Talk:Adolphe Sax

Untitled
Did Sax patent the Saxophine on June 22, or on May 17? Aliter 10:26, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)

ola
1838


 * The article gives both 1838 and 1846 as pattent dates for the saxophone. I find no outside reference to the 1838 date.  I am not confident enough to change it, but I would like for someone to clarify.--Btwied 17:14, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

No evidence ever a Freemason
According to the Grand Lodge of British Columbia there is not enough evidence to say he was a mason. Dwain 19:40, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Being Sued Gave Me Hepatitis!
I don't think legal troubles can be credited with giving him lip cancer, as is implied here. Hey, maybe he smoked a lot of cigars when he was unhappy (who knows?), but that's not stated in the article. It just looks silly right now...

Misha

216.254.12.114 05:02, 23 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I edited the aforementioned passage to remove the suggestion of a causal link. -- Rsholmes 18:03, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Saxtromba
Here's what is claimed to be a picture of a saxtromba from this site (in Dutch). Is this in fact a saxtromba? If so, then in what sense is it "a hybrid between the trombone and the saxophone"? -- Rsholmes 15:12, 4 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I edited the aforementioned passage, having found a source that confirms the saxtromba has little to do with trombones and less to do with saxophones. Also cleaned up some grammar, non-NPOV, links, etc. -- Rsholmes 18:03, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

To study an instrument
"He subsequently studied those two instruments...." makes me wonder, especially because Sax was an instrument maker, whether he used magnifying glasses and calipers to study them, or whether he learned how to play them. Unfree (talk) 21:07, 15 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Fixed. (only 8 years late) Storeye (talk) 05:15, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Date of death
Google has plenty of hits for 3 February and 4 February; a few for 7 February; and even a couple for 5 February. I'd say 4 February is the leader on google hits, but that's no basis for writing an encyclopedia article. Does anyone have accurate, authoritative information on exactly when he died? -- JackofOz (talk) 03:10, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't know how significant this is, but his tomb in Montmartre Cemetery says "7 - 2 - 1894". That sign was added in 1994 though, so, again, I don't know whether this is important. ---Sluzzelin talk  04:10, 15 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks, Sluzzelin. That is interesting, although not proof, as we know of many cases where the dates on the grave are simply wrong.  Curiously, I found a number of google hits that show Sax's grave, or refer to it, and many such sites include his vital dates, none of which says "7 February", but alternative dates, typically 3 or 4 February.  It's odd that nobody seems to have noticed this discrepancy before and questioned his true death date; or, if they have, it hasn't found its way to the internet.  Until now.  --  JackofOz (talk) 07:03, 15 April 2008 (UTC)


 * The Cambridge Companion to the Saxophone (Richard Ingham, Cambridge University Press, ISBN 0521596661, 1999, page 10) has :
 * "In keeping with the turbulence of his life, there is also controversy about the date of Sax's death. Several sources, including Grove, Horwood, and Ronkin, cite 4 February 1894 as the date of his death. Gee gives, simply, 1894, while Kochnitzky says that 'Sax lived to the age of eighty'. Because Sax was born 6 November 1814, this implies that he lived past 6 November in 1894. The correct date, found in Baker's. Deans and Haine, is 7 February 1894."
 * (I don't know how they conclude that this is "the correct date"). ---Sluzzelin talk  07:17, 15 April 2008 (UTC)


 * If Baker's says it's 7 Feb, I'd normally be very inclined to accept that as gospel. Slonimsky went to great lengths to verify vital dates, and in so doing managed to demolish a lot of previously rusted-on inaccuracies.  However, we only have that on Ingham's say-so; and unfortunately I don't possess this esteemed tome so I can't check. But I do have Webster's New World Dictionary of Music, a distillation of the best of Baker's, with later contributions by Richard Kassel.  Webster's says Sax died on 4 February.  So there's something going on here, and we need to get to the bottom of it.  I might ask Antandrus if he can help out here.  Cheers.  --  JackofOz (talk) 11:19, 15 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Greetings! Looking through my books, I find the following:  both the 1980 and the current online Grove give a date of 4 Feb, without elaboration.  Slonimsky in the Eighth Edition of Baker's also gives 4 Feb, and Jack, you're right he went to great lengths to verify the accuracy of his dates.  Find-a-Grave has pictures of the stone, and a writeup:  -- but the person writing the blurb interpreted 7-2 as July 2, in the American manner.  I suspect the stone is wrong.  We could document that most sources give 4 Feb, but a few sources give other dates, and footnote them.  Cheers, Antandrus  (talk) 13:51, 15 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Eeexcelent! Thank you, Antandrus. I'll make a notation.  --  JackofOz (talk) 23:24, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

New York Times obituary
His obituary appears in the New York Times, February 10, 1894. Useful tidbits from this are: (1) Date of death is Feb. 9, 1894 ("yesterday"), (2) he died of pneumonia "in absolute poverty", (3) he held the title of Professor at the Conservatory, and (4) he was awarded the Legion of Honor in 1849. Robert Hiller (talk) 03:23, 16 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Unfortunately that link seem wrong, as it goes to an obit. (abstract only) about Robert Michael Ballantyne. 220  of  Borg 01:45, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Google is not the master of the universe
These are modern times. It's disheartening to see how a Google Doodle is considered so important as to make it to the first lines of this article. There is a special section (External links) where it would perfectly fit, so why put this passage to the very top?

