Talk:Bedřich Smetana

Relations with Lithuania's president
Lithuania's president Antanas Smetona bears the same family name as Bedřich Smetana, just original not slavised. Maybe anyone knows some relations between them? The family's name is of Lithuanian origin and comes from Lithuanian word 'susimetona' meaning that milks fat comes together after some time (and russian and lithuanian word for cream is smetana and smetona, respectively). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.218.116.185 (talk) 04:28, 9 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Smetana is pretty common czech surname, also his family tree in Smetana museum in Prague doesn't indicate any family relations to Antanas Smetona. 193.85.237.10 (talk) 11:53, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

International recognition
I think, that the article is strange, as it tries to downgrade Smetana as a composer. Note, that Smetana could succesfully compose even when he was completely deaf (like Beethoven). I think that not many composers could ever do this. To speculate that he was a second class composer because of his little international acknowledgement is stupid, to compare him to other famous Czech composers is even more stupid, it is misunderstanding. Does any one speculate whether the popularity or Johann Strauss is "deserved"? Smetana's mostly national subjects are - not surprisingly - uninteresting for foreigners. He deserves his great popularity among the Czech people, no matter whether someone likes it or not. --85.207.59.18 (talk) 09:33, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

I would agree. Smetana's achievements held up in the light of Dvorák is always going to result with Smetana on the losing end. Other than that that were both Czech, both composers and lived in the nineteenth century, they have little to nothing in common. Also there is no citation for that statement.Pinikadia 14:22, 20 August 2012 (UTC)Pinikadia — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pinikadia (talk • contribs)

Medical
According to last research of doc. MUDr. Jiří Ramba, DrSc., Smetana did not suffer from syphilis. High concentrations of quicksilver found in his body after his death (which led to a conclusion that Smetana had syphilis) were caused by a liniment containing quicksilver. Smetana suffered almost his whole life from inflammation of his jawbone which led also to his deafness. The research and conclusions are summarized in a book Slavné české lebky (Famous Czech Skulls), ISBN:8072623257. Miraceti 00:47, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

WTG
You beat me to it! Just yesterday or the day before I came and looked at this page and it was in rough shape. I went looking for my old music history textbook, and by the time I actually found it today, the article was already written and sourced! WTG! Yipely 20:15, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Family
The article makes mention of the death of some of his children but does not mention his wife. A biography of a person should have a fairly sized paragraph at least about his wife, perhaps even how they met, when the married, how many kids etc. Were some of his kids talented also etc. Did his wife survive him, leave him or divorce him and how did this affect the man.  Nancy Heise   ''' talk 15:19, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Article reconstruction and extension
During the next few days the article will be subject to a significant expansion. Please feel free to comment on this page on any aspect of the new material. When the changes are complete, the revised article will be sent to peer review for treatment. Brianboulton (talk) 11:23, 21 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Excellent and precise info, thank you for expanding. I've access to many detailed Czech sources on Smetana and I can assist. --Vejvančický (talk) 21:21, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you. There is much work to do yet - for example the "Musical legacy" section is yet unwritten, and many in-line citations have still to be added. If there are factual errors, or the article is missing or misrepresenting important aspects of Smetana's life, I'd be pleased for any help you can give. The article should develop further over the next few days. Brianboulton (talk) 00:23, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Syphilitic?

