This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 5 | ← | Archive 9 | Archive 10 | Archive 11 | Archive 12 | Archive 13 | → | Archive 15 |
The Polish pronunciation guide uses IPA character "n̪", but I don't see that character (with the accent at the bottom) on the Polish-IPA page. -- not-just-yeti ( talk) 23:51, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
I thought that consensus had already been reached to remove the 'Eternal Sonata' video game out of the article, that it demeans the subject and adds nothing of relevance? Put this ... stuff ... in its own article, but please, not here. Besides, these refs seem to be little more than advertising commercials, anyway. HammerFilmFan ( talk) 15:44, 23 January 2011 (UTC) HammerFilmFan
I dood it. For the editor who added it-make a standalone article for this game if you must but please don't re-add it here-thanks. HammerFilmFan ( talk) 00:31, 26 January 2011 (UTC) HammerFilmFan
Re: " Vladimir Horowitz referred to Chopin as "the only truly great composer for the piano."[citation needed] " - where did this come from, some liner note? I don't believe it, or that it is taken out of context. Horowitz played Beethoven, for example, with such depth of feeling that one can't possibly think he didn't regard him as "great." HammerFilmFan ( talk) 15:50, 23 January 2011 (UTC) HammerFilmFan
Interesting article about a possible underlying cause for Chopin's hallucinations. Of course, it's only a theory since the composer's remains haven't been tested. [1] THD3 ( talk) 18:24, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
The article provides both the Polish and French varients of the spelling of 'Chopin'. However, isn't the Polish spelling as follows: "Fryderyk Franciszek Szopen"? However, the "supposed" polish name that begins the article provides the French varient, viz., 'Chopin', which results in the incorrect amalgamation of a Polish-French name: 'Fryderyk Franciszek Chopin'. (In other words, this is incorrect: 'Fryderyk Franciszek Chopin', and it should be replaced by the purely Polish spelling: 'Fryderyk Franciszek Szopen'.)
Why does the spelling of the Polish name keep being altered to Fryderyk Franciszek Chopin, when it should be Szopen? I do not understand. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Monikadare ( talk • contribs) 03:50, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
Martinus Sieveking contains the following extraordinary statement:
What could this possibly refer to? -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 22:58, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
What is the deal Adrian.Ramlal's edits to this article? Toccata quarta ( talk) 22:15, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
For sometime now, the lead sentence referred to Chopin as "a Polish composer, virtuoso pianist, and music teacher of French–Polish parentage," more recently the last phrase has read: "... music teacher of French paternity." Earlier today, 76.121.148.186 eliminated the last phrase so it read: "... a Polish composer and virtuoso pianist." I've read through the pages of discussion in the archives. I note that there was no disagreement that he considered himself Polish. I also note that no one disputed that his father was French and that Chopin acquired French citizenship when he lived in France. It seemed simple to me, so I changed it to read: "a Polish- French composer and virtuoso pianist." Nihil novi reverted me, but did not explain why. Would someone please explain (briefly—I've read the archives, remember) why "Polish-French" is not the simplest and most accurate statement about his nationality? Sunray ( talk) 09:18, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
Certainly "French-Polish" is unacceptable. I've corrected it as "Polish-French", which is a much better choice until we reach a consensus. However, he should preferably be described as "Polish" if the Columbia Encyclopedia reports that "he considered himself Polish" and in France he always "remained a Polish nationalist") and George Sand said he was "more Polish than Poland." Sylwia Ufnalska ( talk) 00:26, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
Had French nationality. This is a silly debate. And the above user is simply trying to prolong an edit war for whatever reason. GAYousefSaanei ( talk) 01:16, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
Instructions? Puhleeze. As it says on your own page - please avoid "wiki drama" and just work towards having an article that represents reality, and not some Polish uber-nationlist pipe dream. GAYousefSaanei ( talk) 01:26, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
There has been some action on this and I have made an attempt to bring the information together in a more balanced way. Nihili's change made an effort to bring the "French-Polish order" back in by emphasizing his Polish identification, but I think this was a bit too POV in some respects. However, I have retained the wording about him being considered one of Poland's greatest composers, as I believe that accurately summarizes the popular perception of him. At the same time by giving first preference to the French nationality, we reasonably attain balance on that issue and I think together the lede reads and looks a bit better (paragraphs are a bit meatier without being bulky).-- The Devil's Advocate ( talk) 00:22, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
In the two interesting early photographic images, the daguerrotype of 1846-7 shows Chopin's hair parted on his right side, and the better-known image by Bisson has the parting on his left side. All the other images suggest that he parted his hair on his left side. Should the daguerrotype be flipped in order to present a truer likeness of the composer? Eebahgum ( talk) 02:19, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
This statement is silly and i'm erasing it. Particularly in Mozart's case; He was a child prodigy and composed music basically his entire life. You also have to take into account location. There were many musically pillars in German speaking territory and anyone blossoming would not immediately be praised as the greatest.
