Talk:String Quartets, Op. 33 (Haydn)
 | This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
| |||||||||||
rename
editWe should probably rename the article. Haydn quartets are never referred to by their canonical numbers. Perhaps "The Joke Quartet", or "String Quartet, Op. 33 No. 2"... or maybe expand to a full Op.33 article. (Many thanks to the initial editor for creating this, though!) DavidRF (talk) 21:32, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
- OK. I expanded this to cover all of Op. 33. The Joke rondo should probably be trimmed back a bit while the other quartets should be expanded. DavidRF (talk) 05:33, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
Joke
editUser:DoctorJoeE, you restored an edit by User:Dawnseeker2000 about the coda of the Joke quartet. In your edit summary you said this was restoring "unexplained removal of sourced content." But the material your restored (in part) was not sourced, and, in fact, is probably mere speculation on the part of the author.On what does Dawnseeker base the contention that "Haydn used this coda not only to make fun of audiences confused as to where to applaud, but also amateur musicians who were too "beat-driven," and what he deemed a redundant rondo form"? Sounds pretty fishy to me.
If Dawnseeker doesn't come up with a source for that statement in the next day or two, we should delete it, don't you think?
Ravpapa (talk) 14:59, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
- I'm wondering why you are not asking these questions of User:Dawnseeker2000. Most of what I restored was sourced, and the removal was indisputably unexplained. DoctorJoeE review transgressions/talk to me! 16:00, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
- The central part of Ravpapa's point is correct. Te sentence they quote above is marked as needing a citation since May 2016 and ought to be removed. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 02:53, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
- Moreover, the sourced sentence that you restored is redundant - the substance of the joke is amply covered in the following paragraph. Just because it is attributed doesn't make it, in itself, relevant or important.
- The central part of Ravpapa's point is correct. Te sentence they quote above is marked as needing a citation since May 2016 and ought to be removed. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 02:53, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
06:26, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
- Had any of this been explained in the original edit, I would have left it alone. And since we haven't heard from User:Dawnseeker2000, I guess that settles it. I'll revert my revert. DoctorJoeE review transgressions/talk to me! 16:27, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
- Thank you, and thank you for having such a civil discussion about it. 08:59, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
- Had any of this been explained in the original edit, I would have left it alone. And since we haven't heard from User:Dawnseeker2000, I guess that settles it. I'll revert my revert. DoctorJoeE review transgressions/talk to me! 16:27, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
Mozart's favorite works by Haydn
editSomeone had added the following (which I deleted) - "The "Russian" quartets were some of Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart's favorite works by Haydn and in 1785 Mozart dedicated six string quartets to Haydn in admiration of the quartets."
What's the evidence for this? There's not a single mention of these works in Mozart's own letters, (unlike for example, Michael Haydn's quintets). Wikiwickedness (talk) 23:34, 22 June 2023 (UTC)
- I have restored a revised version of the deleted sentence and added a footnote. Of course I could add another six or seven, as the connection between these quartets and Mozart's Haydn quartets is almost universally acknowledged. Wikiwickedness is welcome to add a paragraph discussing the relationship between the two sets of quartets, including, of course, dissenting views (other than his own) from reliable sources. That would be a valuable addition to the article. Ravpapa (talk) 07:05, 27 June 2023 (UTC)
- Universally aknowledged? I don't think so. You are just taking advantage of the fact that Haydn is mainstream whereas his contemporaries such as Beecke and Richter are obscure (due to the lack of their exposure in the academia and general public) and no significant research has been done on them, and hence no significant challenge or rebuttal has been made against the Haydn-favoring writings of Charles Rosen (regarding the the alledged "relationship" between the Op.33 quartets and Mozart's).
- The elephant in the room is that the prankster style of Haydn's Op.33 is not any more closer to Mozart than the chromatic style of Michael Haydn's MH 319 (1781), https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-gy4RfUy0UE&t=6m https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6QR1Prx-msA&t=4m or Franz Ignaz Beecke's C major (1780) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eyspv0f_lD8 are.
- Of course I could quote Hickman and Webster (as I did in the page on the Op.20 quartets), but do we need to go through this again?
- The fact remains that there's no first/second-hand account/evidence Mozart ever knew (or cared) about the Op.33 quartets. Let's be reasonable and not over-rate the prankster. (ie. Read too much into Mozart's "dedication letter", even though he did similar dedications to other people throughout his life; the K. 475/457 fantasy/sonata to his piano student Trattner, K. 563 string trio to his masonic friend Puchberg, K.499 string quartet to the publisher Hoffmeister, etc; he tells Haydn was a celebrated man and his friend, a buddy in his "quartet-playing gatherings", nothing more.)
- I have restored a revised version of the deleted sentence and added a footnote. Of course I could add another six or seven, as the connection between these quartets and Mozart's Haydn quartets is almost universally acknowledged. Wikiwickedness is welcome to add a paragraph discussing the relationship between the two sets of quartets, including, of course, dissenting views (other than his own) from reliable sources. That would be a valuable addition to the article. Ravpapa (talk) 07:05, 27 June 2023 (UTC)
Wikiwickedness (talk) 23:54, 27 June 2023 (UTC)