Talk:Carl Maria von Weber

1911 EB
I've started to tidy up this typically awful 1911 article - I've made some big cuts of material not about Carl Maria at all, but about his father, and generally modernised it. I hope the changes are improvements. I'll do the rest of the article later if nobody else does (and I'd love somebody else to). I really hate these 1911 articles - they might not be so bad if the people who imported them at least tried to wikify them. Ho hum... --Camembert

Awful! Just awful. I suppose it's better than starting from scratch ... is it??? Nevilley 17:28 Jan 24, 2003 (UTC)

I sometimes wonder. One idea would be to put the 1911 text under a horizonal rule and start on something afresh, using the 1911 text as a source (this has been done at Johann Sebastian Bach for instance). Or else move the 1911 text here, to the talk page, to use as a source. But until somebody decides to write something new, I suppose it's better than nothing. Maybe. I've kept meaning to rewrite these 1911 pieces, but ... well, I'm too lazy, I guess. --Camembert


 * Sure, OK. Would it be less frustrating if we put a line across the top with an empty or one-line "real" article until somebody writes something better?  I don't think anyone would object.  I'm not sure I understand the difference, though.--amillar

This one is particularly irritating in that it's one long narrative strain. I was trying to break it up into sections, or excise large hunks, but it's just sort of one amorphous, nott terribly NPOV blob... I'll hack away at it a bit. -- Dreamword 18:49 Feb 9, 2003 (UTC)


 * How about I rewrite it from scratch, basing it off the Grove and Weber CD liner notes, put all the 1911 EB text here in Talk and then restore to the article only the 1911 EB stuff that can be verified as fact? Dmetric 18:00, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Birthdate
There is some inconsistency in the birthdate of Weber. Various web sources give either December 18 or November 18. I suppose this German website resolves the matter but I will not make any amendments until a weberologist gives us his opinion. Kpjas 11:21, 23 Nov 2003 (UTC)


 * The Grove Concise says "?Nov 18", so they're not sure either. I've fiddled with the entry and put a note in as to the source of confusion. --Camembert

I've started the clean-up for the first three paragraphs; since this is the largest contribution so far, that I try to take on, I'd like some feedback, if possible, or customary. The birthdate, by the way IS ambiguous. Nobody really knows for sure. Chingon86 10:09, 18 October 2005 (UTC)


 * His birthdate used to appear in reference works as 18 December. But this could not have been correct since "he was baptised at the Landeskirche of Eutin on 20 November ... Weber himself in his later years regarded November as correct" (Grove 5).  So that settles the November/December issue.  Now, there seems to be a fight between 18 November and 19 November.  Slonimsky (Webster's New World Dictionary) says 18 November, with no discussion of any other date.  Where did the 19 November possibility come from?  JackofOz 01:25, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

I apologize ... between the time I printed out the earlier version and now, I didn't realize you had made changes! I think I have restored it but please do check to make sure ... I also added a structural change from 'family' to 'biography', based on some of the linked composer pages. But you were here first, so I'll step aside! --Paulerix 12:23, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

I'm not sure what is meant by "in journalistic work, writing critics." Should it say "writing critiques", or possibly "and critical writing"? TECannon 14:54, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Hello, TECannon. It was a typo. I changed it to "critiques". Thank you. Chingon86 15:17, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Hallo, Paulerix, I finished my clean up. Thank you. Now YOU got the ball! I'm afraid I rather re-wrote the whole article. And by the way, I'd appreciate if you'd have a look at it, and tell me what you think. And tell me, please, what is going to happen now? Who decides whether the thing is fit to be taken out of CleanUp? IF and WHEN it is fit to be taken out of CleanUp. --- As for my reason for my "total re-write", in case you wonder, I felt that the emphasis on Weber's father was a little over-done. By all accounts, Weber didn't need his father to walk on the wild side. He seems to have managed that all off his own bat. By why dwell on that on Wikipedia? The man was a genuine genius and one should grant him the dignity he deserves. Again, the story of all his libretti - that was a can of worms in that time of non-existing copyrights, and would need a complete biography. The same goes for his fights with other producers. I once found out, that one could write a complete book, if so minded, about Bach's fights with the councilmen of St. Thomas' Church, Leipzig. So that was my rational for the re-write. Greetings. Chingon86 15:26, 18 October 2005 (UTC)