"According to Polish musicologist and Chopin biographer Zdzisław Jachimecki, comparison of the juvenile Chopin with any earlier composer is difficult because of the originality of the works that Chopin was composing already in the first half of his life. At a comparable age, Bach, Mozart and Beethoven had still been apprentices, while Chopin was perceived by peers and audiences to be already a master who was pointing the path to the coming age." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Devilxhlywood ( talk • contribs) 23:31, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
For the usual reason: insufficient citations. There are numerous unreferenced paras, and at least one outstanding cite request. -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me 16:21, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
The comment that somebody has inserted under Bibliography, after the last reference to “Jorgensen, Cecilia; Jens Jorgensen (2003) …”, is both incorrect in substance and derogative and inappropriate in form. The referenced book does not contain “much speculation”, but is based on letters by Chopin and Jenny Lind, on the discovery of erroneous English and French translations and annotations of Chopin’s important letter of 30 October 1848, and on other sources. The book was well received by Prof. Poniatowska and Chopin in the World (2003-2004). The book’s contradiction of information in Fr. Niecks’ biography (its Preface names Jenny Lind-Goldschmidt among his few surviving "chief sources of information") and in other Chopin literature is no reason to dismiss Jorgensen’s work. Finally, the line, “an allegation that it was Lind who paid …”, is cited inaccurately and out of context and it is also improper for a bibliography. Therefore, it is proposed for Wikipedia’s consideration to revise and shorten the reference as follows: “Jorgensen, Cecilia; Jens Jorgensen (2003). Chopin and The Swedish Nightingale. Brussels: Icons of Europe. ISBN 2-9600385-0-9, reviewed by Prof. Dr Irena Poniatowska in Chopin in the World (2003-2004, p. 25-26). – Icons of Europe’s subsequent research findings on Jenny Lind’s close relationship and romance with Chopin have in 2004-2010 been shared with Chopin experts including Prof. Dr hab. Mieczysław Tomaszewski and Société de Chopin à Paris and with stakeholders in BBC’s Chopin 2010 documentary as listed and accessible for verification at the website http://www.iconsofeurope.com/chopin.jennylind.htm". Jean de Beaumont ( talk) 18:37, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
Hello. I have been thinking about getting this article up to GA or FA status, as I am currently doing with the Antonín Dvořák article. For reference on how a Featured Article on a composer would look like, please see these examples: Pyotr Ilyich Tchaikovsky, Gustav Mahler, Edward Elgar and Frederick Delius. The article looks good overall. However, there are a couple of things we need to do in order to get it up to GA/FA status though:
All are welcome to assist in this process. Comments, ideas, thoughts or suggestions would be very much appreciated. If there are a few mistakes, please let me know here. Thank you, Lord Sjones23 ( talk - contributions) 16:28, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
Apparently this exists: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Image-Frederic_Chopin_photo_downsampled.jpeg
Should we use it in the article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.192.186.66 ( talk) 23:00, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
The article currently says the following:
First of all, the Liszt quote appears to deal with Chopin's personality, not his music. Second, even if it did, it simply means that different people have had different concepts of what is dissonant (and Liszt was after all harmonically more progressive than Schumann). So this passage requires cleanup. Toccata quarta ( talk) 11:22, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
I would not pass this as GA+ without an infobox. Just my two cents. -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 13:27, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
here http://jackgibbons.blogspot.it/2010/03/chopins-photograph.html you can see another photograph of chopin. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.13.188.233 ( talk) 16:07, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
After a discussion with User:Nihil novi over on my talk page, I am going to help work extensively on the Chopin article so we can take it up to FA status if possible. I know I have been busy with other stuff since I proposed to work on it last September, but I am thinking about getting it up to FA status. I plan to get this by a TFA date of 17 October 2014 (165th anniversary of Chopin's death). In one of the previous discussions, Toccata quarta expressed concerns about a lack of citations, citing it to be "fatal." He also said that the tone of the "Publishing" section is unencyclopedic, and "there are several violations of WP:NPV in the article. Moreover, the article ignores those musicians who have been critical of Chopin (Glenn Gould being one of the best known critics of Chopin's work)." All are welcome to assist in this process and if anyone wants suggest improvements, please discuss here. Thanks, Lord Sjones23 ( talk - contributions) 03:50, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
