Talk:Jan Ladislav Dussek

Composer project review

I've reviewed this article as part of the Composers project review of its B-class articles. This article may be B-class, but it is so just barely. Some elements typical of composer biographies are lacking, and the article is entirely unsourced. My full review is on the comments page; it's not pretty. Questions and comments should be left here or on my talk page. Magic♪piano 14:31, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

I've checked and verified some facts, however, my source is rather encyclopedic, without padding. Therefore I can't confirm and verify some "adventurous" events related to his life. --Vejvančický (talk) 16:11, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

It appears that this book, which is a doctoral dissertation, is likely the definitive statement on Dussek. (The author, Craw, is the name behind the catalog numbers in the works listing.) It's in English of course, and only generally available in university or music school libraries here.

A brief tour through Google Books turns up a decent amount of writing about him, although generally in the context of either the history of the piano, or piano virtuosos, so they are usually short on biographic details. There is some musicology on him, I think in part because of his role in promoting the piano. Perhaps books.google.cz can also turn up some interesting scholarship? (I'm not inclined to pursue this article right now, which is why I mentioned it to you -- I feel like I need to tackle Ludwig van Beethoven instead. I may pick up some of Dussek's music though.) Magic♪piano 18:26, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Bias

There is an excellent book by Tia DeNora that compares and contrasts the careers of Dussek and Beethoven. Dussek was a far more important than this terribly biased article would have you think. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Baron D. Z. (talk • contribs) 19:29, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

I would love to have more sources that elaborate on Dussek's extensive impact on either the music and musicians of his time, or of later times (especially one that also explains his later obscurity as well). Does this book have a name, or are we supposed to guess that it is this one? Magic♪piano 19:48, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Check out Ringer, A.L. (1970). "Beethoven and the London Pianoforte School" The Musical Quarterly LVI (4): 742–758. doi:10.1093 which I used for the section on his potential influence on Beethoven. The claim you tagged in the lede is rubbish. His music was largely unknown on the continent, slightly better known in England. Cf. Ringer who notes the fact. Eusebeus (talk) 20:24, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, sure I think it's somewhat self-evidently rubbish. (I consider myself fairly musically literate since childhood, including on pre-20th century piano music, but never heard of Dussek until I was 40.) On the other hand, Mr D. Z. may pull a rabbit out of a hat. The DeNora book I linked above contains assertions on her part that Dussek may have had material impact on LvB through the offices of Johann Baptist Cramer, who visited Vienna and met him. This is hardly sufficient to hang the statement in the lede on.

My real question on his fall to obscurity is: if he was so popular as a traveling show (as seems to be the case), why did that not translate into enduring popularity for his music (a la Liszt)? Magic♪piano 20:48, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

• I suspect he was simply eclipsed. Cf. the sonatas of Haydn and Mozart which were rarely performed in the nineteenth century. Even Clementi fell into some obscurity (concert hallwise, if not in terms of tormenting students). Don't forget how revolutionary Chopin was in terms of defining piano tastes. Anyway, thanks for keeping an eye on this and asking the right questions. Eusebeus (talk) 21:22, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

The simple fact of the inclusion of many Dussek works in standard piano anthologies from G. Schirmer and probably Theodore Presser is a valid measure of their lasting impact and value. If they had not been consistently used throughout the 19th century, they would not have been included alongside Clementi and Kuhlau and the like. And their inclusion ensured their continued use throughout the 20th century. The comments on his being unknown sounded quite baseless and founded in dare I assume a British assumption about the continent, or the other way around? The fact that you did not discover his music sooner is about you, not Dussek. Harold Schonberg was the distinguished editor of the Arts & Leisure section of the New York Times, and his comments on Dussek's importance can't be disregarded. Tia DeNora's book, correctly identified (I could not recall the exact title), is highly informative and eye-opening. Beethoven did not come from nowhere. Dussek's Sonatinas for harp, the sixth in particular has moments that can be found in Beethoven's Pathetique Sonata slow movement. Music is full of people like Dussek. The over-emphasis on Beethoven and promotion of only his music simply drowned out too many others. I think what is more controversial, far more, than my comments on attribution of his music is the feministic assertion that Sophia could have written his music. Now that her music can be downloaded from imslp.org, it is simple to compare their work. I don't appreciate threatening remarks. I do not have any more time to spend on this than I have done. If you don't like my sourcing, well that is exactly what Wikipedia is really worth: nothing. It is stupid to assume this will ever be any kind of reliable source. Not that I am trying to ruin it. For this, Encyclopedia Britannica was ruined. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Baron D. Z. (talk • contribs) 04:14, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

