A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the On this day section on May 12, 2018. |
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||
|
The 'Duke University Website' link ( http://library.duke.edu/music/vanhal/wanhal3.html#family ) explains that he signed his name 'Waṅhal' and the variant spellings 'Vanhal/Vanhall/Wanhall' are far less common. The title should be changed to Johann Baptist Waṅhal, shouldn't it?
In general, I argue a person should be listed using the spelling that he (she) used primarily. Thus, in this case Wanhal with the dot over the n, especially since this fixes the pronunciation. Keyton ( talk) 01:54, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
Dittersdorf is not normally considered a great composer, but one editor insists on referring to him as the great Carl Ditters von Dittersdorf. I tagged the article since I think this violates NPOV and I assume he will revert it to say that again. If not, we can de-tag it. Gene Ward Smith 18:03, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
Grove says the following:
He composed voluminously despite the official responsibilities that occupied him for much of his life, and his generally high standard of craftsmanship earned him recognition as a leading figure of the Viennese Classical school.
...
In Dittersdorf's famous interview with Joseph II, recounted in the autobiography, his music is likened to ‘an ample and finely served meal. The dishes are all savoury, and one can take a good helping of each without risking indigestion’. Alas, though appealing, his music proved vulnerable to audiences' fickle taste, and few works were destined for enduring favour, however enthusiastic their initial reception. Gene Ward Smith ( talk) 22:13, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
is it possible that the middle name just means "baptised as" (Jan Krtitel = John/Johann Baptist or Baptized? Vanhal or the other way around , Vanhal, Baptized John?) Maybe not that great a stretch then- I do not know. Schissel | Sound the Note! 06:19, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
He was born as "Jan Ignác Manhal" Link and died as "Johann Wannhall" Link -- DiCampi ( talk) 21:42, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
The result of the proposal was moved to Johann Baptist Wanhal by Sirion123. -- BDD ( talk) 23:56, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
Johann Baptist Vanhal → Johann Baptist Waṅhal – In the last few year the forms Waṅhal and Wanhal have become much more common in English publications, for reasons discussed above. With the founding of the Johann Baptist Wanhal Association I believe that a consensus amongst English-speaking Wanhal scholars has been shown, and that it is time for Wikipedia to follow suit. The form Waṅhal will not become much used, probably, as the extra diacritic is hard to create on many computers and not well supported, but it appears to have been the form Waṅhal himself preferred, and is easy to use here. The composers own form, Waṅhal, therefore seems to me to be the most sensible. Sirion123 ( talk) 18:25, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
A week has passed, and I after receiving unanimous support I have moved the page to Johann Baptist Wanhal. I have also, to the best of my ability, changed references to "Johann Baptist Vanhal", "Jan Křtitel Vaňhal" &c. on other pages. Sirion123 ( talk) 21:08, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
This article is obviously in need of getting cleaned up and extended, where a greater diversity of sources should be consulted, and the importance of information weighted. As it is today, the biography does not mention what I believe is the single most important fact in his life, viz., that he through his own skills and the political climate of his days managed to buy himself out of serfdom, and was the first Viennese composer to make a living from the burgeoning middle class. Until today, the "Style" section, which barely discusses his style at all, had no mention of any of the music he wrote for the last 30 years of his career.
I don't wish merely to complain about this; I'm going to try to clean the article up in the coming period. I am, however, at a loss about what to do with the "List of Selected Works". As it stands today, it makes the article appear as more than the stub it really is, but the value of the section seems limited as it stands today. I guess what I am failing to grasp is exactly why it is organized as it is, and what one has tried to achieve by making it that way. The list seems to be a combination of a list of the entirety of his works, and a list of works that have been published respectively in historical and recent times. I am not convinced that all of this ought to be included in such a short article, and even less that it ought to be combined. What use is, for instance, the lists of symphonies published in Paris and Amsterdam? This is something I believe would be of interest primarily for the specialist reader, who would also want to know where one can find extant versions of these. The list of chamber music seems to have been intended as a list over the works available on record. However, no mention is made of the enormous majority of his works which have not been recorded, and most of the music available is not included either. Furthermore, no music for solo piano – the primary genre from which he made his livelihood for the last 30 years of his life – is included. No mention is made of the fact that the operas are lost, and the main article mentions three rather than two. Is "Caper Quartet" the name of an ensemble, or of a specific concerto? If the latter, no mention is made of the fact in David Wyn Jones' doctoral dissertation, and if the former, one should either remove it or extend the same courtesy to the rest of the recorded examples included.
I would like to be able to do more than merely complain about this, but I am at a loss about exactly what to do with this list. There is a list like it in the article on Leopold Hofmann, but in the more developed articles on Salieri and Pleyel more sensible solutions have been found. For now, I think the best course of action would be to emulate the entry on Salieri, by making a very short summary on the main page, and develop the list in a separate article. I think it would be far more useful if it was completely reshaped as a sober list over the entirety of his works, rather than mashing an incomplete list of the entirety of his oeuvre, a list over historical and contemporary scores and a list of modern recordings together. To the degree that these will be interesting for the non-specialist they should be included, but it should be done in a more sensible, consistent manner. Any thoughts on how this ought to be done? Sirion123 ( talk) 14:52, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Johann Baptist Wanhal. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 23:00, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the On this day section on May 12, 2018. |
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||
|
The 'Duke University Website' link ( http://library.duke.edu/music/vanhal/wanhal3.html#family ) explains that he signed his name 'Waṅhal' and the variant spellings 'Vanhal/Vanhall/Wanhall' are far less common. The title should be changed to Johann Baptist Waṅhal, shouldn't it?