Let's start with the lead section. I think for now, we should eliminate "The vast majority of", which is considered redundant, and replace it with "most of". I will expand on this as I go along. Thoughts? Lord Sjones23 ( talk - contributions) 04:05, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
There are several places named "Szafarnia" in Poland. I've reintroduced the link to the one that Chopin visited. Nihil novi ( talk) 05:12, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for your help in getting this article sorted - there's a fair amount of dead wood to be cleared before it can be properly rebuilt. Do you by the way have a source for Chopin's sister 'smuggling' the ashes to Warsaw (as opposed to just taking them) - I can't find one at present. Best, -- Smerus ( talk) 10:01, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
There are numerous citations in the article of a six-page biography by Jachimecki, which is not avaiable in English and dates from the 1930s. Frankly I don't think this is a quality source. From the extracts given it is clear that Jachmiecki treated Chopin in a full-blooded 'romantic' and patriotic style which is not in accord with modern academic evaluations. I should like to remove these citations entirely where modern sources in English can be cited. The same applies to some extent to the citations from Arthur Hedley. I welcome opinions on this.-- Smerus ( talk) 13:19, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
I have deleted the following as, although it is credited to a Polish source of 1937, it appears to be a fairy-tale:
'On his return to Paris [in 1836], Chopin composed the Étude in F minor, the second in the Op. 25 cycle, which he referred to as "a portrait of Maria's soul." Along with this, he sent her {Maria Wodzińska] seven songs that he had set to the words of the Polish Romantic poets Stefan Witwicki, Józef Zaleski and Adam Mickiewicz.'
Chopin made no Zaleski settings before 1841, so he cannot have sent one to Maria in 1836. The other settings date from c. 1830, (with the possible exception of a Mickiewicz setting of 1837) so were not inspired by or related to Maria. I also find no mention anywhere else of op. 25/2 being "a portrait of Maria's soul." Of course if citations are avaailbe it would be good to know of them.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Smerus ( talk • contribs) 13:29, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
Hello,
Musopen is in the process of launching a project to record and release the works of Frederic Chopin for free. As part of this project we will also be writing and releasing content for most of the pieces (liner notes). I wanted to post here in case anyone wanted to either help write content or integrate what we create with existing Wikipedia Chopin articles.
The project is here: www.kickstarter.com/projects/Musopen/set-chopin-free
Please let me know if you'd be interested in helping or have any general tips for us.
Sincerely, Aaron — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.126.11.29 ( talk) 17:09, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
Hi, I'm going through the article and referencing whatever I can, and I will be adding quite a few {{ citation needed}}s. I currently have access to Zamoyski's book, but once I've referenced everything I can from it I will probably look in the other sources. The tags are there so that we know which bits the refs refer to and which bits need referencing. I don't intend to tag bomb. Best wishes, Rain City 471 13:13, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
Note that I have fully protected the article for two weeks, given persistent and ongoing edit-warring regarding the issue raised in the RfC above. If the RfC reaches a decision before protection expires, feel free to unprotect or request unprotection; otherwise, unfortunately for now any edits unrelated to nationality will need to be addressed via {{ editrequest}}. Nikkimaria ( talk) 18:53, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Revert of Volunteer Marek's POV removal of statement (sources were removed as well). 2Awwsome Tell me where I screwed up. See where I screwed up 18:58, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
I am sorry if I am doing this wrong; I read about edit requests but could not understand the way to do it. I would do the edit mysefl if I could. In the section "Music - Overview", the following paragraph appears about an extremely well known and non-controversial relationship:
Chopin's Preludes, Op. 28 were in part a tribute to J. S. Bach's The Well-Tempered Clavier. Chopin's preludes move up the circle-of-fifths, whereas Bach uses the chromatic scale to create a prelude in every major and minor tonality achievable on the clavier.[citation needed]
But: no citation is really needed for the second sentence; it is a simple statement of fact. Chopin's preludes do go up by a circle of fifths, and Bach's do go up chromatically [=step by step] through all the 48 possible tonalities in western music. These respective orders are basically as obvious as the letters of the alphabet.
