his nationality. It is better to include him in both Austrian and German categories, than to include him in neither, or to create categories like "Classical pianists of the Holy Roman Empire". (This is why, for example, he is in both List of Austrian composers and List of German composers.) Magic♪piano 16:07, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Pending changes

This article is one of a number selected for the early stage of the trial of the Wikipedia:Pending Changes system on the English language Wikipedia. All the articles listed at Wikipedia:Pending changes/Queue are being considered for level 1 pending changes protection.

The following request appears on that page:

Comments on the suitability of theis page for "Pending changes" would be appreciated.

Please update the Queue page as appropriate.

Note that I am not involved in this project any much more than any other editor, just posting these notes since it is quite a big change, potentially

Regards, Rich Farmbrough, 00:40, 17 June 2010 (UTC).

Thank you. The presentation of the new Pending Changes system to the editing community has not been very clear, but as far as I can tell, it would be a mistake to remove the old "semi-protection" from our Mozart article. (By "semi-protection" is meant that anonymous editors cannot edit the article.) The reason is as follows:

1. There is always a huge inflow of vandalism from anons when semi-protection is not applied.
2. On top of that, there is a largish inflow of edits from registered editors who don't know much about Mozart but want to edit the article anyway and make mistakes. (They do things like saying "it is said that X" or using Amadeus as a reference source.)

The problem is to spot all the problems of type 2, when the page history is swarming with cases of type 1. This was a real difficulty with this article until a kindly admin placed it under permanent semi-protection.

So I would like it to remain under semi-protection if this is at all possible. As far as I can tell, putting it under the new "Pending changes" system would bring back the bad old days.

Thanks, Opus33 (talk) 17:28, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

"Clavier"

Hello, I relinked clavier to the clavier disambiguation page and not to Clavichord. I'm pretty sure that "clavier" as used in the 18th century did not specifically mean "clavichord"; literally it means "keyboard" and in practice it was used to refer to a keyboard instrument without committing oneself as to which one. The New Grove gives: "A term for the keyboard of a piano, harpsichord, organ etc. It was used to denote ‘manual keyboard’ at Rouen as early as 1386." The online Britannica gives "any stringed keyboard musical instrument in Germany from the late 17th century. The harpsichord, the clavichord, and, later, the piano bore the name."

I will also amplify the Clavier disambiguation page to match. Regards, Opus33 (talk) 16:04, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree that disambiguating clavier to clavichord was probably too hasty. (I was just irritated by the link to a disambiguation page and didn't think hard enough to reject my first approximation.) I now think that a better target would be the piped use of [[Keyboard instrument|clavier]]. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 03:56, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Sound good to me. Opus33 (talk) 04:28, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Peer review nomination

Please note that an editor has nominated the article for WP: Peer review. Brianboulton (talk) 22:53, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Refs and cites

Just a word of notice: I've just finished collecting and standardizing the references; I'm in the process of tidying up inline citations on my sandbox, and will move it over here when I'm done. --Blehfu (talk) 03:44, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Prodigies don't learn from others. They shine out above the mediocracy

Opus33, The statement in the lead about Mozart "learning voraciously from others" hardly befits the man. This statement is the kind which panders to the mediocracy and subtly undermines his true genius. It gives undue credit to unidentified 'others' for the greatness which is associated with Mozart. Sure he learned in his infancy from his father Leopold, and he was introduced to the works of Bach and Handel by Baron van Swieten. But I have always assumed Mozart to be the kind of man who would glance at the works of Bach and Handel and instantly improve them. I don't see him so much as a learner than as a man who showed everybody else how it should really be done.

I changed the wording subtly so as to mention distinctly recognizable names, Handel and Bach, that were at least in his own league, and I carefully used the word 'influenced' as distinct from the word 'learned'. Is that the aspect of my edits yesterday which you objected too? If so, then what you need to do is say so. Citing lack of talk page discussion is not a legitimate basis in its own right for reverting an edit, never mind using the rollback facility. As regards your use of the rollback facility, it appears to me that it was a total abuse of the tool. I have copied this line from the wikipedia page about 'rollbacking'.

Use of standard rollback for any other purposes – such as reverting good-faith changes which you happen to disagree with – is likely to be considered misuse of the tool. When in doubt, use another method of reversion and supply an edit summary to explain your reasoning.

It would appear here that you have misused the rollback tool, because you reverted grammar improvements as well, along with the addition of the word 'sacred' before the choral genre. Also, I can't help noticing that this page has been protected for as long as I can remember. I can't remotely see why, bearing in mind that Handel, Bach, Haydn, and Schubert aren't protected. Is there any legitimate reason why Mozart needs to be protected indefinitely? I know that in science, they don't like to protect articles for more than a few days at a time. I think that perhaps it is time that we should consider unprotecting the Mozart article because otherwise it will start to look as though there is a serious case of ownership going on. David Tombe (talk) 18:00, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Opus33, Actually, looking further up the page, I can see that you yourself had issues with aspects from the same quote. Maybe it's time now to remove all traces of that quote. David Tombe (talk) 18:10, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps you should read what rollbacking is before you accuse other people of misusing it. You can't modify an edit summary when you do it. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 20:34, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Hello, there's a lot to reply to here, so here goes:

First, Melodia is right, I didn't rollback, and I'm aware that this privilege should not be abused. I reverted, for exactly the reason I gave in the edit summary. The Mozart lead is extremely visible material on WP and I think it's fair to ask editors to discuss what they want to do and why before they change it.

Re. whether discussing influences on Mozart "subtly undermines his true genius". This evokes a general issue about Mozart biography. Earlier biographies (19th, early 20th century) seem to have emphasized Mozart's "greatness" as a kind of miracle, something to express awe at. More recent biographies, however, soft-pedal the "greatness" thing--not because the authors feel Mozart was not wonderful, but because they are unenthusiastic about miraculous explanations and judge that you can actually understand quite a bit about what Mozart wrote by understanding the world and circumstances he lived in. For discussion of this, please see Mozart's compositional method and the essay by Robert Levin, "Mozart as working stiff", linked from there.

Re. "Mozart would look at the works of Bach and Handel and instantly improve them"--well, this is actually quite controversial. The baroque-style fugues Mozart wrote in response to his encounter (at Baron van Swieten's) with Bach and Handel's music are felt by some to be a bit wooden, and they are not often performed. Mozart's revisions of Handel's Messiah do get performed every once in a while, but hardly as often as the original. For disucssion, see Gottfried van Swieten.

Re. mentioning Bach and Handel as specific influences. These came fairly late in Mozart's life (cf. 1782), and probably the more important ones were the ones that came early, such as Johann Christian Bach or Italian opera.

Re. article protection: please, please, do not remove the protection on this article. When protection is taken off, we get zillions of vandalism edits, creating lots of work and making it hard to watch real changes. It is extremely rare that we see an anonymous edit to this article that is not vandalism. It may be true that Handel, Bach, Haydn, and Schubert aren't protected, but Mozart is more famous (I suspect) than any of them and attracts more vandalism as a result.

"Reverted grammar improvements". Um, well ... I feel that the prose changes mostly made it more wordy. Please note that I did not write the lead of this article; User:Brianboulton did; and for what it's worth, he is a multiple Featured Article author. I judge that Boulton's prose is pithier and more reader friendly. (I'd be happy to discuss whether "voracious" is purple prose, though.)