 * (Just sticking my nose in for a minute) If you think the article is better and more encyclopedic, feel free to remove the cleanup tag yourself.  :)  Wikibofh 15:31, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Cleanup
Obviously an ongoing task. I've done my best with the Assessment section. Does anyone know what this means: no one was far from the "Pollaca, Invitation, and Konzertsutck.[sic]? I take it to mean that "one couldn't get away from it... Suggestions, please. Orbicle 09:01, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
 * It probably means that it was very popular. I've removed most of that section and renamed it to "Legacy" - composers shouldn't be compared like they were in the article. This article was originally based on the 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica. However I couldn't find any mention of Schubert or comparison of composers in the first version of the article. Graham 87 09:25, 11 June 2007 (UTC)


 * The part you were cleaning up was actually added in this edit by JJSerkas. What was there before wasn't too bad so I'll attempt to incorporate it into the current revision. Graham 87 09:37, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Who add this phrase to the article: "and his mastery of the orchestra was surpassed only by Beethoven and Schubert in his time"? I think that anybody who really knows Weber's works (especially his operas) should also know that his orchestrations are, if not better, at least as good as Beethoven's or Schubert's. In fact, in many technical and expressive aspects, Weber was more innovative than Beethoven or Schubert in his "mastery of the orchestra". User: Clarihuge. 25 February 2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.3.249.199 (talk) 13:26, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

It'd be nice to have the correct pronunciation in the introduction. If someone provides a recording, I can transcribe to IPA. Benjamin.d.oakes (talk) 15:43, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Birthdate redux
He long celebrated his birthdate as 18 December, but learned later in life that the baptismal registry at Eutin recorded his baptism on 20 November; after he learned this, he began celebrating his birthday on 18 November. No current source, that I am able to find, gives 18 December as his birthdate; the current sources give ?18 November or ?19 November (the most recent Grove online gives ?19). (Infants were usually baptised the day after they were born; see the similar problem with Beethoven; we aren't sure of his birthdate either.) The most recent article in the Encyclopedia Britannica gives 18 November. Here's an interesting bit: the New Grove Dictionary of Opera (also at oxfordmusiconline.com -- the same company, same publishers) gives ?18 November; I think this is the first time I've ever seen them state two different birthdates for the same composer. (Clive Brown wrote the GDO article; Philipp Spitta the NGO article.) We could do the date controversy with a footnote. Antandrus (talk) 22:17, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Opinion
"Weber's mastery of the orchestra was surpassed in his time only by Beethoven and Schubert."

This is opinion and inappropriate to an informative, supposedly objective article. This is not even a universal opinion (as if even that would excuse it). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Smyslov (talk • contribs) 13:28, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

"one of the first significant composers of the Romantic school."

Beethoven died in 1827, one year later, and is considered to be between Romanticism and Classicism. I say this is Opinion and very close to being plainly wrong. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.123.125.244 (talk) 16:20, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Beethoven is not the subject of this article, nor do I find this claim about him here, so it doesn't really matter whether this is opinion or whether it is right or wrong. If on the other hand you are referring to the statement in the lede about Weber, how can such a vague statement be plainly wrong? Unless of course you mean that Weber was not a significant composer at all, or that he should not be classified with the Romantic school, but in neither of these cases is there anything plainly wrong about the statement. Do please clarify the nature of your complaint.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 17:36, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Composer project review
I've reviewed this article as part of the Composers project review of its B-class articles. This article is B-class; I find the short paragraphs distracting, and much of the subject matter can probably be expanded. My full review is on the comments page; questions and comments should be left here or on my talk page.  Magic ♪piano 19:41, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Grave
Findagrave locates his grave at Old Catholic Cemetery, Dresden:, a structure looking very different from that shown in the current image File:Webergrave.jpg (which has missing source information). Which is correct? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:45, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
 * The grave of the von Weber family at the de:Alter Katholischer Friedhof (Dresden) is pretty large; see File:Dresden Alter Kath Friedhof FamvonWeber.JPG. On that image, the stone shown at Find-a-Grave seems to be the obscured part on the left. The grave shown in the Wikipedia article is on the right and its plaque is unintelligible. We could ask User:Smerus, who took the photo, whether he remembers what's on the plaque. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 03:32, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Assessment comment
Substituted at 10:54, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

"an ill-fated affair with Margarethe Lang"
1) says who? and 2) meaning what?--Suessmayr (talk) 19:27, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Carl Maria von Weber. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080215232754/http://www.weber-gesamtausgabe.de/ to http://weber-gesamtausgabe.de/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 07:29, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Weber the romantic or Weber the classicist?
Really? You think Weber is a romantic period composer and not classical period? Judging by his dates, I would not agree. He died one year before Beethoven. Do you consider Beethoven to be in the romantic era? Judging by Weber's music alone, he is firmly in the classical period, along with Beethoven and Schubert. Even early Chopin is classical period. Czerny. Now when you get into the late 1830s you can see the change toward heart-on-your-sleeve romanticism. Sure there were some earlier visionaries, but they never developed a full-fledged true Romantic style. Certainly not any composer who died before Beethoven.

