Talk:Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart

Currently in Austria?

In the lede it currently states:

"Born in Salzburg, then in the Holy Roman Empire and currently in Austria,"

Yes "currently" in the English language means "now", "presently" etc but it also is a time clause suggesting the extra meaning of "ongoing"; hence is this site implying that Salzburg, although in Austria at the moment (right now), has a question mark over its geopolitical future? Using currently is a strange choice of word to describe a city that has been unquestionably Austrian territory for centuries. I'd use "now".87.242.223.122 (talk) 11:31, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

Changed to "now". Johnbod (talk) 14:04, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

Brief an Leopold Mozart (15. Januar 1770):

„Die Deutschen sind die Besten, und ich bin stolz, ein Deutscher zu sein.“

Brief an Nannerl (24. November 1782):

„Ich bin ein deutscher Musiker und stolz darauf.“

Brief an Leopold Mozart (30. Mai 1777):

„Ich hoffe, dass ich durch meine Werke auch die Deutschen ehren kann.“

Brief an Gottfried van Swieten (30. Januar 1781):

„Ich werde immer ein treuer Deutscher bleiben und meine Musik für unser Volk schaffen.“

Brief an seine Schwester Nannerl (10. Juli 1777):

„In Deutschland zu sein, erfüllt mich mit Freude und Stolz, denn ich fühle mich als Teil dieser Kultur.“

Letter to Leopold Mozart (January 15, 1770):

"The Germans are the best, and I am proud to be a German."

Letter to Nannerl (November 24, 1782):

"I am a German musician and proud of it."

Letter to Leopold Mozart (May 30, 1777):

"I hope that through my works I can also honor the Germans."

Letter to Gottfried van Swieten (January 30, 1781):

"I will always remain a loyal German and create my music for our people."

Letter to his sister Nannerl (July 10, 1777):

"Being in Germany fills me with joy and pride, for I feel like part of this culture." 2003:FA:9F09:8800:880E:AF01:EA68:F908 (talk) 01:16, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

Revote for the main portrait

I know this has been discussed before, but from the archives I looked at I haven't seen a general vote for this (and if there has been one it was probably a long time ago), so I think we should have a vote for what should be the main portrait of the article, as I saw many people argue it should be this popular posth. one https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Wolfgang-amadeus-mozart_1.jpg instead of the current faced in portrait because it made in his lifetime. (I also should mention that Schubert's main portrait is the posth. one when there are others that were made in his lifetime).

So can we do a vote to see what everyone thinks, just so we can try to get a general consensus or at least a certain majority vote? I want as many people to be in an agreement of whatever decision we make. Wikieditor662 (talk) 02:59, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

You don't see a vote on this because consensus is not a majority vote. If you have a reason why you believe the portrait should be different, then present that, and people can chime in about their reasoning for agreeing with you or not. But the fact that there hasn't been a vote isn't such a reason. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:17, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

Exactly, @Nikkimaria, a consensus is, in short, the result of a discussion, it would be roughly like this:

Let's say there's a discussion about X thing, then people will propose arguments, whether for or against, and after that particular subject has a answer, then it has reached a definitive consensus, i.e, if the subject does not reach a consensus (result of the discussion), the discussion does not end there, if an consensus is the result of an discussion, then a discussion without consensus, it's a discussion out of respond, out of result. 177.105.90.56 (talk) 17:31, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

Like Nikkimaria, I'm not actually seeing you propose a reason for why this portrait be changed. As I said in an earlier thread about "I can hardly sympathize with [this suggestion] when the rest of the article, quite literally the entire thing, is painfully incomplete and lacking". – Aza24 (talk) 03:33, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

Personally I'd like the Stock profile drawing, if only because it is a fine but less often seen portrait. Johnbod (talk) 04:00, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

@Nikkimaria@Aza24@Johnbod please let me make a more extreme example to make my point...

Imagine there are 2 portraits: One that everybody knows but was made posth., or one that barely anyone would recognize to be the person but was made in their life time (I know this isn't what it's like here, it's to make a point). Would it really be more worth it to put up the portrait that will confuse everyone just because it was made in their lifetime?

I think we should make the main portrait the most recognizable one, and only if we're unsure which one is more known, THEN we go with the one made in their lifetime.