The first sentence, however, DOES require a citation. It asserts that Chopin's preludes were "in part a tribute" to Bach's. Now, I would probably have written the phrase "were inspired by" or "modelled after" instead of referring to a "tribute". Nevertheless, in either case, citations are easy to come by for this extremely well-known relationship. One excellent citation would be to: Charles Rosen, The Romantic Generation, p. 83. I myself would (if I could) place that citation after the first sentence; it could instead be placed at the end of the paragraph, as Rosen also mentions (and provides support for) the topic of the second sentence. I am sorry I have to explain all this! I would just change it if I could. Thanks for any help! David Couch ( talk)
There are many things about this dispute which are total mysteries to me. Why are we arguing about Nicolas Chopin's article on his son's talk page? And why are folks slinging about charges of POV? What POV is anyone pushing here? It seems to me a dispute about facts, not about points of view. And finally, why is this RFC not closed, and the article reopened for editing? There seems to be an overwhelming consensus to call Chopin Polish, the person who opened the RFC in the first place has been reprimanded and banned, and no one seems to be adding opinions anymore. So can't we put this whole embarrassing episode behind us? Ravpapa ( talk) 08:28, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
Well I hope it is now clear that there is indeed a consensus. Chopin was Polish. It doesn't need to be banged on about at every opportunity. The fact that he got a French passport in the 1830s needs only a mention in the text. All the cruft about his father's name etc. is superfluous and can be removed as irrelevant/ WP:UNDUE. So, as Ravpapa says, let's get on with it.-- Smerus ( talk) 11:04, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
i would like to add or rewrite some sections of this article, and rewrite the lead to emphasize these aspects of his work:
1. Piano technique: Chopin, together with Liszt, revolutionized piano technique. He introduced techniques that no other composer had assayed, including:
Significant is that these virtuosic techniques appear in a bel canto style; as opposed to his predecessors Hummel and Czerny, whose technically difficult passages are meant to stand out, Chopin requires his performer to subjugate the virtuosity to the music. This requires a different hand position and a new approach to sound production.
2. Chopin and the "star cult": Chopin was one of the first musical superstars, following Paganini. The romantic era saw the rise of a new kind of hero worship of solo performers, which was a predecessor of the groupy culture of today. Musical superstars not only could demand exorbitant prices for their concerts, their lives were the subject of gossip, their loves appeared in gossip columns. This cult was closely associated with the ascendency of the piano as the Romantic period instrument of choice.
3. Chopin was the first composer to turn to his national music as a main source of inspiration. The rise of nationalism in music was to characterize the Romantic era; while Chopin was the first, he had many followers: Glinka in Russia, Dvorak, and so on.
These three points, I think, should be the heart of the article and the meat of the lead. What do others think? Ravpapa ( talk) 16:57, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
Does this quote add anything to the article? Shouldn't it be removed, per WP:UNDUE? Toccata quarta ( talk) 18:09, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
Editors may like to contribute to the ongoing peer review of this article. User:Brianboulton has suggested there that "Discussion of the article is being fragmented between this review and ongoing threads on the talkpage. It would be better if all the discussion was in one place, and I would have thought the peer review was the most appropriate forum."-- Smerus ( talk) 20:40, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
User:Nihil novi has twice reinstated the latter half (in square brackets) of note 8: " In 1882 the heart was sealed within a pillar of the Holy Cross Church, behind a tablet carved by Leonard Marconi [bearing an inscription from Matthew VI:21: "For where your treasure is, there will your heart be also." The Holy Cross Church stands only a short distance from Chopin's last Warsaw residence, the Krasiński Palace]."
My deletion of these words had two bases:
I have already suggested that the details of the inscription would be more appropriate in the WP article Holy Cross Church, Warsaw.
I would appreciate readers' comments on this. It seems to me that if we are to get this vital article up to GA standard (which it deserves) we have to cut out our own little favourites and concentrate on the man (biography and reputation) and the music. A discussion might help us pave the way for improvement of the article as a whole, as well as deal with this particualr issue. Thanks, -- Smerus ( talk) 20:57, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
Dear Nihil novi - Please give me one reason to include this inscription anywhere in the article. There is no evidence that Chopin requested this inscription which was added to his memorial over 30 yars after his death. We do not know who chose the inscription, or why they did so. In short, whilst the inscription may be relevant (in a minor way) to the article to Holy Cross Church, it is in no way of primary, secondary, or even tertiary relevance to the article on Chopin - unless you can prove otherwise with a citation. If you cannot do this, then the inclusion is WP:UNDUE and WP:OR. The fact that there is other irrelevant material in the article - which hopefully will also be dealt with - has no bearing on this question. Best,-- Smerus ( talk) 09:01, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
I nies that you do not answer my points. As it appears you cannot, or choose not to, answer them, I am proceeding with deletion of the quotation. As previously suggested, you can place thjis information in the article on the church, if you wish. We can deal with the statue on a 'case by case' basis - but cnmparison with Felix Mendelssohn, Ludwig van Beethoven and many other WP composer articles suggests that mentions and/or photos of statues are acceptable for such aerticles, whereas they do not include epitaphs, which contain no personal information or relevance, concocted by unknown people many years after their deaths.-- Smerus ( talk) 06:04, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 5 | ← | Archive 9 | Archive 10 | Archive 11 | Archive 12 | Archive 13 | → | Archive 15 |