I appreciate your enthusiasm for this underrated composer, but unfortunately the standard reference materials (in this case Groves) and the wider academic literature (Ringer, for instance, cited), substantiate the claims for his general obscurity. Eusebeus (talk) 07:49, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

In re: "The comments on his being unknown sounded quite baseless and founded in dare I assume a British assumption about the continent, or the other way around?"

You didn't look at my user page, did you (it says quite clearly where I'm from)? I've been concertgoing for most of my life, and routinely follow the activities of half a dozen major and minor classical music promoters in a large American city with a rich musical calendar. I hardly ever see Dussek there. I also don't see much popular literature on Dussek, or scholarly work. When I go to a world-class university's music library, I find maybe two or three books about the man (and only one in English), and literally shelf-feet of space devoted to writing about Beethoven. These are the roots of my skepticism; I don't think my bias is particularly provincial.

I apologize if you viewed the remarks I left on your talk page as "threatening", but your attitude about possessing knowledge that is somehow obvious needed to be challenged. The unfortunate (for you) fact is that in Wikipedia, unsourced materials can be, and are, challenged and removed. If you don't like this, you should learn to provide more details about your sources than a single author's name. It is your vague sourcing that is worthless, since I, as someone who contributed to this article, need to do much work to make effective use of it. I would actually like this article to contain a proper reflection of the man's innovations, influence, and importance in a way that will withstand criticism from someone harsher than myself or Eusebeus; in your current posture you are not helping me to achieve that if what you claim is true. If you expect me to read what Schonberg wrote about Dussek, for example, you will have to be somewhat more specific. (Since you seem unwilling to do the work to rectify the grievous wrong being done to Dussek by editing this material into the article yourself, it appears to me that someone like me or Eusebeus will have to do it, but "Schonberg said nice things somewhere" isn't a reliable source we can use, and I've already dug up one of your sources). Magic♪piano 13:51, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, "Baron" we all have our favorite composers and are sometimes quite passionate about them and/or our nationality. But you must accept that however YOU may feel about them, the world at large may not share that view. For instance, I find Dussek's Opus 77 piano sonata a very nice piece, but outside of a few academic writings, had never heard of him while growing up in a classical music culture of 'Bach-Mozart-Beethoven' - he probably gets a few enjoyable plays on classical music stations and is appreciated by those listeners. But he isn't the first, nor will he be the last, music writer that perhaps does not get his "just due" by the world. There is no way we can go back in time to monitor what, for example, Liszt did in his perusal of music books or what he might have played through in private - but to "guess" what impact Dussek had on more widely known composers is pure conjecture, based on the available documentation. 98.67.177.70 (talk) 11:37, 26 November 2010 (UTC)HammerFilmFan

Gesualdo???

In the "Style" section, it says "The evolution of style found in Dussek's piano writing suggests he pursued an independent line of development, one that anticipated but did not influence early Romanticism (somewhat in the manner of Gesualdo)." Fair enough, but...Gesualdo? This is either independent research or it tries to make a point too obscure for all but the most expert reader. I'll remove the final parenthetical phrase... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Opus131 (talk • contribs) 03:09, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Jan Ladislav Dussek/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

Comment(s)