Well this is the case just to a lesser extent. We can still have the zoomed in portrait, I just wouldn't suggest having it as the main one that shows up when you hover over Mozart's name. Wikieditor662 (talk) 14:14, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

In your hypothetical situation, we would select the image that best reflects what the person (most likely) looked like, because that's the primary purpose of the lead image - not a popularity ranking. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:35, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

Where does it say (or if it doesn't then what is the reason) that we should choose the portrait based on its' potential accuracy instead of how recognizable it is? Wikieditor662 (talk) 19:37, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

Where does it say we should use the best-known portrait? Nowhere, I think. Johnbod (talk) 21:27, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

I could be mistaken, but I don't think there's any wikipedia policy as for how to pick which portrait to use... Which is why I suggested we have a vote Wikieditor662 (talk) 21:30, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

The relevant guideline is MOS:IRELEV: images serve as an illustrative aid and "should look like what they are meant to illustrate".

To give you an example: for most who have ever heard of Scott McCloud, this image will be the most recognizable - I'd bet far more people could identify that than could pick an actual photo of him out of a lineup. But we use a photo as the lead image for his article. (To be fair there's a copyright complication there, but I'd suggest even if the comic was free we still should use the photo for his lead). Nikkimaria (talk) 22:34, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

The quote that you stated goes on... "Images should look like what they are meant to illustrate, whether or not they are provably authentic. For example, a painting of a cupcake may be an acceptable image for Cupcake, but a real cupcake that has been decorated to look like something else entirely is less appropriate." and shows that sometimes the most authentic image doesn't always have to be the main one.

I'm not saying that you're wrong, I'm just unsure and think we should see what others think. As for the example you used, I think either option could work, so it's up to discretion. Here, however, the examples nearly aren't as extreme, and it's not certain that the current image is more accurate than the other one. Barbra craft and Mozart were alive at the same time so it's possible she met him even if the painting was made after he died. Wikieditor662 (talk) 22:55, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

How about we change the image to the one by Mozart's brother in law Joseph Lange. It's considered the most accurate depiction of Mozart by most people, including his wife.

Wcamp9 (talk) 01:00, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

Lead Image

The current lead iamage of Mozart is one from his lifetime, but I suggest that we change it to the one on the left. This image is a crop from an unfinished painting of Mozart from his brother-in-law, Joseph Lange, made 1782-1783. This is considered to be the most accurate painting of Mozart. Even his wife Constanze Weber thought so (See Appearance and character of Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart). I believe that is a good argument for changing the Mozart image from the one on the right to the one on the left.

• 
• 

Wcamp9 (talk) 02:10, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

"He was not a healthy child during his first six years. ref name="solomon 1995 39"

I've moved this to the talk page. The problem is that it interrupts a paragraph that is about the very beginning of Mozart's life (i.e. birth date, birth order, assignment of a name). The sensible reader would ask "why are you talking about assigning him a name when he's already a toddler?"

Also, I'm not sure the sentence is fully accurate; it's not prominent in other biographies of Mozart I've read; and certainly whatever sickness Mozart endured as a little kid did not prevent him from making huge progress musically, nor from performing (both as a dancer and a keyboard player). Also, I no longer use Solomon as a Mozart factual source, having been burned a few times from doing so.

The "Mozart as sick toddler" material, if shown to be accurate, would fit in better in a general narrative of the course of Mozart's health over his lifetime. We have a bit of this in Death of Mozart but perhaps it could be an independent article or an independent section of this one. A good reference for Mozart's health history is:

Davies, Peter J.(1984) Mozart's Illnesses and Death: 1. The Illnesses, 1756–90. The Musical Times 125:437-442

Opus33 (talk) 06:33, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

"(These concertos) are firm fixtures in his/the repertoire"

Someone changed this from "the repertoire" to "his repertoire". I don't think this is right; for most people who use this word, "his repertoire" would be mean "pieces Mozart played" and "the repertoire" means "pieces characteristically played by musicians in general". It is the second meaning that is applicable here; the sentence means that the practice of playing Mozart concertos has endured to this day. Opus33 (talk) 06:42, 10 November 2024 (UTC)