Sorry to go on so long but a lot was brought up here. I hope DavidTombe will consider this a courteous and respectful reply. Yours very truly, Opus33 (talk) 00:52, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Agree with Opus. Eusebeus (talk) 07:04, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Opus33, Thank you very much for your reply above. I am very interested in what you said regarding the fact that there has been a change of emphasis in the modern literature regarding the origins of Mozart's genius. I was totally unaware of this, yet at the same time, now that I am aware, I am not entirely surprised, because that's the way things seem to be going generally. I of course would cling very much to the old fashioned view on the matter, but then that is only my own opinion. My own opinion would be that if Salieri were to come back from the dead and write the Mozart introduction at wikipedia, that irrespective of what he believed deep down, he would try to belittle Mozart's genius by attributing credit to the surrounding mediocracy, just as like in the existing lead to the article. So since it's clearly one of these issues of old sources versus modern revisionist sources, then you can count me out. I'm not going to get involved anymore because I've come to too much grief at wikipedia as a result of being on the wrong side of modern revisionist sources. I'll finish by reminding you that nobody can teach anybody how to write Eine Kleine Nachtmusik. David Tombe (talk) 11:47, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Mozart was derivited to many different people and musical ideas. You are romanticizing him. There are instances of him borrowing a melody line or something from other compositions, just like any other musician. He was a very conservative composer actually in many ways. He stuck very close to form and used a lot of musical clichés. Not saying he was lesser because of that, but it’s true.

This myth that everything came natural to him is not true at all. From reading his letters, you learn that he was a very hard worker and never stopped practicing and learning about music. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.231.28.185 (talk) 21:58, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Pronunciation of Mozart's name

(Prompted by hearing someone say "MOE-zart" in a cafe ...) I think it's quite unhelpful to only list the German pronunciation. No English speakers would normally pronounce his name as given, and there's no indication whatsoever of normal English pronunciation. I'm planning to add an indication something like

English, usually [ˈwʊlfgæŋ æməˈdeɪəs ˈmoʊtsɑrt]

(For non-IPAers, approximately "WOLF-gang am-uh-DAY-us MOE-tsart") Obviously there is never complete uniformity in pronunciation of foreign names, but that's not a good reason not to give the most common pronunciation. (For those wanting to be WP:OR-ly correct, I could cite my copy of Webster's New World dictionary, which gives usual English pronunciations of foreign names.) Benwing (talk) 06:46, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

I see your point but it seems difficult to proceed in the absence of a really standard English pronunciation. My web search suggests that web sources mostly tell you the German pronunciation. This site: [2] does recommend an English pronunciation, but it's not the same as the one you gave: [ˈwʊlfgæŋ ɑməˈdeɪəs ˈmoʊtsɑrt]. (I have also heard [ˈwʊlfgɑŋ]).

Another nuance is that there are degrees of faithfulness to the original German. This author [3] grouses at renderings (like your cafe person's) that use phonetic [z] for German [ts]. The same author doesn't seem to care, however, about the use of [æ] vs. [ɑ].

It all seems too complicated to fit in the lead paragraph, and hard to do without violating the policy at WP:OR.

A alternative would be to add a section to Mozart's name, covering English pronunciation, and link to it from the Mozart lead. Sourcing such a section would be hard but perhaps not impossible. Thanks for bringing this up. Opus33 (talk) 17:14, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Hum, OK. Even my Webster's New World, which usually gives English pronunciations, doesn't actually give one for this name, although for "Mozartean" it gives "-tsärt ē ǝn". I think if we were to add such a section, the way to go would be to specify the fact that the last name is normally pronounced with a /ts/, and give examples of Anglicized pronunciations of the full name from whichever sources give such pronunciations, e.g. Longman's Pronunciation Dictionary. BTW the dictionary on Mac OS says "Mozart |ˈmōˌtsärt|", although I don't know what the source is. Benwing (talk) 06:58, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Ok, I've found what looks like a particularly suitable reference source -- a guide by Fradkin to pronunciation for classical DJ's. I listed its recommendations, along with a hint that pronunciations can vary. The author says pretty much what you said -- that mutilating the z is a mistake, but English vowels are fine. I put this material in as a footnote to the main Mozart article, trying not to clutter the opening paragraph too much. The source is at:

[4], p. 144

I hope this is a viable solution. Thanks for bringing this up. Opus33 (talk) 20:17, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Isolated passage in section "1777–1778: The Paris journey"

The passage "The A minor piano sonata K. 310/300d and the "Paris" Symphony (no. 31) are among several well-known works from Mozart's time in Paris, where they were performed on 12 June and 18 June 1778." inside of section "1777–1778: The Paris journey" is too disconnected from the rest of the section. It can be either expanded, fused with the rest or eliminated. ICE77 (talk) 03:10, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Hello, the article in general places well-known representative works within each biographical section so as to link career and oeuvre, and it would seem reasonable to do this for the Paris journey as well. I tried to address your remark by restoring an earlier wording whose word order is perhaps a bit better for linking the material to its context. Opus33 (talk) 17:27, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, that sounds like a good idea. ICE77 (talk) 06:43, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from 64.180.75.139, 30 December 2010

{{edit semi-protected}}

grammer check 64.180.65.139 (talk) 17:44, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Not done: please be more specific about what needs to be changed.   — Jeff G.  ツ 17:57, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Mozart a "loyal" Catholic?

"He was raised a Roman Catholic, and remained a loyal member of the Church throughout his life." This line is difficult as Mozart was a Freemason towards the end of his life. This took place after Catholics had been banned from joining in 1738. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.21.155.246 (talk) 04:18, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Well, this is complicated since Freemasonry did flourish in Vienna in Mozart's day and most of the Masons were at least nominally Catholic. For more discussion, see Mozart and Roman Catholicism and Mozart and Freemasonry.

On the other hand, the word "loyal" is a leftover from a period I had of quarreling with an insistent editor who, I feel, was pushing a biased (pro-church) point of view. Inspired by your comment, I will now try removing the tendentious word "loyal" and see if that will stick. Opus33 (talk) 17:35, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Notes/References/Bibliography

PJinBoston (talk · contribs) idignantly added the section "Bibliography" to the article, duplicating three entries from the section "References". I find this confusing. The guideline Wikipedia:Manual of Style (layout)#Notes and References is open to various formats, and Wikipedia:Citing sources itself uses "Notes/References". Is there a need for a section "Bibliography"? Should the existing section "References" be renamed to "Bibliography"? I think the previous structure was just fine. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 03:00, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure whether the section is needed, but the heading "Bibliography" should not be used for that type of section in biographical articles, as it's only used for books and other works written by the subject of the article (so if Mozart wrote a book it would go under "Bibliography", but if someone else did it can't). Nikkimaria (talk) 03:23, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

First instrument/Myths

You might want to add that Mozart first learned on a harpischord, predecessor to the modern-day piano. Also- is the story with Allegri's misere absolutely true? Seems like it might be a legend to me. If it is true, CITE IT!!—Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.2.155.145 (talk) 23:20, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for spotting the uncited Allegri story, I've spliced in a citation. The story is actually not very controversial, since Leopold wrote home to Mama and Nannerl about it and his letter survives. The controversy only concerns how impressive Mozart's memory feat was (had he heard it before, seen it before, etc.).

It is very likely that Mozart's first lessons were on a harpsichord but do you know of a reference source for this? Thanks, Opus33 (talk) 16:27, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

I don't know - it may be that the Mozarts had a primitive fortepiano, instead of a harpsichord, or in addition to one.

THE MOZART COMPENDIUM, edited by H.C. Robbins Landon, ç1990, Thames and Hudson Ltd.,10th edition - states on pg.12, "1761 - 24 Jan - Learns his first piece on the piano, a Scherzo by G.C. Wagenseil, between 9:00 and 9:30 in the evening."