 * Section Illnes and Death: The information about Smetana's syphilitic disease originates mainly in the medicinal studies by Prof. H. Feldmann. According to Feldmann, the first symptoms of the disease appeared in March 1874 and gradually developed into the third stadium - gummata. Prof. Emanuel Vlček in his study "Bedřich Smetana: Fyzická osobnost a hluchota" (Bedřich Smetana: Physical personality and Deafness) informs that his tests (from 1999) proved the existence of antibodies against Treponema pallidum (a bacterium, which causes syphilis) in Smetana's exhumed body. Czech musicologist Jaroslav Smolka in his study "Osudové lásky Bedřicha Smetany" (Fateful Loves of Bedřich Smetana) hints, that Smetana had became infected by Italian singer Lella Ricci. Their research was, however, questioned by the Czech physician Doc. Jiří Ramba. Ramba in his detailed study "Slavné české lebky" (Famous Czech Skulls) disproved their arguments - the materials used for FTA-ABS test of Emanuel Vlček (115 years old mumified samples of muscular tissue of the exhumed Smetana's body) weren't absolutely suitable for the test, and the outcomes of the research aren't reliable. Ramba also notes, that Smetana suffered with severe pain, even though the primary and secondary phases of syphilis are rather painless. --Vejvančický (talk) 09:33, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Literature



The fact, that Smetana was a syphilitic is not clear, and it should be mentioned in the article.--Vejvančický (talk) 11:22, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I will be pleased to do this. Brianboulton (talk) 16:52, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Second marriage

 * Section Göteborg - last para, first sentence: After his marriage to Bettina in Prague on 10 June 1860, Smetana and his new wife... According to my sources, Smetana married Bettina Ferdinandiová on 10 July 1860 in Obříství.


 * P.S. Her maiden name was Barbora (Bettina) Ferdinandiová, not Ferdinandova. I'll fix that. --Vejvančický (talk) 14:18, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Literature

--Vejvančický (talk) 14:08, 22 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Large's biography gives the wedding as 10 July in Obříství, so my mistake - have corrected. As to the surname, Large gives Ferdinandi, as does Ottlová, while Clapham gives Ferdinandova. The Czech source is obviously the more reliable. Brianboulton (talk) 17:44, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Images
There are plenty of more relevant images in my sources. In the four-volume edition "Smetanovy zpěvohry" (Smetana Operas) (1948) you can find images of his wife, children, collaborators, posters of opera premiéres... In the book "Smetanova Prodaná nevěsta" (Smetana's Bartered Bride) (1962) I found image of the Provisional Theatre, pages of the autograph score of the opera, autograph of the libretto etc. Further examples of Smetana's autograph scores are in the books "Komorní skladby Bedřicha Smetany" (Chamber Compositions of Bedřich Smetana) (1945) and "Smetana - sborové skladby" (Smetana - Choral Works). I assume that English biographies and scholar works contain the same images. Is there any problem with copyright? Most of it is in my opinion, but my knowledge of copyright traps is not perfect. I have all the books at my disposal, let me know, if needed. --Vejvančický (talk) 07:50, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, the English books are full of images of the kind you mention. The problem is that for use in Wikipedia they have to be PD in the United States, meaning that they have to have been published before 1923. Proof of publication means that we have to identify precisely the book/work and the date. The ages of the images are not themselves enough to guarantee PD. It is frustrating not to be able to use the best images, but I am working with a Wikipedia image expert to identify more that we can use, and expect to post  better ones soon. Brianboulton (talk) 08:31, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I could ask for permission in the Prague Smetana Museum (official institute) - most of the documents related to Smetana is archived there. I have some experience with that, and it could be the easiest solution and spare the complicated work. I think it's worth a try. --Vejvančický (talk) 09:14, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks, see what you can do. I need to concentrate on the text for the moment. Brianboulton (talk) 15:51, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Please note that the permissions requested from museums are to "allow the photos to be used in any manner, commercial or otherwise" (either through acknowledging the pictures are in public domain, or licensing them under the GFDL or appropriate Creative Commons&mdash;see Image copyright tags). Permission to simply host them on Wikipedia do not make them "free" (copyrighted images can be used if they comply with the non free content criteria).  Permissions from the museums should be handled through the OTRS (see: Requesting copyright permission).  In the cases of foreign works, the key is usually to know the death of the author, but location of first publication if any also plays a crucial part.  Jappalang (talk) 07:02, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Heads up on DYK
I just could not resist, knowing that I missed out on Brian's magnificent expansions on previous articles, but I have put up some things I found interesting about this man at DYK. Jappalang (talk) 07:03, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't really know how DYK works, but thanks for the interest. Brianboulton (talk) 13:58, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Impromptu review
I know the work is yet finished, but I think bringing these issues up early would be of help.