What literature (i.e. what reliable sources) label Weber a romantic era composer? We got to stick to some consensus of source opinion. But I'd really like to know, ignoring WP:OR for the moment, if anyone here really thinks Weber is a Romantic Period composer. LisztianEndeavors (talk) 15:45, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Well I think so in fact. The dividing line between classical and romantic is not set in stone. These is nothing magic about the year 1830, and it's perfectly OK imo to consider Beethoven and Schubert's mature music as romantic. And imo bizarre to consider Chopin's early works as classical. But that's just me. Oxford Music Online (Grove) article on Weber begins - 'He was a key figure in the early development of German Romantic opera.' - but maybe  LisztianEndeavors doesn't consider OMO a reliable source? If it isn't, we will have to rewrite quite a few WP articles.--Smerus (talk) 17:02, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Dates have little to do with it, I agree. Judging from his music alone, Weber's importance is for the Romantic period, not the Classical, even if a few of his lesser (early) works might stylistically be regarded as belonging to the earlier era. A few other reliable sources: Charles Osborne, The Opera Lover’s Companion (Yale University Press, 2004), 594: "Weber was one of the early leaders of the nineteenth-century Romantic movement in German music." Baker's Biographical Dictionary of Music and Musicians (Centennial edition, Schirmer Books, 2001): "Weber's role in music history is epoch-making. In his operas, particularly in Der Freischütz, he opened the era of musical Romanticism, in decisive opposition to the established Italianate style." Joseph E. Morgan, Experiencing Carl Maria von Weber: A Listener’s Companion (Lanham, Boulder, New York, London: Roman & Littlefield, 2017): vii: "Weber packed the experiences of several lives into his brief thirty-nine years: a student of Michael Haydn and published composer by age twelve, ..., a successful composer of all the major genres of the Romantic period in early adulthood, ...".—Jerome Kohl (talk) 19:09, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
 * - "Music and Romanticism The German composer Carl Maria von Weber (1786–1826) is one of the most important figures associated with the beginnings of German musical romanticism, and the most famous of his operas, Der Freischütz (1821), is generally considered to constitute a new (and essentially romantic)". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 104.192.232.95 (talk) 19:32, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

Anticipation
"his compositions for piano anticipated those of Chopin and Liszt"

Artworks don't "anticipate" other artworks; they influence later works. The only way it could make sense to say an artwork "anticipates" another artwork is if you believe all history is predetermined by God. Ernst Gombrich debunked this fallacious way of thinking in The Story of Art in 1950, 71 years ago. Can we please eliminate it and replace it with "his compositions for piano influenced those of Chopin and Liszt"? Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:49, 15 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Uh, what? I don't follow your interpretation at all. When music historians look back, his compositions anticipated the ones that Chopin and Liszt wrote, there's no predetermination, we're talking about what did happen. Aza24 (talk) 16:07, 15 February 2021 (UTC)


 * History is linear. Something that happens before something else can't "anticipate" something later, it can only influence it - in other words, it's not predetermination and rarely coincidence that the later work is similar; it's due to the later artist being familiar with the earlier work - and using the word "anticipate" is very old-fashioned for a historian, as I indicated by citing a 71-year-old book by a renowned art historian. Read Gombrich's The Story of Art and you'll understand. It's a really good read and I learned a lot when I read it years ago. Ikan Kekek (talk) 12:28, 16 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Basically, the problem with the historians you must be reading is that they act as if the choices composers made were inevitable. That's the implication of "anticipated". No. Composers chose to write in a style influenced by another composer whose work they appreciated. If you are any kind of creative artist, do you think anyone's work "anticipated" yours? Ikan Kekek (talk) 12:43, 16 February 2021 (UTC)


 * OK I'm somewhat convinced by what you're saying—but not completely :)—but have changed it regardless. I'll get around to rewriting this article at some point but right now it's in pretty awful shape... Thanks for recommending Gombrich's book; I was vaugaly aware of its existence and it seems I will have to read it at some point...! Aza24 (talk) 19:58, 16 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Awesome that you're rewriting the article, and good luck with that! I'll probably help with marginal copy editing if that ends up being useful. What Gombrich did that was new at the time was to write about artists only in terms of who preceded or was contemporaneous with their lives, and whose work they therefore might have known about and seen. So it wasn't until he wrote the next chapter, when he was writing about the next generation of artists, that he discussed an artist in terms of what came later that he couldn't have seen. Thanks for being flexible and hearing me out. :-) Ikan Kekek (talk) 14:04, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion: You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 14:08, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Ferdinand Schimon Carl Maria von Weber.tif