I've got the book "Mozart's Letters" (along with a couple other bio's) and I assume the above info is taken from some letter of Leopold's. The bibliography of the Compendium is six pages of small print, and I haven't gone through it to try and establish what the exact source is, but my hunch is that it would have come from Leopold. The reviews of the book definitely show it to be a RS, not to mention the many scholarly contributors that the material is drawn from. By the way, this is an early example of his aptitude toward both the instrument and music in general ... what a thing to wish to go back and witness, knowing what a genius he would show himself to be as an adult! HammerFilmFan (talk) 16:42, 14 May 2011 (UTC) HammerFilmFan

Near fatal illnesses

I have been reading through the article and I find 'They [the young Mozart's family] endured long, near-fatal illnesses far from home: first Leopold (London, summer 1764)[12] then both children (The Hague, autumn 1765).[13]'. Might it be an idea to add a bit more detail here? I find myself more interested in the nature of these illnesses than the exact time & place, and I can't remember the details unfortunately. Alex Harvey (talk) 12:59, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

There's more at the satellite article ("Grand Tour") listed at the top of this section. Opus33 (talk) 15:26, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

How come his father (Leopold) can be called German but Wolfgang cannot?

Both birthplaces of both individuals are now part of Austria but back then was part of the Holy Roman Empire Of The GERMAN Nation and Austrians were considered as Germans just like Bavarians, Prussians, etc is is just one of the few German states that never joined the unification due to the German war in 1866 which booted Austria out of modern-day Germany, but even Wolfgang referred Germany as his homeland. Just because his birthplace is now in Austria that doesn't make him not German. He was German. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.238.166.81 (talk) 23:02, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

And Salzburg did not become Austrian until 1805 (Mozart was already dead then) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.5.184.243 (talk) 19:59, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

That's right but the birthplace of his father(Augsburg)is still in Germany. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.201.108.56 (talk) 07:19, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Title of Cavaliere

Suggest adding Mozart's title of Cavaliere in front of his name. Mozart was knighted by Pope Clemence XIV, and it seems only correct to state that Mozart was in fact a knight of the Papacy.

The official title would be Cavaliere dello Speron d'Oro, while I expect a simple "Cavaliere" will do. Clarification can be stated in an "Honours" section, as is accustomary on wikipedia for biographical pages on individuals who have been knighted or otherwise honoured. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.72.23.67 (talk) 04:35, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

We have the papal knighthood covered in Mozart and Roman Catholicism. I don't think the title "Cavaliere" is important enough to put in front of his name in this article. In particular, other reference sources, such as the Grove Dictionary, don't do this. Opus33 (talk) 23:43, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

This issue seems to have popped up again; Draxacoffilus added the full title at the beginning of the article. The title doesn't seem notable enough to stick right at the beginning; keep or remove it from that part of the article? Ross280 (talk) 19:57, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

My feeling is remove (and I just did so) -- for the reasons Opus stated. We don't include the titles of every person who has one at the top of their article. Antandrus (talk) 20:04, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

I too dislike seeing this peculiar title there which I personally, for what that's worth, have not encountered in 30+ years.

For the sake of comparison, a musical figure who does get referred to as a Papal Knight on recordings on occasion would be John McCormack (tenor).

Varlaam (talk) 04:33, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Charles Rosen quote

Remove that tripe! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.232.191.16 (talk) 20:50, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Whether it's tripe or just a bit purple is a matter of opinion, but Wikipedia's rules of verifiability by reliable sources encourage these kinds of quotes. Maybe someone would like to try paraphrasing (and thereby shortening) it so it doesn't stick out like a sore thumb. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 04:48, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Early Vienna years

The article says: "In 1783, Mozart and his wife visited his family in Salzburg. His parents were cordially polite to Constanze." In the section titled Paris journey it states: "Mozart's mother took ill and died on 3 July 1778." Shouldn't it read "His father was cordially polite"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.64.53.116 (talk) 06:34, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Actually, it should read his father and sister. I'll change it. Thanks for catching that! Lhb1239 (talk) 06:51, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Abortion question ? etc.

I came across this triple whammy in a sampler from an anti abortion essay on a dodgy essay site Here[[5]] "the father of the unborn Mozart was crippled, his mother was deaf and blind, and his parents already had thir!teen(sic) other children" and I wondered if all three are untrue ? Thank FSM for WP I had been searching for a lateral thinking exercise I had heard years ago that asked some thing along the lines of -would you abort a foetus if the mother of 5 chidren who were stillborn or disabled got pregnant again -if you answered yes the questioner replied triumphantly "well you just killed Mozart" Does anyone remember that or have a reference?"--— Tumadoireacht ^Talk/_Stalk 04:56, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

It's nonsense; you can read about Mozart's mother here; his father was a famous composer. They had seven children but only two survived infancy, Nannerl and Wolfgang. Antandrus (talk) 05:05, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree. None of the standard biographical works I've read says that Leopold was crippled or Anna Maria was deaf and blind. Opus33 (talk) 17:35, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Well that's sort of a mix-up: the story is about Beethoven. --131.159.0.7 (talk) 09:47, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

That's fascinating. It's not true about Beethoven either. Tad Lincoln (talk) 08:21, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Addition of country

I suggest adding the country of origin, "was a prolific and influential Austrian composer, which should be included. Otr500 (talk) 16:00, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. This issue has popped up quite a few times on this discussion page before (see Archive). The difficulty is that none of the possibilities can be described both briefly and accurately. The literally correct answer ("citizen of the Prince-Archbishopric of Salzburg") is uninformative to modern readers. "Austrian" is many people's favorite, but in Mozart's day Salzburg was not part of Austria (it was not within the Habsburg Empire). "German" was used by Mozart to describe himself. And lastly, there's the problem of the Holy Roman Empire, a vague and faded political entity of which Salzburg was a part. So it's really quite complicated. This needs a separate article, I think, written with care (because we get problems with nationalist editors) and properly referenced. If anyone wants to try this, the Cambridge Mozart Encyclopedia has some very helpful material. Opus33 (talk) 17:45, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

By all due respect, Gentlemen, but actually it is not "quite complicated", Mozart was German, a citizen of the Holy Roman Empire of the German Nation. Also he "felt" German, as one can read in his letters to his father: "Was mich aber am meisten aufrichtet und guten Mutes erhält, ist, daß ich ein ehrlicher Deutscher bin." Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart, Deutscher Komponist (1756-1791) in einem Brief vom 29. Mai 1778 In 2003 Mozart was voted to one of the greatest Germans alongsides with Martin Luther and Johannes Gutenberg, at first "Austrian" media went crazy, until Austrian and German historians proved the case, know his nationality is accepted in Austria and Salzburg by almost all. By the way: Austrians are Germans too, eben Kaiser Franz Joseph (Emporer Franz Joseph) said: "Ich bin der Kaiser Österreichs - ein deutscher Fürst!" I am the Emporer of Austria--a German prince! Hyperboreer 20:27, 27 April 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hyperboreer (talk • contribs)

Amen Amen Amen. Hashem sfarim (talk) 22:07, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Opus33 has explained this clearly. I think the present version is satisfactory in de-emphasizing this question. Nationality in the 18th century was not the same thing as nationality in the 19th or 20th. Let's concentrate on what is important — Mozart's music! --Kleinzach 23:19, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

SOME (and by that I mean the majority of the population) of Austria (today) are Germans. The other 30% or so are Italians and Swiss, ethnically - it was not, and today is not, a "nation-state" (everyone gets along very well there.) The Austrian monarchy was ethnically German. In Mozart's day the Austro-Hungarian Empire also contained Hungary, Bohemia, and a big chunk of the Balkans - with a German overlord as emperor. The Holy Roman Empire at this time had lost its Italian southern portion, and can be said to have been more or less ethnically German (yes, there were French and Danes and Slavs within its borders) - but was only a nominal political entity, as "Germany" was divided into many independent states. Mozart spoke German, was raised as a German, and considered himself German. He was cosmopolitan in his views of his audience - loving Prague, loving Paris, loving Vienna. Any nationalist wars are positively dull on this topic and should be ignored here. Besides, his music 'belongs to the world' now. HammerFilmFan (talk) 16:22, 14 May 2011 (UTC) HammerFilmFan