 * "... he and Barbora would have seven surviving children together." consider me dense, but would someone miss the biological implication of the sentence and think that their seven include the five surviving daughters from the earlier marriage?
 * I had imagined it was clear, but have added a bit for greater clarification. Brianboulton (talk) 13:56, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
 * "... and an incomplete study for the left hand.": uh, what?
 * Piano people will know what this means - I've made it "piano study", which should clarify. Brianboulton (talk) 13:56, 24 May 2009 (UTC)


 * "... the good offices of a Kateřina Kolářova's mother ...": this is the same Kolářova mentioned earlier that Smetana was enamoured with, right? In that case, "a Kateřina" should be dropped.
 * Reworded. Brianboulton (talk) 13:56, 24 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Did he had his affair with Benecke when Kateřina was alive? If so, what effects did it have on his marriage?
 * Yes, she was alive. The sources don't say whether she knew about it - it is assumed that she didn't, so probably no effect on the marriage (Kateřina was very ill at the time). Brianboulton (talk) 13:56, 24 May 2009 (UTC)


 * The affection between Smetana and Benecke was platonic. They did not have sexual relationship. Besides, Smetana did everything he could to try to save Kateřina from dying, and this even caused the collapse of his successful music school in Goteborg. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.41.114.226 (talk) 13:04, 5 January 2022 (UTC)


 * "... in spite of strong opposition from Mayr who found no merit in the score.": who is Mayr?
 * Jan Nepomuk Mayr, whose appointment as conductor at the Provisional Theatre is mentioned in the previous paragraph. Brianboulton (talk) 13:56, 24 May 2009 (UTC)


 * "it contains all the germs of Smetana's operatic art.": uh... do you mean "gems" or "germs"?
 * "Germs", as in "germ of an idea". It's Rosa Newmarch's wording. Brianboulton (talk) 13:56, 24 May 2009 (UTC)


 * "Afraid that, as the author of The Brandenburgers, he would be targeted by the Prussians should they reach Prague,": why would he be afraid of prosecution by the Prussians over a story of the invasion of Bohemia by Otto? There is no mention of the nature of the story that might trigger offense in the Prussians.
 * I've inserted a bit to explain why this should be so. Brianboulton (talk) 13:56, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
 * "Smetana's production of Glinka's A Life for the Czar angered Glinka's champion Mily Balakirev,": was it because Balakirev thought he had a monopoly of Glinka's pieces, or because Balakirev felt the standards of Smetana's production was an insult to his master's work?
 * The latter; I've added a word or two to clarify this. Brianboulton (talk) 13:56, 24 May 2009 (UTC)


 * How did he get syphillis? I know there is some dispute, but surely if he was long accepted to have been afflicted by the disease, someone notable would have proposed how he had gotten it, right?
 * The sources all seem to avoid this point. According to an internet source he caught it from a singer in 1871, but no evidence is given and I don't consder the source reliable. Brianboulton (talk) 13:56, 24 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Despite the late flowering subsection, one gets the feel that Smetana was not entirely notable except for his Bartered Bridge... Much of his life seems normal (and that he appears to be a man who met much failures).  Is that the general perception?
 * This point will be addressed in the as yet unwritten "Musical legacy" section. Briefly, outside his homeland Smetana is recognised for The Bartered Bride, Má vlast and a handful of compositions, whereas at home he has a much higher profile. Brianboulton (talk) 13:56, 24 May 2009 (UTC)


 * How did Smetana communicate after he succumbed to total deafness? Did he learn sign language or reading lips, or communicate through written notes?
 * Again, the sources don't say. I imagine a mixture of the above, but I don't know. Brianboulton (talk) 13:56, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

