Talk:Christoph Willibald Gluck

message: This is a mistaken claim based on a flawed article by Gerhard Croll. The wealth of Gluck's bride was rather modest.--91.115.57.135 (talk) 16:44, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: "The marriage brought Gluck financial security"

message: In view of the strong consensus against using popular music infoboxes for major composers I am moving the Gluck infobox here (complete with flags, 'occupation' pianist etc.) for comments. I am leaving the picture in place. Thank you. --Kleinzach 01:01, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: LOL. That's a particularly bad one! Let's get rid of it permanently. --Folantin 08:15, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Infobox

message: I've reviewed this article as part of the Composers project review of its B-class articles.  This is a decent bio; its works list is incomplete, and (partly per above discussion) the importance of his reforms seems to me to be a little understated.  My full review is on the comments page; questions and comments should be left here or on my talk page. Magic♪piano 22:11, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Composer project review

message: Since it is still unknown when and where Gluck's parents got married, this claim is pure speculation.--Suessmayr (talk) 17:09, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: It is based on Brown and Rushton's article in The New Grove Dictionary of Music and Musicians, 2001. --Robert.Allen (talk) 08:08, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps this is based on the division of Gluck's father's estate among his surviving children (Gluck's father died in 1743), then this information would not seem to depend on exactly when the parents were married. If I get a chance, I'll try to check up on it. --Robert.Allen (talk) 07:32, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: This information always depends on the issue of when and where Gluck's parents were married. As long as this information is still lacking, we cannot take it as a fact that Gluck was his parents' first child. Thus Brown and Rushton's statement was never factual to begin with. It's just a presumption.--Suessmayr (talk) 13:57, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: I think you are misreading Brown & Rushton. They do not say Gluck was his parents' first child. The statement is not incorrect, because as written it means he was the oldest of the six children who were still living just after the death of his father. Apparently they were all documented at the time his father's estate was divided up. --Robert.Allen (talk) 14:11, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Gluck was born the first of six surviving children" 

message: This is false. Gluck's remains were disinterred in 1890.--Suessmayr (talk) 15:51, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: You need to provide a source for the 1890 date. In the meantime, I see no date is given by Brown & Rushton, so I am revising the article without a specific date. --Robert.Allen (talk) 08:16, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: de:Christoph_Willibald_Gluck#Die_letzten_Jahre gives1923 as the closing of the previous cemetery, while making it clear that Glück's remains were reburied in 1890. Sparafucil (talk) 22:33, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: 'Course it does: Suessmayr's unsourced edit there on 17 June 2013. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 04:14, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Gluck's disinterment in 1890 is documented in several Viennese newspapers, such as the Neue Freie Presse of 29 September 1890 which can easily be accessed on the Web. Time wasted with criticism would be better invested in a little bit of research.--Suessmayr~enwiki (talk) 15:20, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  "In 1923, Gluck's remains were transferred to a tomb in the Vienna Zentralfriedhof." 

message: Gluck's obsequies on 17 November 1787 at the Paulanerkirche included no music at all. He was consecrated "in der Stille" (in silence). His De profundis was only performed on 8 April 1788 as part of Gluck's Requiem mass at the Kirche am Hof.--Suessmayr~enwiki (talk) 15:24, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Performance of Gluck's "De profundis" 

message: Substituted at 11:41, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Assessment comment

message: I think it should be added that Upper Palatinate was part of "Germany", the german speaking lands, back in Gluck's days, too. As well as it was a part of Bavaria, then, as it is now.
Maybe you could write "Upper Palatinate (now part of Germany, then part of the Holy Roman Empire)" or just "Upper Palatinate (now and then part of Bavaria)"?--Malzkorn (talk) 11:21, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Upper Palatinate (now part of Germany)" 

message: Germany and Italy did not exist before the Congress of Vienna in 1815. Will you change all those articles too?Taksen (talk) 04:56, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: User:Taksen, We omitted Gluck's nationality because it is disputed by musicologists, not because he lived before the Congress of Vienna. Reliable sources cited in the article dispute that he was German. Daniel Heartz's paper argues he was Bohemian, and the article by Bruce Alan Brown & Julian Rushton in The New Grove Dictionary of Music and Musicians says he was Bohemian-Austrian. In my view, we would need sources that refute the arguments made in those articles before specifying with certainty that Gluck was German. Moreover, Gluck's German name Christoph does not prove his nationality was German. No one I'm aware of says he was French, so that's not an apt comparison on your part , but Austrians used the name, and Bohemians sometimes adopted Christoph as the German version of the Czech name Kryštof, particularly if they worked in German-speaking regions. Robert.Allen (talk) 07:20, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

text: The Wikipedia, whether German or English, can't be cited as a reliable source. Heartz says that German biographers generally claim Gluck is German, whereas the French ones do not. Brown (an American) states Gluck was baptized in Weidenwang which at the time included Erasbach, and that article says Gluck was a Bohemian composer (sorry, not Bohemian-Austrian), so a claim of German nationality is clearly uncertain. --Robert.Allen 
(talk) 19:49, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

text: We make an exception because our sources do. If you haven't already, you might read Heartz's paper, since it is available online. Robert.Allen (talk) 05:53, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