Well, he was Austrian (I say that as a German) although Kurt Wilhelm in his most popular "Brandner Kaspar" puts him "most of the time" into the Bavarian heaven "because he likes it better here" (the Princeabpr. of Salzburg was considered to be part of Bavaria, in the sense of country - obviously not in the sense of Electorate - even by an Austrian such as Father Abraham of Sancta Clara). Reason: Salzburg is now as a whole part of Austria; he worked in the capital of Austria for the reigning Archduke of Austria; the Holy Roman Emperors were in all but literal title predecessors to the future Austrian Emperors; and his music is specifically Austrian in style (other than, for instance, Beethoven's, even though himself a Viennese composer; to be silent of Bach; it has even been said that "Anton" Salieri was the more German of the two). However I may be somewhat personally odd, for I'd concede Händel to the English.--131.159.0.7 (talk) 10:02, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

He was in a way both, but only calling him Austrian and not German seems to be influenced by an Anti-German attitude. 89.204.136.52 (talk) 18:43, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Well, In my opinion and after watching several documentaries, his Father was a composer, very famous too and that is I think part of what made Mozart start composing at such a young age, also His Mother was never blind, many articles have been confusing people on this thus no one is sure about the truth but we have to get it straight some day. -agaille — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.238.152.117 (talk) 07:19, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

The Austrians are Germans anyone with a basic knowledge into history can see this is true, they are ethnic Germans and Mozart even described himself as a German as well and his birthplace was not part of Austria at his birthplace so his nationality would not have been Austrian, it would have been German just like anyone else inside the HRE that spoke German. Austrians considered themselves as Germans until the end of WWII the new Austrian nation is a post-Nazi era nation. Even though Adolf Hitler was an Austrian (nationality) by birth.

Why not put Austrian-German doesn't that work perfect? --Wonderman91 (talk) 21:41, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

One problem with the word German is that it has acquired an entirely new meaning since Mozart's time, i.e., of or pertaining to the nation-state of Germany, which came into existence in 1871 and notably did not include Austria. Even though this was originally a secondary meaning, it has since become the primary meaning. If one wishes to refer to German in the pre-1871 sense, one is almost obligated to say "ethnic German." Zyxwv99 (talk) 15:10, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

180,000 Albert a tenorio ll (talk) 21:30, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

Why no info boxes for European Classical composers?

How come none of the European classical composers have info boxes which have their details, it would be so useful just like authors, politicians etc have info boxes about them. Age, country, DOB, DOD, genre, romantic, baroque. etc etc. Strange that no one has created this?--Halqh حَلَقَة הלכהሐላቃህ (talk) 08:00, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:WikiProject Composers#Biographical infoboxes and the further links provided there. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 10:40, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Lack of Infobox

Is there a reason why this and many other articles don't have an infobox on the side? It seems rather standard for wikipedia biography pages to have infoboxes (eg. William Shakespeare). I've checked several composer pages, but they do not seem to have any. Why is this? --Harizotoh9 (talk) 19:00, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Because they aren't required by any guideline, they duplicate (sometimes incorrectly) info already in the article, and many editors (myself included) hate them for those very reasons. They are loaded with problems, trying to summarize an important bio into infobox parameters often leads to errors, and they rarely add anything that isn't already covered in the lead. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:09, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

So there isn't any guideline that specifically states infoboxes are out for composers? That differs from the impression another editor gave not long ago when reverting out an infobox added to this article by an editor. Yes, infoboxes do duplicate what's already in the article, however, it is a helpful tool for those looking at a Wikipedia article and would like some fast facts. Articles as big as this one is make it difficult for someone looking for those fast facts to find them - an infobox simplifies. Not everyone coming to Wikipedia wants or has the time to read through and digest a large article - discouraged, they will go to another source. Additionally, the duplication argument doesn't hold water for me since the opening paragraph of an article is also duplicated material as it is meant to be a summary of the article content. I, for one, would like to see infoboxes added to large articles such as this that fall into a category (e.g., classical composers). It seems to me it could be for another consensus to be sought on this issue as there are - by all appearances - at least two editors who feel an infobox in this article (and others like it) is needed. Lhb1239 (talk) 19:23, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

If you're aware of any guideline that makes them obligatory, please post it-- I'm not, they are subject to consensus, many editors hate them. Particularly for a large article, summarizing tidbits down to bite-size chunks might not always be possible or accurate. Your argument amounts to, if two summaries are bad, three are better (and one of them is constrained by bite-size parameters). Our only market isn't the attention-deficit-- accuracy is more important (to some), and accuracy can't always be conveyed in the bite-size paramters of an infobox. As for consensus on this article, I oppose an infobox. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:33, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

"only market isn't the attention-deficit" - I'm hoping you aren't referring to those looking for fast facts about an article subject as individuals with attention-deficit, and if you are, that you aren't trying to diminish their importance as those who utilize Wikipedia. Believing that is what you're saying without confirmation from you would be non-AGF, after all. Back to the subject of infoboxes: accuracy is to be achieved everywhere in the article, that's why a lot of people keep articles on their watchlist: to insure accuracy is maintained. Accuracy CAN be conveyed in an infobox just as it can be conveyed in the opening paragraph and the body of an article. In fact, accuracy is easier to pinpoint in an infobox than in a long, complicated article (where inaccuracies can get lost and remain unseen amongst all the hundreds of words and numerous sections). Lhb1239 (talk) 19:42, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

That's one view. The other is that accuracy is harder to pinpoint in an infobox because nuances, differences in opinion among sources, etc cannot be easily accommodated, as they can in article text. Furthermore, infoboxes are generally discouraged in composer biographies, per the WikiProject guideline and the past discussions linked to from that page. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:13, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

I get that the consensus in the past has been to leave infoboxes out. I think it's time to revisit that consensus. Consensus isn't written in stone and can most certainly change. Lhb1239 (talk) 20:30, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

I doubt think much good is going to come from another debate, considering the recent one on another talk page (I forget the exact person). Of course, I really wonder why the arguments always seem to turn toward things that have nothing to do with classical musicians, but rather would be a problem with historical figures in general. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 21:08, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Given the constantly reactivated controversy about Mozart's nationality, I think the last thing we need is a potted 'fill in all the fields' biog. in an info box! --Kleinzach 04:33, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

While that's the best argument (and funniest ;-) against infoboxes for composer's I've seen yet, it still doesn't persuade. With all of the endless info that goes into them - if it works for European royalty present and past, it can work for composers as well. Lhb1239 (talk) 05:48, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

There is a clique of dedicated editors dead set against infoboxes. Their standard answer: it inartfully summarizes the article. I wish you luck. TuckerResearch (talk) 06:24, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

"in what is now Austria" why not "in what is now modern-day Austria"

It makes more sense because Austria still existed then but you could say in now modern-day Austria as it is now part of Austria but not when he was born.--Wonderman91 (talk) 20:05, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

"now modern-day" looks like the worst tautology of all time. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 20:14, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Agreed -- "now" should be sufficient. Antandrus (talk) 20:19, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Indeed. I have changed it back to "now" only. Lhb1239 (talk) 20:25, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

But Austria existed back then just his birthplace wasn't part of it then.--Wonderman91 (talk) 20:40, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

That sense is conveyed by: "Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart was born ... in Salzburg, capital of the sovereign Archbishopric of Salzburg in what is now Austria, but then was part of the Holy Roman Empire." The "now" does not deny the existence of Austria in Mozart's time, all it's saying is that Salzburg is now in Austria but wasn't back then.