The Polish pronunciation guide uses IPA character "n̪", but I don't see that character (with the accent at the bottom) on the Polish-IPA page. -- not-just-yeti ( talk) 23:51, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
I thought that consensus had already been reached to remove the 'Eternal Sonata' video game out of the article, that it demeans the subject and adds nothing of relevance? Put this ... stuff ... in its own article, but please, not here. Besides, these refs seem to be little more than advertising commercials, anyway. HammerFilmFan ( talk) 15:44, 23 January 2011 (UTC) HammerFilmFan
I dood it. For the editor who added it-make a standalone article for this game if you must but please don't re-add it here-thanks. HammerFilmFan ( talk) 00:31, 26 January 2011 (UTC) HammerFilmFan
Re: " Vladimir Horowitz referred to Chopin as "the only truly great composer for the piano."[citation needed] " - where did this come from, some liner note? I don't believe it, or that it is taken out of context. Horowitz played Beethoven, for example, with such depth of feeling that one can't possibly think he didn't regard him as "great." HammerFilmFan ( talk) 15:50, 23 January 2011 (UTC) HammerFilmFan
Interesting article about a possible underlying cause for Chopin's hallucinations. Of course, it's only a theory since the composer's remains haven't been tested. [1] THD3 ( talk) 18:24, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
The article provides both the Polish and French varients of the spelling of 'Chopin'. However, isn't the Polish spelling as follows: "Fryderyk Franciszek Szopen"? However, the "supposed" polish name that begins the article provides the French varient, viz., 'Chopin', which results in the incorrect amalgamation of a Polish-French name: 'Fryderyk Franciszek Chopin'. (In other words, this is incorrect: 'Fryderyk Franciszek Chopin', and it should be replaced by the purely Polish spelling: 'Fryderyk Franciszek Szopen'.)
Why does the spelling of the Polish name keep being altered to Fryderyk Franciszek Chopin, when it should be Szopen? I do not understand. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Monikadare ( talk • contribs) 03:50, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
Martinus Sieveking contains the following extraordinary statement:
What could this possibly refer to? -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 22:58, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
What is the deal Adrian.Ramlal's edits to this article? Toccata quarta ( talk) 22:15, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
For sometime now, the lead sentence referred to Chopin as "a Polish composer, virtuoso pianist, and music teacher of French–Polish parentage," more recently the last phrase has read: "... music teacher of French paternity." Earlier today, 76.121.148.186 eliminated the last phrase so it read: "... a Polish composer and virtuoso pianist." I've read through the pages of discussion in the archives. I note that there was no disagreement that he considered himself Polish. I also note that no one disputed that his father was French and that Chopin acquired French citizenship when he lived in France. It seemed simple to me, so I changed it to read: "a Polish- French composer and virtuoso pianist." Nihil novi reverted me, but did not explain why. Would someone please explain (briefly—I've read the archives, remember) why "Polish-French" is not the simplest and most accurate statement about his nationality? Sunray ( talk) 09:18, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
Certainly "French-Polish" is unacceptable. I've corrected it as "Polish-French", which is a much better choice until we reach a consensus. However, he should preferably be described as "Polish" if the Columbia Encyclopedia reports that "he considered himself Polish" and in France he always "remained a Polish nationalist") and George Sand said he was "more Polish than Poland." Sylwia Ufnalska ( talk) 00:26, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
Had French nationality. This is a silly debate. And the above user is simply trying to prolong an edit war for whatever reason. GAYousefSaanei ( talk) 01:16, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
Instructions? Puhleeze. As it says on your own page - please avoid "wiki drama" and just work towards having an article that represents reality, and not some Polish uber-nationlist pipe dream. GAYousefSaanei ( talk) 01:26, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
There has been some action on this and I have made an attempt to bring the information together in a more balanced way. Nihili's change made an effort to bring the "French-Polish order" back in by emphasizing his Polish identification, but I think this was a bit too POV in some respects. However, I have retained the wording about him being considered one of Poland's greatest composers, as I believe that accurately summarizes the popular perception of him. At the same time by giving first preference to the French nationality, we reasonably attain balance on that issue and I think together the lede reads and looks a bit better (paragraphs are a bit meatier without being bulky).-- The Devil's Advocate ( talk) 00:22, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
In the two interesting early photographic images, the daguerrotype of 1846-7 shows Chopin's hair parted on his right side, and the better-known image by Bisson has the parting on his left side. All the other images suggest that he parted his hair on his left side. Should the daguerrotype be flipped in order to present a truer likeness of the composer? Eebahgum ( talk) 02:19, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
This statement is silly and i'm erasing it. Particularly in Mozart's case; He was a child prodigy and composed music basically his entire life. You also have to take into account location. There were many musically pillars in German speaking territory and anyone blossoming would not immediately be praised as the greatest.
