Talk:Christoph Willibald Gluck

Importance
I would characterize Orfeo ed Euridice as Gluck's only well-known work. Given that, I question whether he should be portrayed as "one of the most important opera composers of the classical era", unless there's something about his operas that influenced later composers. Does anyone disagree? -- Ortonmc 06:32, 14 Sep 2003 (UTC)


 * I agree that Orfeo is the only Gluck opera that's performed anymore, but I think most people who know about opera would also know about Iphengenia, and would recognize at least the titles of Alceste and Armide. I think he's fairly characterized as influential, despite not having many well-known operas, as he was one of the forerunners of the movement to have the music have at least SOME dramatic function: i.e. he was a reformer of musical excess which detracted from narrative flow. -- Someone else 06:49, 14 Sep 2003 (UTC)


 * I certainly think he was influential, very influential, and very important. It's true that his operas aren't performed very often, but then very few operas from the Classical era (Classical with a captial C, 1750-1800) are performed at all - there's only really Mozart's stuff that gets out with any regularity (a shame for many reasons, but don't get me started on that). --Camembert

Is the "Willibald" an important part of his name? Wouldn't Christoph Gluck (with an umlaut) be a more common article title? RickK 06:35, 14 Sep 2003 (UTC)


 * I agree, except I don't think he gets an umlaut. And he needs a redirect from Gluck as well, since that's mostly the way he's referred to. I will do that. -- Someone else 06:49, 14 Sep 2003 (UTC)


 * Agreed; I've never heard "Willibald" cited before now. Poking around the web, I found several variations of his name, including "von Gluck" and "Gluck, Ritter von" (which sounds like some sort of knighthood).  But none of them had an umlaut. -- Ortonmc 06:59, 14 Sep 2003 (UTC)


 * Yes, Ritter is a knighthood, so it wouldn't be part of his Wikipedia article title in any case. He probably started life as Gluck and got the 'von' when he became a Ritter, though I don't know who knighted him or when. These days, he's mostly just "Gluck" ;) -- Someone else 07:04, 14 Sep 2003 (UTC)


 * He was knighted by the Pope and (like Mozart) was a Knight of the Golden Spur (HRE).--91.115.57.135 (talk) 16:44, 9 August 2012 (UTC)


 * I've reinserted his Willibald. I don't think I've ever heard his name given without it - even Google agrees with me ("Christoph Gluck" = 639 hits; "Christoph Willibald Gluck" = 25,800 hits!). --Camembert


 * Well, no matter, he now has more than enough redirects to be found no matter WHAT!  -- Someone else 00:27, 15 Sep 2003 (UTC)

"The marriage brought Gluck financial security"
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)

Infobox
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)
 * LOL. That's a particularly bad one! Let's get rid of it permanently. --Folantin 08:15, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Composer project review
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)

"Gluck was born the first of six surviving children"
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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)

"In 1923, Gluck's remains were transferred to a tomb in the Vienna Zentralfriedhof."
This is false. Gluck's remains were disinterred in 1890.--Suessmayr (talk) 15:51, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * de:Christoph_Willibald_Gluck 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)
 * 'Course it does: Suessmayr's unsourced edit there on 17 June 2013. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 04:14, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
 * 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)

Nationality
Czech, German and French WPs all identify Gluck as German.

Given that in the late 18th century, the ethnically German linguistic and cultural realm, taken broadly, included what later became the German Reich, plus parts of Austria-Hungary (including parts of Bohemia) – and given that Gluck was born in Bavaria – the following, seemingly polemical footnote has been excised:
 * Sources differ concerning Gluck's nationality: Kuhn 2000, p. 272, and Croll 1991, p. 308, say he was German, while Brown & Rushton 2001 give Bohemian; Hayes et al. 1992, p. 453, Bohemian-Austrian; and Harewood & Peattie 1997, p. 261, Austrian.