That is all for the moment; I note that there is a Musical legacy section yet to be written. Jappalang (talk) 07:09, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for these early points. I am working on the "Musical legacy" section, but it won't be finished before I take eight days of holiday starting on Tuesday 26th, so there will be a short delay in progress. I am aiming to have the article at Peer Review by 10 June. Brianboulton (talk) 13:56, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Work in Progress
I have completed the draft extension of the article. There is still futher work to be done, notably in the lead and the "Music" section, and some general copyediting throughout. I shall be off-wikipedia until 3rd June; comments and suggestions on the work to date are meanwhile welcome, and I will be glad to address them on my return. Brianboulton (talk) 10:25, 26 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Brian, I hope you have a great "off-wikipedia" time! I've had another look at the article and see that some information has been inserted about his family. I do not think it is enough. At the very least the Death and Illness section should mention surviving family members. A more desireable addition would maybe mention something about what these surviving family members or friends said about Smetana regarding how he affected their lives. It is not absolutely necessary but I find that most biographies of famous people contain this type of information, perhaps it is more of a "Legacy" section than a "Death and Illness" section.  Nancy Heise   ''' talk 17:20, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Question
The article states that his cousin Louisa inspired his first work, Louia's Polka. Is one of those spellings a typo? Karanacs (talk) 22:08, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, well spotted. It's Louisa's polka, now corrected. Thanks. Brianboulton (talk) 16:10, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Pronunciation
The article gives the pronunciation (correctly IMO) as [ˈsmɛtana] (accent on the first syllable) — yet both voices in the sound sample say [smɛˈtana]. The same speakers stress the name of Antonín Dvořák oddly too, in that article. I strongly suspect they are not really Czech. -- Picapica (talk) 09:18, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
 * The pronunciation is strange, especially the male's voice is distorted (bad pronunciation (or perhaps the recording) of s and ř). --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 09:31, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

A Question for Czech nationals
Purely subjective, but the half-dozen Czech people I know all seem to think more highly of Smetana than Dvorak. I personally like Smetana's music slightly over Dvorak's - both are brilliant. Anyway, the general world view feels Dvorak is the better composer. Does anyone know what the view is in the Czech Republic of who is more popular? If there is a cited poll it might make an interesting point for the article. HammerFilmFan (talk) 01:18, 9 January 2011 (UTC) HammerFilmFan
 * Smetana versus Dvořák is an interesting chapter of the Czech musicology. The most important personality involved in the discussion was Zdeněk Nejedlý, an influential musicologist and a powerful communist exponent in the 1950s. Nejedlý was a fanatic admirer of Smetana (he was born in Litomyšl, Smetana's home town) and he wrote Smetana's most comprehensive Czech biography (detail: Smetana spent a part of his youth in a brewery and the first part of his biography is sometimes mockingly called "History of the Czech Breweries" in the Czech musical circles) Nejedlý started an "anti-Dvořákian" campaign shortly after the composer's death and he continued in diminishing Dvořák's name, music and achievements for whole his life. He clashed with Dvořák's defenders in 1912. Several important personalities of the Czech musical life published a letter directed against Nejedlý and group of his supporters. Among the signatories were: Oskar Nedbal, Vítězslav Novák, František Ondříček, Josef Suk, Otakar Ševčík, Václav Talich, Hanuš Wihan and others. The strong opposition gradually won significant public support and Nejedlý was forced to find another target for his ideologically motivated attacks. He focused on criticising the music of Leoš Janáček and Josef Suk (whom he even accused of treason at the end of the WWI (!)). In the 1950s Nejedlý came to power and he attempted to ban Dvořák's works, however, this looks rather like an innocent detail when comparing with the atrocious trials and murders commited in Czechoslovakia during that period.


