Talk:Tonkünstler-Societät

Errors

Another embarrassing jumble of mistakes that originated in a mixture of ignorance and worthless secondary literature. The society was not established "for musicians", but only for musicians who performed serious music (dance musicians were not allowed to join). It was not established "to support retired musicians and their families", but to support widows and orphans of deceased musicians (i.e. "zum Unterhalte ihrer Witwen und Waisen" - a little knowledge of German would indeed help!). Constanze Mozart "eventually managed to achieve prosperity"? As a matter of fact she managed to get a pension from the emperor which only made all her later business enterprises possible. Steblin's article "Beethoven Mentions in Documents of the Viennese Tonkünstler-Societät" is given with "n.d." ("this is probably in a real book somewhere" - LOL!), but the most basic expertise in googling would lead to the German journal that published this article in 2012. And this is not a complete errata list, because I really have more important things to do.--Suessmayr (talk) 11:04, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

What a pointless bunch of quibbles. You don't read very carefully. Opus33 (talk) 01:22, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

So in your boundless naivete you obviously think that because the nonsense "to support retired musicians and their families" is given in New Grove, it must be correct. Once again you make my day. LMAO!--Suessmayr (talk) 07:53, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

If it's all the same with you I'd like to stick to peer-reviewed reference sources, of which the New Grove is one. Web material such as Michael Lorenz's blog offer intriguing claims about recent research using old documents from Mozart's time. However, typically this material has not undergone scholarly peer review or any other sort of factual checking. Indeed, Lorenz sometimes notes cases where he is posting material that was rejected by the peer-review process. I'd rather follow normal scholarly standards, even if this means abuse from you every time I put together a new article. Opus33 (talk) 22:05, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

I don't understand what you mean. What has Lorenz's blog to do with your glaring ignorance regarding several Mozart topics? What does it have to do with Wikipedia and anything you do there? Your contributions have never been peer reviewed either and if somebody points out that you are simply wrong, because you write about topics that you really know nothing about (or you copy from flawed, not peer reviewed books), you denounce criticism as "pointless bunch of quibbles". And yet you are not even able to figure out where Steblin's article was published in 2012. Do you really think that there is anybody in the scholarly community who has the expertise to actually peer review Lorenz's material? Most of today's supposed "Mozart scholars" (such as your admired Maynard Solomon) couldn't even read handwritten documents from Mozart's times!--Suessmayr (talk) 07:49, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

And just for the record: I've written for New Grove. It is not peer reviewed. If it were, it wouldn't have been published yet.--Suessmayr (talk) 07:54, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Dear Mr. Opus33, I've been told about your amusing statements on this discussion page. Let me say a few things: 1) You really need to work on your grammar (maybe a little peer-reviewing would help) because the verb "offer" still needs a plural subject. 2) I would be grateful if you could elaborate as to where I posted material on my blog "that was rejected by the peer-review process". I never submitted anything to any peer-review process that was rejected. Since in my archival work I have no peer among Mozart scholars, I would also like to know which "peer-review process" you have in mind. And finally 3) somebody who is naive enough to think that there is a functioning and useful "peer-reviewing process" in current Mozart scholarship, or even more bizarre that New Grove is a peer-reviewed encyclopedia, is not really in a position to judge anyone's scholarly work. Sincerely, Dr. Michael Lorenz

Composers

I expected to learn here as to why Haydn didn't join the society. Unfortunately the main contributor of this page seems to be unable to really understand the German literature. And what about Schubert's role as contributor to the society with his unfinished oratorio "Lazarus"? What about the society's regulations? A lot of information is missing here.--86.59.98.87 (talk) 15:09, 23 October 2014 (UTC)