text: Regarding Heartz's paper, Patricia Howard selected it as one of two papers covering Gluck's early life to be included in her collection of important contributions to the secondary literature in Gluck research in the 40 years leading up to 2015 (Patricia Howard, Gluck, Routledge, 2017. .). It is also cited by Brown & Rushton in their article on Gluck in The New Grove Dictionary of Music and Musicians. --Robert.Allen (talk) 10:26, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nationality 

message: First of all, Gluck was baptized on the 4th, nobody knows when he was born. The Czech Wikipedia says Gluck was a German composer, and has a lot of reliable details on his father's patrons. His great-grandfather came from Rokycany. Gluck grew up in a German-speaking area in North Bohemia, close to the border. To be a Bohemian does not necessarily mean one spoke Czech. There were also German-speaking Bohemians, near the border almost 99%. It is highly likely his father, (grandfather), neighbours, teachers spoke German; they were colonists, and stuck to their language. I added more from Anton Schmid and Ignaz von Mosel.Taksen (talk) 14:28, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for your response. It's not that I think that 2 July is necessarily true, but I do think that according to Wikipedia's accepted practices (established by consensus), this is the birthdate that we should give. And I agree with you about Robl saying 4 July is his birthdate. In my opinion also, he is going too far. I tried to make some of this more clear by adding the note, but the note could probably be improved. (To put a discussion concerning the reliability of the date in the body of the article might require more sources discussing this particular issue.) Regarding using other Wikipedias as sources, this is sometimes done when we don't have an article or there are very few sources in English that our editors can read, but in this case we have plenty of sources. A lot of the details you are adding are actually in the sources cited here, but either no one has bothered to add them or they did not find them important enough. If they are verifiable, I have no objection to adding them. --Robert.Allen (talk) 20:06, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: Recent edits

message: "The musicians of Bohemia do not make use of the recitative which they call an unnatural song, but beside the airs, they employ speeches or pantomime, almost as in our Comic Operas, we intermingle the singing and the spoken dialogue. This music is performed in a country where the Italian is well known and well executed, it is more animated, more theatrical, and it would suffice to praise it to say that Gluck, Wagensiel, Brixi. They think that they are worthy of their talents, and that the Bohemian music is so strange to the Italian that there are few who do not claim to be part of it, as soon as they come to know it. ... of a people, but to perfect their own, which must be the thoughts and efforts of every artist."Taksen (talk) 19:08, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: Translation Garcin on Bohemian musicians

message: Hello! This is a note to let the editors of this article know that :File:Joseph Siffred Duplessis - Christoph Willibald Gluck - Google Art Project.jpg will be appearing as picture of the day on July 2, 2018. You can view and edit the POTD blurb at Template:POTD/2018-07-02. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 03:22, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[:File:Joseph Siffred Duplessis - Christoph Willibald Gluck - Google Art Project.jpg]] to appear as POTD soon 

message: I removed the tag put there by someone who is an expert on birthdays. Please stick to your business instead of panicking, just one day before 2 July. Besides I don't believe in this date. It possible to proof he was baptized on the 4th, but there is no document available that shows he was born on the 2nd. Moreover, we don't need headmasters, we need people that add referenced content. It is a cheap act. Since someone started this article, I assume 16 years ago, there were only 15 references, one per year. I added 35 in two months time. The subject operatic reform is very difficult, even scholars are still busy to find out what happened as a lot of sources burnt. Besides, there are hundreds/thousands/ten thousand articles with too little references on the English Wikipedia. They look like the authors have been showing their skill in typewriting (to keep it friendly).Taksen (talk) 21:37, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for your efforts on improving this article. However, just because other articles are worse doesn't mean that this one should get a free pass. There is no rule/guideline that says we have to fix the low-quality articles before we do the medium-quality ones. Thanks also for clarifying about his birth date being unknown. Accordingly, I have removed his listing from July 2#Births. I will likely be checking in on this article again in November near his death anniversary. If the citations for the section that I tagged have improved since then, the article will be considered for inclusion on the Main Page as part of WP:Selected anniversaries/November 15. If not, well c'est la vie. —howcheng  {chat} 22:24, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
replies: text:  User:Howcheng: Gluck's birthdate of 2 July is widely accepted, including by most of his German biographers, but not by the amateur scholars Robl and Taksen, and the addition of the tag was warranted. The relevance of the five references Taksen copied over wholesale from Melchior Grimm is not clear here, and three of them he couldn't even be bothered to complete. Robert.Allen (talk) 01:13, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

text: You've been here long enough, so you know that our standard is "Verifiability, not truth". NDB says July 2, so that counts as verifiable to me. —howcheng  {chat} 01:40, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: Removed tag

message: The name of the Viennese street where Gluck lived and died is Wiedner Hauptstraße. There is no "Wiedener" Hauptstraße. Gluck's exhumation on 29 September 1890 was widely reported in countless newspapers, for instance in the Freie Presse of this day. Why brainless Wikipedia bots are fighting against an increase of documented information in articles, is beyond me.--Suessmayr (talk) 13:47, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Obstinate mistakes whose correction is (allegedly) being revised by bots