But maybe this would be better: "Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart was born ... in Salzburg, capital of the sovereign Archbishopric of Salzburg, at that time part of the Holy Roman Empire (it is now in Austria)." -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 21:08, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

If I recall correctly, WP:MOS discourages the use of parenthesis. If the sentence is rewritten, it should be done in such a way that the parenthesis aren't necessary. Lhb1239 (talk) 21:23, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

What about this: "Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart was born ... in Salzburg, capital of the sovereign Archbishopric of Salzburg. While at the time of his birth Salzburg was part of the Holy Roman Empire, it is now in Austria." Lhb1239 (talk) 21:41, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Looks good to me. Antandrus (talk) 21:57, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

We could also change it to "...part of the Holy Roman Empire, in <insert year here> it became part of Austria and remains so in the present day." (or would that be [[WP:UNDUE|undue weight in an article not about Austria or the Roman Empire?) Lhb1239 (talk) 22:20, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

If it cannot remain as it is, which is my 1st preference, my 2nd preference is Lhb1239's 1st version. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 10:53, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

I like it too, except that, since we've just said he was born, it isn't necessary to say "at the time of his birth". So, how about:

• "Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart was born ... in Salzburg, capital of the sovereign Archbishopric of Salzburg. While Salzburg was then part of the Holy Roman Empire, it is now in Austria."

I could live with "at that time" instead of "then", but "then" does the job admirably succinctly, imo. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 19:32, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Much better (with "then"), but still my 2nd preference. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 01:35, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

I have difficulties understanding why the Holy Roman Empire is mentioned at all in that context. Salzburg was as sovereign state at the time of Mozart's birth. Later, Salzburg lost its sovereign status, and became part of Austria. Saying that Salzburg was "part" oft the Holy Roman Empire equals saying that (modern) Austria is a part of the European Union. The Holy Roman Empire wasn't a sovereign state, but was a Union of sovereign states. The EU has more common institutions than the Holy Roman Empire ever had. And while the EU member states have never fought any wars against each other, this was indeed the case with member states of the Holy Roman Empire (see for example the Silesian Wars. Thus, the solution would be: Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart was born (...) in Salzburg, capital of the sovereign Archbishopric of Salzburg, and today part of Austria." Any comments, guys? --Catgut (talk) 00:13, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes, Mozart, who described Germany in his letters as his "beloved fatherland", was an Austrian and Hitler was a German! No! It's a pattern, which you frequently try to impose in your contributions! At Mozart's time German speaking people within the "Holy Roman Empire of the German nation" (its full name) were, as a matter of course, seen as Germans. In the churches of the HRE the final prayer included the name of the emperor followed by the name of the duke or archbishop etc. (In Prussia this was abolished during the Seven-Year War). Princes of the HRE were obliged to give the emperor troops in cases of war. (It's another topic, that a part of the princes might have seen the long wars of the emperor against the Osmans as a guarantee for a large own independence from the emperor and were only alerted, when the Osmans were victorious and threatened Vienna.) The HRE was the background for the awareness of the people and should be mentioned on all accounts. Henrig (talk) 13:26, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Mozart (27 January 1756 – 5 December 1791) was born in Salzburg. Salzburg became independent from Bavaria in the late 14th century; then was the seat of the Archbishopric of Salzburg, a prince-bishopric of the Holy Roman Empire. In 1805, Salzburg was annexed by the Austrian Empire.

Mozart died 14 years before the Austrian Empire annexed Salzburg. If anything, Mozart was Bavarian (German). Any questions? --IIIraute (talk) 03:18, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes. Why are behaving so arrogantly? -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 04:03, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

...because the never ending discussion.... Mozart was Austrian and Hitler was German.... is so boring!--IIIraute (talk) 04:10, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Maybe, but these matters are resolved by patient negotiation, consensus building and a degree of compromise, which takes as long as it takes. They are not resolved by one editor asserting "This is the way it is, because I say so", or words to that effect. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 04:23, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

No, no compromise, because in this case they are resolved by historical and undeniable facts.--IIIraute (talk) 04:47, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Facts, eh. Again, because you say they are facts? Or, if not you, who or what is your authority? Wikipedia works by having recourse to what reliable and citable sources say, not what editors say. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 05:55, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Was Mozart (27 January 1756 – 5 December 1791) born in Salzburg? Did Salzburg become independent from Bavaria in the late 14th century? Did it become the seat of the Archbishopric of Salzburg, a prince-bishopric of the Holy Roman Empire? Was Salzburg annexed by the Austrian Empire in 1805? Did Mozart die 14 years beforen Salzburg was annexed by the Austrian Empire? ...because the whole world of modern historians says they are facts. My authority is being an academic and historian - to support my authority I can provide you with 10.000 sources on the statements made above.--IIIraute (talk) 10:42, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Be our guest. That's what we want to see. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 10:54, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

[6],[7]--IIIraute (talk) 13:51, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Pinnacles?

The article states, "He [Mozart] composed over 600 works, many acknowledged as pinnacles of symphonic, concertante, chamber, piano, operatic, and choral music." The part of this text which I struggle with is "piano"; Mozart's piano sonatas are generally viewed as the weakest part of his output. On the other hand, Mozart's music for two pianos is far better, so perhaps the lead paragraph should remain unaltered. --Toccata quarta (talk) 14:49, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

I think you are right and would be happy to drop "piano" from the lead if no one objects. (The two-piano works are more ambitious but there aren't very many of them.) Opus33 (talk) 17:56, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

I assumed 'piano' referred to the concertos. No? --Kleinzach 12:04, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

The lead paragraph already has the word "concertante". --Toccata quarta (talk) 12:57, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Since nobody seems to be opposed to my proposal, I will now proceed to change the lead paragraph. --Toccata quarta (talk) 22:24, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

I am strongly opposed - who are you to deem the piano sonatas and variations etc. of the master and genius Mozart "weak"? I know enough first-rate pianists who would strongly contradict that remark, and who praise Mozart's music to the skies. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.127.61.252 (talk) 17:50, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

I wrote "generally viewed". (First straw man fallacy.) There are no piano works of Mozart's that have been praised well-nigh unanimously as Bach's Well-Tempered Clavier, Beethoven's Diabelli Variations, Chopin's Préludes, Op. 28, etc. Within the piano repertoire, Mozart's piano music does not occupy the same preeminent position his Don Giovanni has in the realm of opera, his Symphony No. 41 has in the area of symphonic writing, or his Requiem has in the sphere of sacred music. I did not describe Mozart's piano sonatas as "weak"; I said that they are "generally viewed as the weakest part of his output." (Second straw man fallacy.) --Toccata quarta (talk) 21:24, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Of course Mozart's piano sonatas contain wonderful music but I'm happy with leaving them out of the intro, which ought to be kept short. When I read Toccata quarta's first comment above, it struck me intuitively as reflecting mainstream opinion. Now, as an extra check, I looked through the coverage of Mozart's works in the New Grove. They emphasize the operas, the late symphonies, the piano concertos, the string quartets, the string quintets, the clarinet quintet, and the Requiem. Piano sonatas are only mentioned in passing. Opus33 (talk) 22:02, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

P.S. Mozart's dance music and canons have attracted rather little critical admiration, so it's probably not right to call his piano sonatas the weakest part of his output. The general point still stands. Opus33 (talk) 22:02, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

"just" 800 florins

It is written that Mozart received "just" 800 florins a year for his post as a composer of dances to the imperial court. That is absurd, since this was a very large sum of money, amounting to a substantial percentage of Mozarts annual income. Please change it ! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.127.61.252 (talk) 11:24, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Here's what I could find. The article "Vienna" in the Cambridge Mozart Encyclopedia tells us that 800 florins was a lot -- working-class people of the time made only 50-100 florins. However, Mozart's 800-florin position (or its rough equivalent) had previously been occupied by Gluck, who was paid 2000 florins, a reason for Mozart to feel disappointed. Also, and sadly, 800 florins really wasn't all the much given the lifestyle the Mozart family had already adopted. It didn't keep them out of financial trouble later on. On the balance I think the "just" is justified. Opus33 (talk) 22:10, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Of course Mozart's position had not been "held by Gluck". Gluck's position was a honorary one and his salary was basically an honarium that the emperor had awarded to a legendary figure. There is absolutely no source that proves that Mozart "felt disappointed". On the contrary, his letter to his sister shows that he was very proud of his position which (contrary to widespread information in the flawed literature) didn't even put him under the obligation to compose anything for the court (the production of dances for the balls at court were part of the agenda of the Hoftheater-Direktion). Furthermore we have no reliable sources on "the lifestyle the Mozart family had adopted" in December 1787. Most of the information on this issue in the literature consists of pointless musings by various amateur "Mozartologists".--178.190.93.111 (talk) 08:12, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Read before you write, Anon! Neither the article nor this talk page says that Mozart was disappointed. And standard reference sources say plenty about Mozart's pricey lifestyle; you should do some reading if you're not clear on this point. A nice recent contribution (2009) you might like to look at comes from Michael Lorenz, here. Opus33 (talk) 21:21, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