The sources mentioned exhibit disagreement over geographic semantics, not ethnic identity. Sca (talk) 21:16, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
 * So you reviewed the sources and concluded that User:Robert.Allen misread them when that passage last August? -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 09:18, 17 August 2015 (UTC)


 * A 1988 paper by Daniel Heartz seems relevant: "Coming of Age in Bohemia: The Musical Apprenticeships of Benda and Gluck", The Journal of Musicology, Vol. 6, No. 4 (Autumn, 1988), pp. 510-527,, also available here. According to Gluck's student Salieri, Gluck's native language was Czech, and he spoke German poorly. --Robert.Allen (talk) 10:15, 17 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Well, the name is German and according to the text he was born in Bavaria. But whatever.
 * What's the purpose of the grayscale type in the Early years section? Confusing to readers, I'm sure. Sca (talk) 14:15, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
 * This article, like the other WP languages you mention, categorises Gluck as German as well; it just scholarly mentions some further points on that.
 * The grayscale type is caused by citation needed span which is used where a longer passage needs citation(s). -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 03:31, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Why dont you want to call him "german"? Gluck was born in a place that was and still is the centre of Bavaria. His parents were Alexander Johannes Gluck, born in Neustadt/Waldnaab (now and then Bavaria), and Maria Walburga (her family name is unknown). We know two grandparents, the parents of Alexander Johannes: Hans Adam, whose birth place is unknown and who worked as forester in various places in Upper Palatinate, now and then Bavaria, and Anna Maria Köttnath. We know her father, Philipp Köttnath, born in Erbendorf in Upper Palatinate. And we know Hans Adams father, Simon Gluck, born in Rokycany near Plzn, Bohemia. So, Gluck himself and his father were born in Bavaria, probably his mother too, because it was common then that a couple marries and settles in the wife's home village. Additionally Walburga was Patron saint of their region. One of the two known paternal great grandparents was born in Upper Palatinate, too. That leaves just one Bohemian-born great-grantparent, who had a german first name and familiy name, too. The source i used is: Gerhard and Renate Croll "Gluck - Sein Leben, seine Musik", pages 11-17. According to this book and to the International Gluck Society, Gluck spent his childhood in Bohemia among German native speakers, and since his mother must have been german as well, it is highly unlikely that Czech was Glucks first language or that he spoke German "poorly", and there is no source that documents a single czech word written by Gluck, while there are texts by him in German, French and Italian (Croll, page 17).--Malzkorn (talk) 10:48, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

I am Czech, a patriot, but I have never heard about him as a Czech. Yes, he lived for time in Bohemia (as many many other Germans), but it doesn’t make him less German than, say, Goethe (who spend a lot of time in Mariánské lázně (Marienbad)), or Caspar David Friedrich (many of his paintings were made in Českosaské Švýcarsko (Böhmische Schweiz)), not mentioning Mahler, Freud, Husserl, who were born in Bohemia. 83.208.252.159 (talk) 23:46, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

Performance of Gluck's "De profundis"
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)

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

"Upper Palatinate (now part of Germany)"
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)

Nationality
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)
 * 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)

According to the German Wikipedia, which is often more trustworthy than the English one:

"Gluck was born as the first of nine children. As the place of birth is usually given Erasbach.[2] He was baptized on 4. July 1714 in Weidenwang,[3] at that time belonging to the parish Erasbach. Since the place of birth in baptismal registers is not given,[4] it is, up to today, speculated.[5][6]"

The uncertainty is not about being German, but about being born in Erasbach where he was not baptized. These two villages are 2,2 km distance from each other. Church records in the 18th century almost never tell us where one was born, but were one was baptized! Only three years later the family moved to Bohemia, all Habsburg empire.Taksen (talk) 12:51, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
 * 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) There were no nations, Gluck was born in a principality that does not exist anymore, still in the German-speaking part of the Holy Roman Empire of the German Nation. It is safe to say he was German and it is hard to imagine he could not speak German; in the 19th century, 99% of the Bohemians near the border spoke German, not Czech. None of his letters are in Czech, some in Italian, but we cannot say he was Italian or Czech, like Smetana or Dvorak. If someone was born in 18th century Prussia or Hamburg, we say he was German. Why make an exception for Gluck?Taksen (talk) 05:36, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
 * 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)

User:Taksen, Regarding nationality, of the three nationalities attributed to Gluck in reliable sources (German, Bohemian, and Austrian), the last seems to be the one mentioned the least often. That is why I removed it. Some sources omit his nationality altogether (for example, the biographical notice by Julian Rushton in The Viking Opera Guide, now the The New Penguin Opera Guide), which is what we have done in the past. This seems like the most neutral approach to me. Why do we have to give his nationality, when whatever one we choose will in some way be unsatisfactory? --Robert.Allen (talk) 19:14, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

I found this in written by Felix Bamberg. "Von Salieri hat er [Gluck] später gesagt, daß dieser allein ihm seine Manieren ablerne, da kein Deutscher von ihm lernen wollte." I would like to know which book on Gluck Bamberg used. Then there is the text on Gluck's stone in Zentralfriedhof. I dislike Heartz, he introduced nonsense.Taksen (talk) 05:58, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
 * 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)