"According to Polish musicologist and Chopin biographer Zdzisław Jachimecki, comparison of the juvenile Chopin with any earlier composer is difficult because of the originality of the works that Chopin was composing already in the first half of his life. At a comparable age, Bach, Mozart and Beethoven had still been apprentices, while Chopin was perceived by peers and audiences to be already a master who was pointing the path to the coming age." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Devilxhlywood ( talk • contribs) 23:31, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
For the usual reason: insufficient citations. There are numerous unreferenced paras, and at least one outstanding cite request. -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me 16:21, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
The comment that somebody has inserted under Bibliography, after the last reference to “Jorgensen, Cecilia; Jens Jorgensen (2003) …”, is both incorrect in substance and derogative and inappropriate in form. The referenced book does not contain “much speculation”, but is based on letters by Chopin and Jenny Lind, on the discovery of erroneous English and French translations and annotations of Chopin’s important letter of 30 October 1848, and on other sources. The book was well received by Prof. Poniatowska and Chopin in the World (2003-2004). The book’s contradiction of information in Fr. Niecks’ biography (its Preface names Jenny Lind-Goldschmidt among his few surviving "chief sources of information") and in other Chopin literature is no reason to dismiss Jorgensen’s work. Finally, the line, “an allegation that it was Lind who paid …”, is cited inaccurately and out of context and it is also improper for a bibliography. Therefore, it is proposed for Wikipedia’s consideration to revise and shorten the reference as follows: “Jorgensen, Cecilia; Jens Jorgensen (2003). Chopin and The Swedish Nightingale. Brussels: Icons of Europe. ISBN 2-9600385-0-9, reviewed by Prof. Dr Irena Poniatowska in Chopin in the World (2003-2004, p. 25-26). – Icons of Europe’s subsequent research findings on Jenny Lind’s close relationship and romance with Chopin have in 2004-2010 been shared with Chopin experts including Prof. Dr hab. Mieczysław Tomaszewski and Société de Chopin à Paris and with stakeholders in BBC’s Chopin 2010 documentary as listed and accessible for verification at the website http://www.iconsofeurope.com/chopin.jennylind.htm". Jean de Beaumont ( talk) 18:37, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
Hello. I have been thinking about getting this article up to GA or FA status, as I am currently doing with the Antonín Dvořák article. For reference on how a Featured Article on a composer would look like, please see these examples: Pyotr Ilyich Tchaikovsky, Gustav Mahler, Edward Elgar and Frederick Delius. The article looks good overall. However, there are a couple of things we need to do in order to get it up to GA/FA status though:
All are welcome to assist in this process. Comments, ideas, thoughts or suggestions would be very much appreciated. If there are a few mistakes, please let me know here. Thank you, Lord Sjones23 ( talk - contributions) 16:28, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
Apparently this exists: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Image-Frederic_Chopin_photo_downsampled.jpeg
Should we use it in the article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.192.186.66 ( talk) 23:00, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
The article currently says the following:
First of all, the Liszt quote appears to deal with Chopin's personality, not his music. Second, even if it did, it simply means that different people have had different concepts of what is dissonant (and Liszt was after all harmonically more progressive than Schumann). So this passage requires cleanup. Toccata quarta ( talk) 11:22, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
I would not pass this as GA+ without an infobox. Just my two cents. -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 13:27, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
here http://jackgibbons.blogspot.it/2010/03/chopins-photograph.html you can see another photograph of chopin. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.13.188.233 ( talk) 16:07, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
After a discussion with User:Nihil novi over on my talk page, I am going to help work extensively on the Chopin article so we can take it up to FA status if possible. I know I have been busy with other stuff since I proposed to work on it last September, but I am thinking about getting it up to FA status. I plan to get this by a TFA date of 17 October 2014 (165th anniversary of Chopin's death). In one of the previous discussions, Toccata quarta expressed concerns about a lack of citations, citing it to be "fatal." He also said that the tone of the "Publishing" section is unencyclopedic, and "there are several violations of WP:NPV in the article. Moreover, the article ignores those musicians who have been critical of Chopin (Glenn Gould being one of the best known critics of Chopin's work)." All are welcome to assist in this process and if anyone wants suggest improvements, please discuss here. Thanks, Lord Sjones23 ( talk - contributions) 03:50, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