NANNERL NOTENBACH

this page says motzart composed the nannerl notenbach, but the nannerl notenbach page says mozart's farther did. I cannot edit this page, because it is protected . . . — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.149.36.68 (talk) 06:02, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

I think you are referring to the article Nannerl Notenbuch? If you are, that article says it is a notebook, mostly written by Leopold (the father), and the article on the notebook says: "His son Wolfgang also used the book, in which his earliest compositions were recorded (some penned by his father).". This article says: "At the age of five, he was already composing little pieces, which he played to his father who wrote them down...<snip>...These early pieces, K. 1–5, were recorded in the Nannerl Notenbuch." - so that seems fairly consistent to me. Sorry if I've misunderstood you at all. If you think the wording could be improved, feel free to either do so yourself, or suggest some amendments to the text. Thanks. Begoon ^talk 06:16, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

"Rumors of Tourette Syndrome"

I've moved the following material to this Talk page, and instead added a link to the quite-substantial already existing coverage of this topic in Sociological and cultural aspects of Tourette's syndrome. From what I've read it's pretty clear that this theory falls under the WP:FRINGE policy and thus does not deserve space in the main Mozart article. Opus33 (talk) 19:16, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Although some authors have speculated Mozart had Tourette syndrome, evidence for this hypothesis is lacking. Endocrinologist Benjamin Simkin, however, argues in his book Medical and Musical Byways of Mozartiana that Mozart suffered from Tourette's. This claim was picked up by newspapers worldwide and internet websites have further fueled the speculation. A German psychiatrist examined the question of Mozart's diagnoses and concluded, "Tourette’s syndrome is an inventive but implausible diagnosis in the medical history of Mozart". Evidence of a motor tic was found lacking and the notion that involuntary vocal tics transferred to the written form was labeled "problematic". Neurologist and author Oliver Sacks published an editorial disputing Simkin's claim, and the Tourette Syndrome Association pointed to the speculative nature of such information. So far, no expert on Tourette's or organization has voiced concurrence that there is credible evidence to conclude Mozart had the syndrome.

References

Mozart's nose

I'm moving this good-faith edit here:

His nose was "large" and "aquiline" and “became so prominent a feature in the last years of his life...that a scribber in one of the journals of the day, the Morgenblatter of Vienna, honoured him with the epithet 'enormous-nosed.'"

The large and aquiline bit comes from a letter written by Friedrich Rochlitz and considered by modern scholars to be a forgery; the letter is mentioned by us in Mozart's compositional method. "Enormous-nosed" might be true, but the reference source it comes from was published in 1854 and I'd like to see it from a more recent and trustable source before including it. I haven't seen it in the modern Mozart bios I have read. Opus33 (talk) 22:49, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

References

Mozart's ass

What's the ruling on 'ass'? (as in 'a kick up the'). I'm English, and ass is a donkey over here, and not the horrid euphemism for arse. Could we have 'backside' or 'rump' or even 'arse' - a proper word for the body part? Nice article - extremely helpful! Katiehawks (talk) 06:59, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Article modified accordingly. SamuelTheGhost (talk) 14:29, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

WP:ENGVAR. It wasn't immediately obvious to me which variant of English is in use in the article, but arse = BE and ass = AE. (Either is fine with me; BE/AE disputes are sterile, we just need to be consistent within articles.) Antandrus (talk) 15:44, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Saying it's a "better English word" is completely wrong. As said above, they are just different variations. I called it trolling because the comment seems to just try to get a rise out of people, which I guess worked on me, because I *do* get a rise whenever someone displays the anti-American attitude that shows on on WP a lot for some reason. But an ass is a butt and if you don't accept that, well you're just wrong. No two ways about it. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 17:17, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Hm. I agree the OP could have phrased the post differently, but an ass isn't always a butt - it's sometimes an animal. Thus, perhaps it would be helpful to use a common term? Nikkimaria (talk) 18:12, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Of course a common term would be best if we can agree on one. Would "bum" or "backside" be acceptable? SamuelTheGhost (talk) 19:27, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

We've been through this issue many times at Leck mich im Arsch and other Mozart-scatology articles. My impression is that many Brits find it simply unimaginable that Americans use "ass" -- and vice versa. I weakly favor "arse", because it's not ambiguous and would probably confuse fewer readers than "ass" does. "Butt" and other options seem suboptimal because "kick in the ass/arse" is a fixed expression in English and fits the context best. Opus33 (talk) 21:53, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Arse seems to be the least ambiguous; most straightforward. Sunray (talk) 21:59, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

This seems reasonable; I'd favor "arse" even though I'm from the US; the context makes the vulgar but common phrase a better fit. By the way, since it's in quotes, could someone with the 1998 Sadie reference (from the New Grove Dictionary of Opera) please look it up? If it's quoted directly we should use whatever wording Sadie used. Antandrus (talk) 22:08, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes, if it's a quote it should be whatever the quote is, though I've heard "ass" specially in an audiobook by The Teaching Company (American professor). Saying "since arse is less ambiguous it should be used" is kinda annoying though as it's still favoring one over the other, and in all honestly how could anyone get confused in the context if they at least know that 'ass' CAN mean 'butt'? I'm sure there's as many people who have no idea what 'arse' as is there are who don't know 'ass' means 'butt'. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 23:23, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Sorry that we are a pain in the buttocks, but I have to add that the English word comes from the German root arsch. People who are unfamiliar with arse? Well if there are any, they could always look it up in their Funk & Wagnalls! (Excuse me, I'm just arsing around). Sunray (talk) 05:57, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

1st portrait of Mozart...

I was writing to say that I believe it would be better to put the Joseph Lange painting at the top of the article. I was wondering what others thought about this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.142.163.24 (talk) 06:59, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Deserves better than a 'B' on the article quality scale?

Having just read the entire article it strikes me that B is quite a low grade for this article. There's only one bit (Works musical style and innovations) that seems unreferenced. It's well-written and I can't detect any issues (not that I should be seen as any kind of expert). The article's assessment was done in 2008. Time for another review? --bodnotbod (talk) 13:17, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Assessments higher than B can only be assigned through a formal review process like good article or featured article nominations. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:29, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

I suggest we just keep the B grade. If we submit the article to formal review we're going to get a lot of new edits emphasizing the Amadeus movie, IQ improvement, Tourette's syndrome, miracles in Rome, and similar topics that form part of Mozart's aura but are not really all that important to the study of Mozart himself. Better just to keep the B grade as it is; we're grownups and can handle it. Opus33 (talk) 04:24, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

....I would say something in comment to that but it'd probably be taken as a personal attack. Suffice it to say, I find that a very bizzare answer. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 05:59, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

I strongly agree with Opus33's position. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 06:08, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

I encourage Melodia to give her full opinion. I would assume good faith and not interpret it as personal attack. Opus33 (talk) 06:55, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Well I just think that preventing something from getting a higher rank - and thus seen in many people eyes as a better article - because of fears that new 'bad' edits will happen is pretty much against the entire spirit of Wikipedia. It also reeks of an elitist attitude. I'm not sure I understand the fear either, but it sounds similar to someone who wanted to keep certain pages from being part of certain wikiprojects (I think it was) 'because they might get edited by rock music fans'. The point of Wikipedia is an OPEN effort of collaboration, not "a few people who think they know what's best try and keep others from ruining it". ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 13:40, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