 * Today, most of Czechs hardly recognize any differences between their works. Of course, everbody knows at least vaguely "My Country" and the "Ninth Symphony", however, the comparison of their importance is not a subject of public discussion. Such a debate is groundless also for musicologists, as the works of Dvořák and Smetana come from a different aesthetic background and are valuable for different qualities. I can't say who is more popular in the Czech Republic nowadays, personally I prefer Dvořák's inimitable and warm melodic sound. What is more important: We're still waiting for any modern, critical, comprehensive and scientific monographs mapping the lives and works of both the composers. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 08:56, 10 January 2011 (UTC)


 * For my comment, I used the information of this website (Dvořák's official website in the Czech Republic) and my vague recollection of the book "Můj otec Antonín Dvořák" (My Father Antonín Dvořák), written by the composer's son, Otakar Dvořák. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 08:56, 10 January 2011 (UTC)


 * See the result of the television poll called The Greatest Czech (June 2005): Dvořák placed 8th, Smetana 11th. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 13:51, 10 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks! HammerFilmFan (talk) 14:02, 14 February 2011 (UTC) HammerFilmFan

Smetana's Youth — a problem
We read in the article

" He attended concerts, visited the opera, listened to military bands and joined an amateur string quartet for whom he composed simple pieces." [we are speaking of later 1839-early 1840].

I'm curious to know wether this is actually reliable. There was no opera house in Prague in 1840 nor, as far as I can found, anything related whatsoever in Prague at that time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.130.119.214 (talk) 18:40, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, quite. Even the National Theatre did not open until 1881. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:55, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Have you ever heard about the Estates Theatre or about Kotzen Theatre, to name few examples of opera houses in Prague established before 1800? Franz Anton von Sporck had invited an Italian opera company to perform in his Prague palace since 1724 and became the founder of the first permanent opera theater in the Bohemian lands. Czech and German operas were regularly performed in the Estates Theatre during the 1840s. František Škroup was an important popularizer of opera productions at that time. --Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 05:01, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
 * ... not to forget the premières of Don Giovanni in 1787 and La clemenza di Tito in 1791. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 06:48, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Many thanks for the info. Seems there is no problem, then. I have tried to expand the History section a little at Theatre of the Czech Republic. I'm sure it could be expanded a great deal more by those who have access to suitable sources. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:53, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Festive Symphonie, Op.6
Festive Symphonie, Op.6 appears to have no article, yet it is one of Smetana's greatest (largest) and most important works. There are repeated references to the Austrian National Anthem, although most would recognise “Das Lied der Deutschen” (now the German Anthem) at the climax of the last movement. Could someone please give a much better account of this work. I would like to know more! Thanks  Surrey John    (Talk) 09:44, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Changing pronunciation
The article recently gave the stress on the second syllable. I have surmised that the stress should actually be on the first syllable, based on a few things. First, all of the classical music pronunciation guides I could find gave the pronunciation on the first syllable (for example,, , &mdash; the last from The Well-tempered Announcer: A Pronunciation Guide to Classical Music by Robert A. Fradkin). Second, a number of sources (e.g., https://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Czech_Language/Pronunciation#Stress) state that the stress in Czech is generally on the first syllable. I know little about Czech (I gather the impression that stress is not as emphatic as in English), and my sources are not particularly good, but I did not find any faintly reliable sources giving the stress on the second syllable, as previously listed in the article.

Based on this, I have changed the article to give the stress on the first syllable, but I would appreciate knowledgeable guidance here, along with reputable sources. 2600:1702:3C1:1630:985B:9E32:5B57:7DF (talk) 02:32, 28 May 2019 (UTC)


 * I am astonished that this could have happened. Czech was my birth-language, though it was quickly stifled by my parents (second-generation Czechs), who were horrified to realize I could not communicate with other young children in the neighborhood we were living in at the time, in Missouri. I retain a small vocabulary of several hundred words but, alas, cannot speak the language. Nevertheless, I have never heard the name pronounced with accent on anything but the first syllable, either within my extended family or the world at large.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 02:40, 28 May 2019 (UTC)


 * As a native speaker of the Czech language I can only confirm that the change you've made is correct. Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 05:44, 29 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Děkuji mnohokrát.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 06:48, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

Smetana pronunciation
I don't feel confident enough in my editing skills to attempt this change but there is a very obvious inconsistency in the article. All of the text gives his name as SMETana, whereas the audible information gives SmetAna. Since the audible info has, presumably, been provided by Czech contributors I think the textual pronunciation data needs amending.