In general, I argue a person should be listed using the spelling that he (she) used primarily. Thus, in this case Wanhal with the dot over the n, especially since this fixes the pronunciation. Keyton ( talk) 01:54, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
Dittersdorf is not normally considered a great composer, but one editor insists on referring to him as the great Carl Ditters von Dittersdorf. I tagged the article since I think this violates NPOV and I assume he will revert it to say that again. If not, we can de-tag it. Gene Ward Smith 18:03, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
Grove says the following:
He composed voluminously despite the official responsibilities that occupied him for much of his life, and his generally high standard of craftsmanship earned him recognition as a leading figure of the Viennese Classical school.
...
In Dittersdorf's famous interview with Joseph II, recounted in the autobiography, his music is likened to ‘an ample and finely served meal. The dishes are all savoury, and one can take a good helping of each without risking indigestion’. Alas, though appealing, his music proved vulnerable to audiences' fickle taste, and few works were destined for enduring favour, however enthusiastic their initial reception. Gene Ward Smith ( talk) 22:13, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
is it possible that the middle name just means "baptised as" (Jan Krtitel = John/Johann Baptist or Baptized? Vanhal or the other way around , Vanhal, Baptized John?) Maybe not that great a stretch then- I do not know. Schissel | Sound the Note! 06:19, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
He was born as "Jan Ignác Manhal" Link and died as "Johann Wannhall" Link -- DiCampi ( talk) 21:42, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
The result of the proposal was moved to Johann Baptist Wanhal by Sirion123. -- BDD ( talk) 23:56, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
Johann Baptist Vanhal → Johann Baptist Waṅhal – In the last few year the forms Waṅhal and Wanhal have become much more common in English publications, for reasons discussed above. With the founding of the Johann Baptist Wanhal Association I believe that a consensus amongst English-speaking Wanhal scholars has been shown, and that it is time for Wikipedia to follow suit. The form Waṅhal will not become much used, probably, as the extra diacritic is hard to create on many computers and not well supported, but it appears to have been the form Waṅhal himself preferred, and is easy to use here. The composers own form, Waṅhal, therefore seems to me to be the most sensible. Sirion123 ( talk) 18:25, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
A week has passed, and I after receiving unanimous support I have moved the page to Johann Baptist Wanhal. I have also, to the best of my ability, changed references to "Johann Baptist Vanhal", "Jan Křtitel Vaňhal" &c. on other pages. Sirion123 ( talk) 21:08, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
This article is obviously in need of getting cleaned up and extended, where a greater diversity of sources should be consulted, and the importance of information weighted. As it is today, the biography does not mention what I believe is the single most important fact in his life, viz., that he through his own skills and the political climate of his days managed to buy himself out of serfdom, and was the first Viennese composer to make a living from the burgeoning middle class. Until today, the "Style" section, which barely discusses his style at all, had no mention of any of the music he wrote for the last 30 years of his career.
I don't wish merely to complain about this; I'm going to try to clean the article up in the coming period. I am, however, at a loss about what to do with the "List of Selected Works". As it stands today, it makes the article appear as more than the stub it really is, but the value of the section seems limited as it stands today. I guess what I am failing to grasp is exactly why it is organized as it is, and what one has tried to achieve by making it that way. The list seems to be a combination of a list of the entirety of his works, and a list of works that have been published respectively in historical and recent times. I am not convinced that all of this ought to be included in such a short article, and even less that it ought to be combined. What use is, for instance, the lists of symphonies published in Paris and Amsterdam? This is something I believe would be of interest primarily for the specialist reader, who would also want to know where one can find extant versions of these. The list of chamber music seems to have been intended as a list over the works available on record. However, no mention is made of the enormous majority of his works which have not been recorded, and most of the music available is not included either. Furthermore, no music for solo piano – the primary genre from which he made his livelihood for the last 30 years of his life – is included. No mention is made of the fact that the operas are lost, and the main article mentions three rather than two. Is "Caper Quartet" the name of an ensemble, or of a specific concerto? If the latter, no mention is made of the fact in David Wyn Jones' doctoral dissertation, and if the former, one should either remove it or extend the same courtesy to the rest of the recorded examples included.
I would like to be able to do more than merely complain about this, but I am at a loss about exactly what to do with this list. There is a list like it in the article on Leopold Hofmann, but in the more developed articles on Salieri and Pleyel more sensible solutions have been found. For now, I think the best course of action would be to emulate the entry on Salieri, by making a very short summary on the main page, and develop the list in a separate article. I think it would be far more useful if it was completely reshaped as a sober list over the entirety of his works, rather than mashing an incomplete list of the entirety of his oeuvre, a list over historical and contemporary scores and a list of modern recordings together. To the degree that these will be interesting for the non-specialist they should be included, but it should be done in a more sensible, consistent manner. Any thoughts on how this ought to be done? Sirion123 ( talk) 14:52, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Johann Baptist Wanhal. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 23:00, 31 December 2017 (UTC)