I concur tht Opus33's response is quite off and contrary to the spirit of Wikipedia and OWNish and attackish. I'll take the personal example of Tourette syndrome, which is already quite well addressed in a daughter article, and most certainly deserves a sentence here linking to that article for the purpose of addressing the frequenty (faulty) claim that Mozart had TS, and one sentence about and addressing the frequent claims attributing various health issues to Mozart is certainly better than the mess that is currently in See also. There are scores of high quality medical sources discussing the absurd diagnoses attributed to Mozart, and that they are kept out of this article makes little sense-- there could easily be links to daughter articles, and the TS claim could be handled with one sentence or one part of a sentence. The answers above smell strongly of ownership in a way that does not lead to better content. Could this article attain GA under such an attitude? Doubtful ... however, if the current OWNership allows it, and if editors such as Brian boulton were to come on board, certainly GA would be doable, an FA would not be out of the question-- there is good scholarship available, and there is no reason for this article to not be taking adavantage of that. However, I disagree that the current assessment is incorrect-- this article is B-class now. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:28, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Infobox

We already have a portrait, it is a "B" if not above quility scale article, why not add an infobox? I hope everyone will be O.K. with this idea?--Mishae (talk) 05:51, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

I don't understand your reasoning; the quality of an article is not improved by adding an infobox. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 08:06, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

To my understanding project Classical music is against infoboxes for composers, we just spent too much time on Samuel Barber, my patience to be involved in a new argument for every composer is limited, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:11, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Well then don't get involved. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 13:22, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Opposed to infobox, for all the reasons well explained many times, many places. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:49, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

This article is SORELY lacking...

Mozart was GERMAN...regardless of being born (sighs) in "Salzburg". Till the early 14th century it was part of Bavaria and then independent prince-bishopric of the HRE and the regnum teutonicum. So it was a part of Germany, too. Salzburg became Austrian in 1805. But Mozart died in 1791. This is just historical fact. "Salzburg" was NOT part of "Austria" AT THE TIME. What is with Wikipedia sometimes? This nonsense becomes insufferable after a while. Listen carefully.

FACT: Mozart called himself German.

FACT: Mozart never went around calling himself "Austrian".

FACT: At that time the borders were NOT the same.

FACT: "Salzburg" was NOT part of "Austria" at the time of Mozart's birth and death.

FACT: the point of Mozart's being "German" is fairly well-sourced. I'm putting that he was a "German composer" simply because he was, he said he was, the article needs to mention his ethnicity or nationality clearly somewhere in the lede (it's not even in the article at all really), and he was of German stock (as opposed to Polish or Russian or Chinese stock, right?)...and hence the other editors will commence an edit war (not my choice though, but the doing of the silly whiny nit-picking Wikipedians who can't accept facts). Regards. Hashem sfarim (talk) 03:25, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Placing the same SHOUTING text three times here doesn't give it any more weight. This has been discussed here at length, and the consensus was that "German" meant something different then. For today's view of Mozart, it is indeed irrelevant, misleading and anachronistic to describe him that way; it would naturally open a further fruitless discussion on why not to describe him as Austrian. The article should be returned to its long-standing stable version. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 11:40, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Hello. I understand the point of accuracy and carefulness in articles, but I have to be frank.

It's obvious from your attitude, actions, and history that you have a vested interest in NOT having Mozart's nationality (in any sense) on this article. I know this has been discussed but never settled...because whether you personally don't like it, or think it's "anachronistic", it doesn't matter. His nationality should be mentioned. And he was of German stock, that's just a racial and historical fact. To leave that so out of this article is silly.

Also, you were wrong about that ref I put. I restored it. You said it was not reliable (a circular argument simply because you said so), and you were WRONG about "Chopin". You didn't read it carefully...it said clearly he was a POLE. So that was not there for that. It seems you used that as a front excuse to not have Mozart's "German" there.

The reason I did not put him as "Austrian" is the points I listed, which you totally ignored, but accused me instead of "yelling", which I did not do, but the caps were meant for emphasis, not "yelling".

Again, Mozart called himself German. Do we ignore that?

Again, "Salzburg" was NOT part of "Austria" at the time. Do we ignore that fact?

Again, Mozart was obviously of German blood. That should be ignored and not even mentioned briefly in the article?

Again, "Salzburg" was considered part of Germany at the TIME of Mozart's birth and death. That's to be discounted?

Yes, it's been discussed in the past, but I notice that not even a compromise was done yet on this matter.

Try to focus more on the sum and substance and specifics of my case, in this matter. Not an occasional blunt remark, that you could easily just take with a grain of salt. Thanks.

My point is that Salzburg was NOT part of Austria at the time, but part of the overall "Germany" situation. Why is that (fact) so omitted and left out of this article? And also the fact that Mozart called himself German, and had German "blood"? His nationality is not really even mentioned at all in the article. That leaves an article like this very incomplete. Don't you agree? Hashem sfarim (talk) 19:59, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Compromise (I hope)

ok, a compromise...and this is my last edit for this period (per WP policy)..."German-Austrian". Read what I already wrote here on Talk. The problem is that NO real "consensus" was ever reached, and his nationality is left AMBIGUOUS in an Encyclopedic article.

Should a WP article on Mozart leave his nationality so unclear? Just because there were border differences at the time? So what's wrong with "a prolific German-Austrian composer"? If that gets reverted then that shows the real motives here. That some controlling editors simply don't want his nationality on here, if A) it's not "Austrian" alone, or B) shows "German" in any way at all. So they'd rather leave it ambiguous and UN-settled. Which makes no sense. He was German-Austrian, if that's the case.

So why not have it like that in the spirit of accuracy, fairness, and compromise? Can't please everyone, all the time. And there will (no doubt) be an editor (or editors) who will find some excuse to remove that and crow about that wording too. Hence why I wrote my initial comment on here about what I expect. But again, my point is NO real "consensus" was ever truly reached, and nothing was ever actually put in. And for an encyclopedic article, Mozart's nationality should be mentioned. At least some way. Regards. Hashem sfarim (talk) 20:34, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Do you have sources for "German-Ausrtrian"? If not, then it can't be that. If sources all say Austrian, then THAT is what we go by, true or not. WP:NOTTRUTH. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 04:24, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

All the modern sources I've polled have "Austrian" (Sadie's article in the NG, Slonimsky in Baker's Biographical, current Encyclopedia Britannica, one other I forget). Very old sources sometimes have "German" (the 1891 source that Hashem used, the 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica). If we do decide to put in a "nationality" I think it would have to be "Austrian" because that's what the current reliable sources have. I have a feeling we've been here before (see Archive 6) and it's a long argument. I've never seen "German-Austrian" I'm sorry to say. Antandrus (talk) 04:29, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

...at least worth reading → [8] - --IIIraute (talk) 04:50, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

...please see → [9]:

• "If Germany, my beloved fatherland, of whom you know I am proud, will not accept me, then must I, in the name of God, again make France or England richer by one capable German; — and to the shame of the German nation."
• "The most stimulating and encouraging thought is that you, dearest father, and my dear sister, are well, that I am an honest German, and that if I am not always permitted to talk I can think what I please; but that is all."
• "I care very little for Salzburg and not at all for the archbishop: I shit on both of them. "

--IIIraute (talk) 05:12, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

The main point of objecting against assigning a nationality to WAM is mentioned in the New York Times letter quoted above by Illraute: it's not applicable. Mozart has of course, in the spirit of his times, declared himself a German, and the interested reader can read the quotes, which are linked in the article. It must be understood that those quotes often served as expression of difference to the French school of composing or simply as linguistic identifier. The Holy Roman Empire, if that's what Hashem sfarim is referring to, was then a dying entity, stretching from Holstein to Trieste, and by no stretch could all its residents be called German. However, today's notion of nationality is quite different (and changing). Even worse, citing "his German blood" is a very dangerous and thoroughly discredited argument. It is quite understandable that a city like Salzburg or a country like Austria now claim Mozart as their own, as did a considerable number of Germans when they voted Mozart fourth in the list of Musikstars aller Zeiten (Music stars of all-time) and 20th-greatest overall. Given this tug-of-war, it would be wrong to attach a nationality to him. The German Wikipedia (which covers Austria) Mozart article and its talk page concur. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 09:17, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Again, to re-iterate:

"Salzburg" was NOT part of "Austria" at the time. Do we ignore that fact?