An American who does not know that near the Czech border German was spoken is not very reliable. Why should we trust Salieri, there is no evidence he was right. I would not go on holidays with Heartz or you. We would get lost easily.Taksen (talk) 20:38, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

Recent edits
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) I am sorry for you but this article was very superficial and unsatisfying. Besides it had almost no pictures. I changed that. There is no birth certificate, in my experience nobody will be able to find it, so is nonsense to add a date, like 2 July. Robl may like to think he was born on the 4th, but he cannot prove it. Did he talk to a doctor or the priest? No, it is interpretation.
 * User:Taksen, In my view, many of your arguments and edits reflect WP:OR, that is the interpretation of facts to reach conclusions. In the case of Gluck's birthdate, we have the findings of a single paper that can be viewed as a primary source (see WP:PRIMARY) written by, as far as I can tell, a local amateur historian (Robl). Since Robl attempts to overturn findings that have been accepted by recognized experts in the field for decades, the bar is higher. Of course, Robl may be correct, but because of all the reliable sources with which he disagrees, we really need to find independent confirmation of his assertions by someone who cites Robl and is a recognized scholar in the field, for example, someone like Gerhard Croll, who we identify as a musicologist who has published a a body of research on Gluck frequently cited by other experts in the field. --Robert.Allen (talk) 18:25, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

Another thing is that you like to think that what is printed is true. We all know that is not the case. Information needs to be checked and reevaluated. That Gluck was a Czech-speaking Bohemian is nonsense; he was a German-speaking Bohemian. If Gluck grew up in any other part of Bohemia, I would accept that he was Czech-speaking, but not if one grew up in small towns in the north near the German border, where the majority of the population (99%) had a German origin.

Many people think Wikipedia is not a reliable source. I added many (new) details, because I don't want to read over and over the same information on Gluck. What I did was looking for reasons why the Glucks moved so often and to my surprise, I found some explanations on Wikipedia itself or on the web. I am a geographer, so I come to different conclusions than musicologists. I am not very interested in his music and will hardly touch the rest of the article. Have a nice evening.Taksen (talk) 19:41, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
 * 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)

Before Napoleon, the day of birth was not recorded. Every historian knows that. We should not give a birthdate when it cannot be found in the archives. It is unsafe; unless you found a diary or an autobiography. Alois Fuchs, whoever he is, published it in a newspaper. When people are repeating the same for 170 years, it will look like the truth, but it isn't. I am sure you cannot find the original or a copy in the Austrian Archives.

The owner of Wikipedia likes to think that amateurs can have more knowledge than professors on a subject. N.B. Robl is a family doctor and has a degree. Still four sections have no references. How would you call that? I think it is typewriting, it does not look like research at all.Taksen (talk) 20:19, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

It Kamnitz they know Gluck lived there, but they use the wrong years, so I did not add the source. In Kreibitz they don't know that the Glucks lived there. Is it one of the persisting mistakes? About Kinsky's estate very little is known, it would help if we found more details. https://www.rodoni.ch/proscenio/cartellone/orphee/agluck.html This Swiss website has interesting details, from Gluck himself, but where did they find it? No source is mentioned.Taksen (talk) 21:04, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

Translation Garcin on Bohemian musicians
"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)

I translate the sentence referring to Gluck a bit differently: --Robert.Allen (talk) 09:54, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Cette Musique s'exécute dans un pays où l'Italienne est bien connue et et supérieurement exécutée; on la trouve plus animée, plus théâtrale et il suffiroit pour en faire l'éloge de dire que les Gluck, les Wagenseil, les Brixi, l'ont jugée digne de leur talens.
 * This music [Bohemian comic opera] is executed in a country where Italian [music] is well known and exceptionally executed; one finds it more animated, more theatrical and it suffices to praise it by saying that Gluck, Wagenseil, Brixi, have judged it worthy of their talents.

File:Joseph Siffred Duplessis - Christoph Willibald Gluck - Google Art Project.jpg to appear as POTD soon
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)

Removed tag
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)Taksen (talk) 22:28, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
 * 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. 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)
 * 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)

For everybody born in Europe before 1810 there is no birthday known, only a baptism record in churches was kept, unless someone (the parents) kept a diary or wrote it down somewhere. People did not "exist" before they were baptized. So 4 July is more reliable than 2 July.Taksen (talk) 22:48, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
 * 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)

Obstinate mistakes whose correction is (allegedly) being revised by bots
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)