Let's start with the lead section. I think for now, we should eliminate "The vast majority of", which is considered redundant, and replace it with "most of". I will expand on this as I go along. Thoughts? Lord Sjones23 ( talk - contributions) 04:05, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
There are several places named "Szafarnia" in Poland. I've reintroduced the link to the one that Chopin visited. Nihil novi ( talk) 05:12, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for your help in getting this article sorted - there's a fair amount of dead wood to be cleared before it can be properly rebuilt. Do you by the way have a source for Chopin's sister 'smuggling' the ashes to Warsaw (as opposed to just taking them) - I can't find one at present. Best, -- Smerus ( talk) 10:01, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
There are numerous citations in the article of a six-page biography by Jachimecki, which is not avaiable in English and dates from the 1930s. Frankly I don't think this is a quality source. From the extracts given it is clear that Jachmiecki treated Chopin in a full-blooded 'romantic' and patriotic style which is not in accord with modern academic evaluations. I should like to remove these citations entirely where modern sources in English can be cited. The same applies to some extent to the citations from Arthur Hedley. I welcome opinions on this.-- Smerus ( talk) 13:19, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
I have deleted the following as, although it is credited to a Polish source of 1937, it appears to be a fairy-tale:
'On his return to Paris [in 1836], Chopin composed the Étude in F minor, the second in the Op. 25 cycle, which he referred to as "a portrait of Maria's soul." Along with this, he sent her {Maria Wodzińska] seven songs that he had set to the words of the Polish Romantic poets Stefan Witwicki, Józef Zaleski and Adam Mickiewicz.'
Chopin made no Zaleski settings before 1841, so he cannot have sent one to Maria in 1836. The other settings date from c. 1830, (with the possible exception of a Mickiewicz setting of 1837) so were not inspired by or related to Maria. I also find no mention anywhere else of op. 25/2 being "a portrait of Maria's soul." Of course if citations are avaailbe it would be good to know of them.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Smerus ( talk • contribs) 13:29, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
Hello,
Musopen is in the process of launching a project to record and release the works of Frederic Chopin for free. As part of this project we will also be writing and releasing content for most of the pieces (liner notes). I wanted to post here in case anyone wanted to either help write content or integrate what we create with existing Wikipedia Chopin articles.
The project is here: www.kickstarter.com/projects/Musopen/set-chopin-free
Please let me know if you'd be interested in helping or have any general tips for us.
Sincerely, Aaron — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.126.11.29 ( talk) 17:09, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
Hi, I'm going through the article and referencing whatever I can, and I will be adding quite a few {{ citation needed}}s. I currently have access to Zamoyski's book, but once I've referenced everything I can from it I will probably look in the other sources. The tags are there so that we know which bits the refs refer to and which bits need referencing. I don't intend to tag bomb. Best wishes, Rain City 471 13:13, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
Note that I have fully protected the article for two weeks, given persistent and ongoing edit-warring regarding the issue raised in the RfC above. If the RfC reaches a decision before protection expires, feel free to unprotect or request unprotection; otherwise, unfortunately for now any edits unrelated to nationality will need to be addressed via {{ editrequest}}. Nikkimaria ( talk) 18:53, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Revert of Volunteer Marek's POV removal of statement (sources were removed as well). 2Awwsome Tell me where I screwed up. See where I screwed up 18:58, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
I am sorry if I am doing this wrong; I read about edit requests but could not understand the way to do it. I would do the edit mysefl if I could. In the section "Music - Overview", the following paragraph appears about an extremely well known and non-controversial relationship:
Chopin's Preludes, Op. 28 were in part a tribute to J. S. Bach's The Well-Tempered Clavier. Chopin's preludes move up the circle-of-fifths, whereas Bach uses the chromatic scale to create a prelude in every major and minor tonality achievable on the clavier.[citation needed]
But: no citation is really needed for the second sentence; it is a simple statement of fact. Chopin's preludes do go up by a circle of fifths, and Bach's do go up chromatically [=step by step] through all the 48 possible tonalities in western music. These respective orders are basically as obvious as the letters of the alphabet.