Having spent nearly 60 years saying SMETana I am finding the correct pronunciation awkward. My personal tip is 'think Carlos Santana' - it rhymes perfectly! Dvcas1 (talk) 06:01, 16 May 2020 (UTC)


 * As mentioned in the discussion above, there is an accent only on the first syllable, and even that is a very weak accent and nothing that would necessitate spelling the name as "Smétana" or some such. Toccata quarta (talk) 06:31, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

Fixing duplicate references
User:Nikkimaria has been reverting my change to the references, citing WP:CITEVAR. However, WP:CITEVAR clearly states that it is standard practice to This is what we have right now; horrendous, redundant bloat:
 * impose one style on an article with inconsistent citation styles
 * combining duplicate citations (see WP:DUPREF)
 * (Section 2)
 * (Section 3)
 * (Section 4)
 * (Section 5)
 * (Section 7)
 * (Section 8)
 * (Section 8)

I'm proposing to change this to a single reference with sfn references to the individual sections as needed. intforce (talk) 14:31, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Each of those references is to a different section, so DUPREF does not apply. However, we could change to short citations of the kind used for books. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:33, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
 * @Nikkimaria How does DUPREF not apply? DUPREF directly states: Citations to different pages or parts of the same source can also be combined (preserving the distinct parts of the citations) The sections in the Grove entry are not on different web pages. The Grove entry is a single page. Check for yourself. intforce (talk) 14:38, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
 * DUPREF refers to combining precisely duplicated citations, which these are not. Citations to different parts of the same source can be (but are not required to be) combined, but only with "any method that is consistent with the existing citation style" - which in this case does not include sfn. As I said, we could apply the same method as is used for books, should others agree with your concern. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:42, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't care whether we use or "Ottlová (2020), Section 1". If I understand you correctly, you would prefer the latter, with each section added separately to "Sources"? intforce (talk) 14:52, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
 * The latter would not require adding each section separately to Sources; sections can be included only in short cites, just as pages are currently included there for books. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:01, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
 * So if I understand that correctly, what you are referring to is the same as my change, except using short cites instead of sfn? intforce (talk) 15:06, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't feel strongly about this, but as I am one of several editors who keep an eye on the successful FACs of the late Brian Boulton I feel I should add my twopennorth. I have never felt it necessary to distinguish between sections of a Grove page, but I see absolutely no harm in doing so. It may speed the search of anyone wishing to follow up the citation. If pressed, I'd vote for Nikkimaria's expansion of the references, though I am too lazy to apply the same thing to any of the articles I have been involved with.  Tim riley  talk   14:49, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