Press [show] to view →

==Composers Project Assessment of Jan Ladislav Dussek: 2009-01-8== This is an assessment of article Jan Ladislav Dussek by a member of the Composers project, according to its assessment criteria. This review was done by Magicpiano. If an article is well-cited, the reviewer is assuming that the article reflects reasonably current scholarship, and deficiencies in the historical record that are documented in a particular area will be appropriately scored. If insufficient inline citations are present, the reviewer will assume that deficiencies in that area may be cured, and that area may be scored down. Adherence to overall Wikipedia standards (WP:MOS, WP:WIAGA, WP:WIAFA) are the reviewer's opinion, and are not a substitute for the Wikipedia's processes for awarding Good Article or Featured Article status. ===Origins/family background/studies=== Does the article reflect what is known about the composer's background and childhood? If s/he received musical training as a child, who from, is the experience and nature of the early teachers' influences described? Introduction is not straightforward; prose needs work. ===Early career=== Does the article indicate when s/he started composing, discuss early style, success/failure? Are other pedagogic and personal influences from this time on his/her music discussed? Nothing on composing history. Movements (e.g. time in St. Petersburg) lack dates. ===Mature career=== Does the article discuss his/her adult life and composition history? Are other pedagogic and personal influences from this time on his/her music discussed? Limited composing history. ===List(s) of works=== Are lists of the composer's works in WP, linked from this article? If there are special catalogs (e.g. Köchel for Mozart, Hoboken for Haydn), are they used? If the composer has written more than 20-30 works, any exhaustive listing should be placed in a separate article. Works list should be separated due to length. Catalog markings should be explained. ===Critical appreciation=== Does the article discuss his/her style, reception by critics and the public (both during his/her life, and over time)? Contemporary reception is given; influence over later composers is asserted; no 20th-century appreciation. ===Illustrations and sound clips=== Does the article contain images of its subject, birthplace, gravesite or other memorials, important residences, manuscript pages, museums, etc? Does it contain samples of the composer's work (as composer and/or performer, if appropriate)? (Note that since many 20th-century works are copyrighted, it may not be possible to acquire more than brief fair use samples of those works, but efforts should be made to do so.) If an article is of high enough quality, do its images and media comply with image use policy and non-free content policy? (Adherence to these is needed for Good Article or Featured Article consideration, and is apparently a common reason for nominations being quick-failed.) Article needs more images; no sound. ===References, sources and bibliography=== Does the article contain a suitable number of references? Does it contain sufficient inline citations? (For an article to pass Good Article nomination, every paragraph possibly excepting those in the lead, and every direct quotation, should have at least one footnote.) If appropriate, does it include Further Reading or Bibliography beyond the cited references? Article is effectively unsourced. Contains much WP:PEACOCK language. ===Structure and compliance with WP:MOS=== Does the article comply with Wikipedia style and layout guidelines, especially WP:MOS, WP:LEAD, WP:LAYOUT, and possibly WP:SIZE? (Article length is not generally significant, although Featured Articles Candidates may be questioned for excessive length.) Lead is short; footer needs reordering. ===Things that may be necessary to pass a Good Article review=== Article requires more inline citations (WP:CITE) Article lead needs work (WP:LEAD) Article footer material needs organization (WP:LAYOUT) Article needs (more) images and/or other media (MOS:IMAGE) Article prose needs work (WP:MOS) ===Summary=== I admit to not having ever heard of Dussek. That said, this article is an interesting read. However, it is entirely unsourced -- the one inline citation points to a dead link (at the time I write this). This is a particularly severe problem in this article, as it contains much peacock language, asserting the importance of its subject. Some of the biographical elements are also sufficiently colorful that they should really be properly sourced. The biography should contain more on his composing history; when he wrote his first works, and how his style developed. An article this long should be divided with heading, and contain more images. Its lead should be lengthened, and its footer material arranged per WP:LAYOUT. The works list should be placed in a separate article, and the "Craw" catalog described. This article is B-class, but it needs a lot of work. Magic♪piano 14:28, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Last edited at 14:28, 8 January 2009 (UTC). Substituted at 19:32, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Beethoven quote

With a theme that triadic, it strikes me that this is not impressive at all. To be somewhat frank, it smacks of the writing that tends to be given to support the greatness of unsung composers (somehow always in relation to some established composer of the classical canon): I wonder when we will hear not only that Beethoven got the idea from Dussek, but that Dussek also got it from the slow movement of Mozart's KV 467. (After all, we're already changing the meter; why not fiddle with the tempo too?) Mind you, this sort of thing is common enough in published writing about these composers that I am more relieved than anything else that this resemblance is uncited. Double sharp (talk) 15:36, 5 July 2017 (UTC)