The first sentence, however, DOES require a citation. It asserts that Chopin's preludes were "in part a tribute" to Bach's. Now, I would probably have written the phrase "were inspired by" or "modelled after" instead of referring to a "tribute". Nevertheless, in either case, citations are easy to come by for this extremely well-known relationship. One excellent citation would be to: Charles Rosen, The Romantic Generation, p. 83. I myself would (if I could) place that citation after the first sentence; it could instead be placed at the end of the paragraph, as Rosen also mentions (and provides support for) the topic of the second sentence. I am sorry I have to explain all this! I would just change it if I could. Thanks for any help! David Couch ( talk)
There are many things about this dispute which are total mysteries to me. Why are we arguing about Nicolas Chopin's article on his son's talk page? And why are folks slinging about charges of POV? What POV is anyone pushing here? It seems to me a dispute about facts, not about points of view. And finally, why is this RFC not closed, and the article reopened for editing? There seems to be an overwhelming consensus to call Chopin Polish, the person who opened the RFC in the first place has been reprimanded and banned, and no one seems to be adding opinions anymore. So can't we put this whole embarrassing episode behind us? Ravpapa ( talk) 08:28, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
Well I hope it is now clear that there is indeed a consensus. Chopin was Polish. It doesn't need to be banged on about at every opportunity. The fact that he got a French passport in the 1830s needs only a mention in the text. All the cruft about his father's name etc. is superfluous and can be removed as irrelevant/ WP:UNDUE. So, as Ravpapa says, let's get on with it.-- Smerus ( talk) 11:04, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
i would like to add or rewrite some sections of this article, and rewrite the lead to emphasize these aspects of his work:
1. Piano technique: Chopin, together with Liszt, revolutionized piano technique. He introduced techniques that no other composer had assayed, including:
Significant is that these virtuosic techniques appear in a bel canto style; as opposed to his predecessors Hummel and Czerny, whose technically difficult passages are meant to stand out, Chopin requires his performer to subjugate the virtuosity to the music. This requires a different hand position and a new approach to sound production.
2. Chopin and the "star cult": Chopin was one of the first musical superstars, following Paganini. The romantic era saw the rise of a new kind of hero worship of solo performers, which was a predecessor of the groupy culture of today. Musical superstars not only could demand exorbitant prices for their concerts, their lives were the subject of gossip, their loves appeared in gossip columns. This cult was closely associated with the ascendency of the piano as the Romantic period instrument of choice.
3. Chopin was the first composer to turn to his national music as a main source of inspiration. The rise of nationalism in music was to characterize the Romantic era; while Chopin was the first, he had many followers: Glinka in Russia, Dvorak, and so on.
These three points, I think, should be the heart of the article and the meat of the lead. What do others think? Ravpapa ( talk) 16:57, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
Does this quote add anything to the article? Shouldn't it be removed, per WP:UNDUE? Toccata quarta ( talk) 18:09, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
Editors may like to contribute to the ongoing peer review of this article. User:Brianboulton has suggested there that "Discussion of the article is being fragmented between this review and ongoing threads on the talkpage. It would be better if all the discussion was in one place, and I would have thought the peer review was the most appropriate forum."-- Smerus ( talk) 20:40, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
User:Nihil novi has twice reinstated the latter half (in square brackets) of note 8: " In 1882 the heart was sealed within a pillar of the Holy Cross Church, behind a tablet carved by Leonard Marconi [bearing an inscription from Matthew VI:21: "For where your treasure is, there will your heart be also." The Holy Cross Church stands only a short distance from Chopin's last Warsaw residence, the Krasiński Palace]."
My deletion of these words had two bases:
I have already suggested that the details of the inscription would be more appropriate in the WP article Holy Cross Church, Warsaw.
I would appreciate readers' comments on this. It seems to me that if we are to get this vital article up to GA standard (which it deserves) we have to cut out our own little favourites and concentrate on the man (biography and reputation) and the music. A discussion might help us pave the way for improvement of the article as a whole, as well as deal with this particualr issue. Thanks, -- Smerus ( talk) 20:57, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
Dear Nihil novi - Please give me one reason to include this inscription anywhere in the article. There is no evidence that Chopin requested this inscription which was added to his memorial over 30 yars after his death. We do not know who chose the inscription, or why they did so. In short, whilst the inscription may be relevant (in a minor way) to the article to Holy Cross Church, it is in no way of primary, secondary, or even tertiary relevance to the article on Chopin - unless you can prove otherwise with a citation. If you cannot do this, then the inclusion is WP:UNDUE and WP:OR. The fact that there is other irrelevant material in the article - which hopefully will also be dealt with - has no bearing on this question. Best,-- Smerus ( talk) 09:01, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
I nies that you do not answer my points. As it appears you cannot, or choose not to, answer them, I am proceeding with deletion of the quotation. As previously suggested, you can place thjis information in the article on the church, if you wish. We can deal with the statue on a 'case by case' basis - but cnmparison with Felix Mendelssohn, Ludwig van Beethoven and many other WP composer articles suggests that mentions and/or photos of statues are acceptable for such aerticles, whereas they do not include epitaphs, which contain no personal information or relevance, concocted by unknown people many years after their deaths.-- Smerus ( talk) 06:04, 17 December 2013 (UTC)