POV Reputation in the lead.
RE the reverting of my editing out of the contentious POV in the lead by User:Tim riley. Thanks for your comment Tim I had read the main article. Sorry if I didn’t give that impression. It is ‘sourced’ by one cited person, John Tyrrell in the body of the article and not in lead. The POV is not several as generalised in the lead. The remark and the reversion requires more substantial justification. This point about reputation was raised in the Talk page in the topic International Recognition 2009 and A Question for Czech Nationals 2011. I suggest the POV of Tyrrell should be tempered in the main article and developed, if necessary, to reflect a more nuanced analysis. It should be eliminated from the lead section. The contentious POV of ‘popularity’ by ‘foreign’ compared to ‘National’ opinion in the lead doesn’t warrant inclusion. Especially the final sentence - it reads as I said previously ‘Deleted unsourced generalisations of reputation and comparison to Dvorak - contentious and unnecessary - creates a tone of damned by faint praise.’ This is an FA article and should reflect a high standard of judgement rather than a general remark of one person (music critic/musicologist) summarising the entire career and reputation of the composer with such an opinion. How important is it to compare to Dvorak with a throwaway line? The point reads oddly, indeed, it is clumsy. Of course such opinion may be developed in the body of the article but not the final remark in the lead. Moreover to even engage specifically with the theme of ‘Musical Nationalism’ and ‘foreign’ judgment then is this the article for such a matter? The remark of Michael Steen does temper the Tyrrell summary in the body of the article. This is probably sufficient here. The matter of national/foreign comparison, given Smetana’s origins aren’t simply ‘Czech’, and the role of musical forms in the emergence of national identities in the Austro-Hungarian empire in the 1800’s is more complex than can be portrayed in any one biographical article. Why, given the nuance in the main article cause confusion in a clumsy remark in the lead? The article is good on biography and development but, as I see it, the POV should be tempered wherever possible and especially in a lead.

I won’t revert the change made by you but can we consider engaging so as to edit the article accordingly Davdevalle (talk) 08:45, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't quite follow this. In the main text we cite not only Tyrell but Harold C. Schonberg ("Smetana was the one who founded Czech music, but Antonín Dvořák ... was the one who popularized it.") and Ethan Mordden and the BBC ("Smetana has been regarded in his homeland as the father of Czech music") Pretty balanced, surely? And it would be very hard to argue with the statement that internationally Dvořák is more often played and better known. A quick dip into the general musical literature reveals the same general take on the matter: "If Smetana was the father of Czech music, Dvořák was the composer who popularized it" (Jeremy Nicholas, The Great Composers, 2008, p. 168); an old non-specialists' guide to the orchestral repertoire offers notes on three of the Ma Vlast cycle and the overture to The Bartered Bride for Smetana, but for Dvořák, two symphonies, five overtures, the Slavonic Dances and the Scherzo Capriccioso; a more recent such book offers notes and comments on three Smetana pieces, followed by notes and comments on twelve Dvořák pieces. This possibly reflects the interest of the two composers in international fame: in its article on Czech music Grove says that Smetana was "an ardent patriot who had little interest in having his works performed abroad, and whose aim was to provide a repertory of Czech music" in which aim he succeeded, whereas Dvořák struggled for recognition at home but had "his greatest successes … in England and the USA". It seems to me that the agreed FA text is neither "contentious" nor "POV" (unlike the heading of this thread, perhaps). I wonder what other reviewers, and any other interested editors, think.  Tim riley  talk   10:22, 3 March 2022 (UTC)


 * User:Tim riley I am sorry you don’t follow. Maybe you can tell me more clearly what you are not following.  I stated specifically that I am referring to the sentences in the LEAD that you reverted.  I am not criticising the main article.


 * IMHO a LEAD is not a summary of the main article. I am not taking issue whether you think the final remark in the LEAD is balanced or not. Nor that Dvorak is more 'significant' with the ‘foreign commentators’ you source in your comment above. No matter how correct you believe they are.  The LEAD is of a biography page and should not conclude on the relative merits of 'Czech' composers.  The section on Reputation in the main article is the place for that.  I wrote the main article was sufficient.  Sorry to quote here but to help you follow this is the partial sentence and final sentence in the LEAD I am suggesting should be edited out as it as an editorial POV  “where advocates have raised his status above that of his contemporaries and successors. However, relatively few of Smetana's works are in the international repertory, and most foreign commentators tend to regard Antonín Dvořák as a more significant Czech composer.“