Mozart was, in some real sense, of German stock (as opposed to Polish, Turkish, or Chinese stock) obviously.

"Salzburg" was considered part of Germany at the TIME of Mozart's birth and death.

Those facts etc are to be discounted just to remain politically correct and not offend anyone (like Austrians)?

Yes, a number of what's considered "reliable sources" say (sloppily) that "Mozart was Austrian", but they either don't really fully know history or the border issues obviously ("reliable sources" or not), or don't care about those things. And the fact the Mozart called himself "German" is to be dismissed as one big whatever?

I don't see why "German-Austrian" (to answer editor "Melodia's" question) can't be put in, as the word "German" is in sources, AND the word "Austrian" (even if not stated together) is of course in sources too. Hence the merging (per what various sources say) of "German-Austrian". Why? Because historically racially and obviously, Mozart was in some sense "German" (only dishonest people would deny that simple fact), and in some sense Mozart was "Austrian" (ala the fact that "Salzburg" is part of Austria now, though not then.)

So the term "German-Austrian" would seem fitting taking all the sources together, on this matter.

I don't think that just because of the sensitivities and unreasonableness of some people (such as some Austrians who don't like the fact that Salzburg was NOT part of "Austria" at Mozart's time) should cause a WP article on Mozart to leave his nationality or ethnicity so annoyingly unclear. It causes the article to come across as INCOMPLETE. Not an ideal situation. Regards. Hashem sfarim (talk) 09:17, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Re-iterating your points obviously doesn't add anything to the discussion. Others and I responded above; I responded in further detail on my talk page. The archive, going back to at least 2003, provides even more detailed discussion which has lead to the current wording. I don't think re-iterating a wall of text will change that. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 07:13, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Physical birth location

Yes, I admit it's not a totally clear issue to begin with, historically or geographically. But the point of "German" as well as "Austrian" should be mentioned somewhere in the article, given also the fact that Mozart himself emphatically considered himself with the term German. And also an important undeniable fact is that the "Holy Roman Empire" in full name was "Holy Roman Empire of the German Nation". That fact of course is sourced, in and out of Wikipedia itself.

Also...as far as physical birth location...that in actuality does not matter as much as many might think, as far as racial ethnicity, in that sense.

Example...If an Irish person happened to be born in Salzburg (at that time) would you also consider him "Austrian" or maybe ethnically ambiguous? Even if his name was Clarence O'Mally? If he just happened, through some quirk of circumstance, to be physically born in the area of "Salzburg" at the time, hypothetically, we should weirdly consider that Irish person "Austrian", regardless of his inner Irish-ness? See my point? Wasn't Mozart "German" inside of himself, regardless of where he happened to have been physically birthed at the time?

If Mozart happened to be born in Poland at the time, should we consider him Polish? Of course not. Verily no. Mozart was German-Austrian. (With emphasis on the "German", because the "Holy Roman Empire" was of "the German Nation" at that specific time.) Really, let's just accept that fact, and get over it. Peace. Hashem sfarim (talk) 09:35, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

did you ever have a look at a map of 2012: Salzburg (Austria) - Freilassing (Germany) → distance: 0 miles.[10] --IIIraute (talk) 05:12, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure what your point is because, from your other comments above, I get the impression that you know that at the time of Mozart's birth and death, that simply was not the case. "Salzburg" (as you know) became "Austrian" in 1805. Mozart died in 1791. That's why I said that BOTH "German" AND "Austrian" should be mentioned, in regard to him. But the wording is fine the way it is, I guess, about "Austrian" and "Holy Roman Empire". I gave up already on putting anything in the lede. I'm not even trying anymore. I just did some minor ref edits, etc. But I basically gave up on the lede thing. Or the "German-Austrian" wording. I'm not insisting on that again. I don't care that much anymore. It's no big deal. Regards. Hashem sfarim (talk) 08:01, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

I wanted to show the close proximity Salzburg has to Germany. When people discuss Mozart being Austrian, it often sounds like that although Salzburg was part of the Holy Roman Empire back then, nowadays Salzburg is located deep within modern Austria, like Graz or Vienna. But it is not. Salzburg is a city that is located directly at the German border - the western city limits of Salzburg are literally formed by the German border → [11]. One should not forget that geographically, the city of Salzburg has been a part of Bavaria - and not modern Austria. Apart from that, Salzburg was founded by the Bavarians, and did belong to Bavaria for ca. 1000 years, until it became an independent prince-bishopric of the Holy Roman Empire. So of course Mozart would have regarded himself a German, because until after his death, Salzburg had never been anything else than Bavarian/German. Also, while his mother was from Salzburg (what had neer been anything else than Bavarian/German), his father was from Augsburg, Bavaria.--IIIraute (talk) 16:09, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Well that's why I wasn't sure, because it seems from your other comments that you kind of agree with me in a way. Everything you say is true basically. And that's my point. Regards. Hashem sfarim (talk) 19:34, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm afraid your "minor ref edits" have to be reverted; the web pages you cite quote this Wikipedia article, which obviously makes them unsuitable as sources. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 13:00, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

I seem to recall that French contemporaries of Mozart spoke of him as a musicien allemand or a musicien salzbourgeois, but not as a musicien autrichien.--Lubiesque (talk) 15:39, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Since circa 1500, Salzburg belonged to the Circle of Bavaria and not to the Circle of Austria. The Arch. of Salzburg and the Elector of Bavaria were the co-directors of the Circle. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lubiesque (talk • contribs) 15:47, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

I don't know why we can't just use "German" with a footnote explaining that he was ethnically German; born in Salzburg which was then part the Holy Roman Empire of the GermanNation; maybe a quick mention of the "Austrian" business, etc. Why is this so difficult? This must be the only biographical article on Wikipedia that doesn't give the subject's nationality. -- Peter ^{Talk page} 12:42, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Ha..but those things are tricky, you know :) Was Buxtehude a German or a Danish composer? And Liszt, was he a Czech or a German composer? And Haendel, was he...--Lubiesque (talk) 15:13, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Then, taking a cue from those articles, I agree with Hashem (now banned, oops) and say we should have German-Austrian and a footnote to clarify. I think the current version of the lead is awkward. Anyway, from the examples given I'd say that there should only a dispute around Buxtehude's nationality. -- Peter ^{Talk page} 22:01, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Legacy

I think that the article would benefit from a reference to the presence of a recording of Edda Moser performing Der Hölle Rache kocht in meinem Herzen from The Magic Flute, on the Voyager Golden Record.

I have carried out several edits on the pages of Beethoven and Bach, who are featured twice and three times on the record respectively.

I believe that this recognition is a good illustration of the seminal importance of Mozart's music to the cultural history of mankind, but at present there does not appear to be an appropriate place to include this information. It could look out of place in the introduction. And the subheading, "Influence", seems to be delimited to Mozart's influence on other composers.

Therefore, I leave this suggestion to the discretion of the serious editors of this page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Poplicola1 (talk • contribs)

Hello and thanks for the suggestion. The Voyager recording is already noted in our article Der Hölle Rache kocht in meinem Herzen and it seems a bit too much to include in the main Mozart article, which is already pretty long. Opus33 (talk) 15:31, 17 August 2012 (UTC)