"Google celebrated his 201st birthday, 06th November, 2015, with a Google Doodle."

That's invasive and ruins the memory of Adolphe Sax. The semi-protection (with gibberish text) also prevents to correct this. It looks like there are many people thinking the same way. Probably this whole piece I'm writing will be gone, but that reference to the Doodle will stay there forever! Disheartening modern times of ignorance and consumism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.206.99.150 (talk) 09:47, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, I do find it sad that a Google Doodle would appear to have more influence than a WP:FA or WP:GA at times in that it brings vandals to some pages. Buffaboy  talk 15:41, 6 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Removed since the section has zero notability. The entire section was removed because there are no contributions to it yet. Until then it should stay that way. --Xavier (talk) 16:04, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 November 2015
Revise wording of the beginning of second paragraph of "Early Life" section to remove redundancy.

Existing wording: "According to the biography of Adolphe Sax’s biography published ..." Suggested Revision: "According to the biography of Adolphe Sax published..."

Thank you Barry

Blho1o (talk) 10:46, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

✅ - Thanks for pointing that out - Arjayay (talk) 13:04, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 November 2015
122.174.27.61 (talk) 11:05, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
 * ❌ as you have not requested a change. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. --I am  k6ka  Talk to me!   See what I have done  12:37, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 November 2015
Birth date is wrong when shown on google search, it shows 1184.

92.27.120.99 (talk) 11:38, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
 * ❌ The Wikipedia article has the information correct, so this is a problem with Google, not Wikipedia. --I am  k6ka  Talk to me!   See what I have done  12:38, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Original research
The "Early life" section appears to rely on original research. Plus the "firstly, lastly" comments could be reworded. The statements do not completely have an Encyclopedic tone and Style.

e.g.
 * "Lastly, he fell into a river and was saved by the skin of his teeth. In short, Sax had a tragic childhood."

Furthermore, what was he saved by? It is not clearly stated and for now is speculation. The sentence should be reworded to reflect that only the reference has stated this. --Xavier (talk) 13:32, 6 November 2015 (UTC)


 * This section is taken almost word from word from an article on Heavy.com, which was taken almost word for word from a bio on the Ville de Dinant's website. I added the second ref. Is there a more authoritative source for his childhood? Also, what's "vitriolized water" -- is there a more modern term for this? Vejlenser (talk) 16:36, 6 November 2015 (UTC)


 * I am not sure about these terms. These statements need to be put in somebodies words other than the source. "Copying and pasting" is not good editing. --Xavier (talk) 18:38, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Fifth reference link
The fifth reference link (5 facts about Sax's life) has an extra # at the start, so it's regarded as a section link instead of as an outside link.--159.147.50.15 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 14:54, 6 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Fixed. Vejlenser (talk) 16:25, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 November 2015
Hitler wasnt Germany good fact ya

92.60.194.167 (talk) 16:19, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. --I am  k6ka  Talk to me!   See what I have done  17:39, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Under Career
Under the Career section, the sentence stated that he "left the school." Which school was it? Did it mean to say, that he experimented with instrument design after leaving his primary education? It's a bit unclear. Clarification, please. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.210.124.64 (talk) 16:23, 6 November 2015 (UTC)


 * I will clarify the statement. Please sign your posts with four tildes ~
 * --Xavier (talk) 18:43, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Picture changed might not be better.
While the lead picture change by the recent editor is nice and all, I think the previous picture had more clarity. The current one seems to be too damaged while the replaced picture is in better condition and has more clarity. --Xavier (talk) 18:50, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

This article made the Top 25 Report
This article made the Top 25 Report at number four with 1,019,466 views for the week November 1 to 7, 2015. There was a Google Doodle about Sax on November 6, 2015. Congratulations to the editors of this article for the exposure of their work. SchreiberBike &#124; ⌨  19:19, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Dinant was not anymore in France in November 1814
Dinant was part of the short-lived French Department of Sambre-et-Meuse, which was disestablished in May 1814 after Napoleon's defeat. It then returned to Netherland. So Adolph Sax was not born in France Sapphorain (talk) 08:01, 4 July 2020 (UTC)


 * , your response? El_C 08:02, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

However Sapphorain did not cite any sources, if he/she did, I Will not revert it but he/she didn't cite any sources User3749 (talk) 08:04, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
 * But you have no source either stating that he was born in France. If the page Sambre-et-Meuse is wrong, it should be modified. Sapphorain (talk) 08:08, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
 * One unsourced edit does not offset the other. You need a reliable source to attribute that change to. El_C 08:12, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
 * But you also need a reliable source to keep the assertion that it was in France. Until a source for either country is provided, I am going to suppress the indication of a country. Sapphorain (talk) 12:50, 4 July 2020 (UTC)