 * The use of the term 'significant' is a POV at it is judgment. The condescending tone of ‘advocates raised his status' contrasted with what ‘foreigners’ say is ‘significant’ is out of place.  Again the main article with Sheen nuances this point and I said was sufficient.  For what kind of 'significant' are we on about?  More popular? Played more often? Better?  If there must be a section on significant Czech composers given you favour Schonberg, why not source his NYT article in 1974 on Janacek, where 'although not as well-known', he was more 'modernist' than both?  But then Janacek is more 'well known' than in 1974, and surely classifying terms like 'modernist' is old hat now.  The LEAD in the Janacek page doesn't say Dvorak is more 'significant' than Janacek. The Janacek LEAD is more measured in its conclusion.  I am advocating the same tone for Smetana.  The LEAD should conclude with a tone of Smetana’s achievement and an appreciation of his main contribution not damning with faint praise and not sourcing but referring I assume to   Tyrrell, ironically a Janacek advocate, in the reputation section and who had enough space in the article itself to comment on Smetana's music.  I am not going to unpick the whole tone of the article e.g. such as odd terms like 'gloomy' for the 2nd String Quartet.  It is what it is.  By the way the link to the Tyrrell citation in note 108 is dead.
 * I apologise for repeating myself but as you didn't follow the earlier comment I repeat for clarity- the contentious part is the divisive and condescending tone in the use of the terms 'advocates' when compared to 'foreign commentators' ; the POV is the ambiguity of the judgement by the term 'significant.
 * I was puzzled by your remark the 'heading of the thread' is itself perhaps contentious and POV. But you don't have to explain what you mean. It isn't relevant. Davdevalle (talk) 06:59, 5 March 2022 (UTC)
 * It might be helpful for you to study WP:LEAD, which explains that the lead should summarise what the main text of an article says. In my view the lead of this article does that unexceptionably, though I too would not have used the word "significant" here, and would prefer "important" or some such, on the grounds mentioned by Fowler and Gowers that "significant" should not be used as a mere synonym for "important" and should be reserved for things that actually signify something, but the OED admits it in the looser sense, and one doesn't seek to impose one's stylistic preferences on others' prose. As to the content of the lead, let us see what other editors think. If you can gather a consensus we can make the change you seek.  Tim riley  talk   09:02, 5 March 2022 (UTC)
 * So the problem is with the words "advocates" and "significant"? I would suggest that the lead would still summarize the article if the final sentence said: "Smetana's reputation as the founding father of Czech music has endured in his native country, where his status has been raised above that of his contemporaries and successors. However, relatively few of Smetana's works are in the international repertory, and most foreign commentators tend to regard Antonín Dvořák as a more important Czech composer." Martinevans123 (talk) 09:51, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

Date of move to Sibkenice
There is need for clarity about the date on which Smetana moved to Sibkenice. According to the biography by Brian Large, he stayed there as the guest of his daughter and son-in-law from July 1875 until mid-October 1875, after which he returned to Prague. In April 1876 he gave notice to his landlord in Prague and on 3 June 1876 he moved permanently to Sibkenice. (Large, pp. 297, 299 and 303–304).  Tim riley  talk   10:07, 14 March 2023 (UTC)
 * It is Jabkenice, not Sibkenice. All the Czech sources say he lived and worked there from 1875, initially as a guest of his daughter, and because of the high costs in Prague, he often stayed there, although not permanently until 1876. The year 1875 should be mentioned as the beginning of his stay in Jabkenice. I will return it with clarification. And btw this little confusion was not a reason for a complete revert of all changes. FromCzech (talk) 10:50, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

Better lead photo?
There is this photo from the Library of Congress of a better quality than current lead photo. Should it be used as the lead image? Artem.G (talk) 11:57, 4 July 2023 (UTC)
 * In my view, yes.  Tim riley  talk   14:48, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

Rejected revision.
Yet,the minor detail I added is in the main text, that’s where i found it, but led to his "subsequent" death is vague— could be a few months (which it was) or years. I checked the text to see which. Why not include the details so others are not left wondering? Wis2fan (talk) 03:55, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I can't work out what the above refers to or is trying to say. Any suggestions?  Tim riley  talk   07:29, 11 March 2024 (UTC)