Talk:David Popper

Untitled
When looking for his date of death via google, I noticed that several site listed 1843 as his date of birth. Maximus Rex, 09:04, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC)


 * The Penguin and Grove Concise dictionaries of music both give 1843, so I'm going to change it to that. --Camembert

high school of cello playing
I do not think that "incredibly difficult" is the right way to describe Popper's book of cello etudes. Does anyone agree with me, or am I just underevaluating their difficulty? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by TrogdorPolitiks (talk • contribs) 02:37, 6 January 2007 (UTC).

I think it is generally accepted that the High School of Cello Playing is very difficult. Keegan 22:39, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

I think that, while difficult, Popper's etudes are not so difficult as to be inaccessible to the average student. "Incredibly difficult" may be something of an overstatement but, then again, the difficulties of many works are exaggerated on their respective pages. 71.163.134.169 (talk) 00:35, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Popper's 40 studies (the 'High School') are pretty well regarded as a staple of Conservatoire level cello training. They appear 'incredibly difficult' at first to most students at approx. grade 8 level. However, a phrase like 'incredibly difficult' is relative (a more advanced cellist may consider the Popper etudes quite basic) and as such is inappropriate here without qualifier. Watching Joshua Roman play these (YouTube - Popper Project) is an education in itself - Roman manages to make them look easy. Popper intended these etudes to fill a gap that he perceived in music training at that time, to prepare orchestral players to be able to play the late romantic music being written and performed. As such, he probably considered them basic. It should also be noted that music technique has advanced, and these studies are no longer a comprehensive survey of cello technique. They remain however a mainstay of a professional level cellist's training. (PM) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.50.184.79 (talk) 22:31, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Diambig needed
David H. Popper - US Ambassador to Cyprus ~ender 2008-03-30 14:19:PM MST

Date of birth
Some cites show his date of birth as 9 December 1843 –, , , etc. (This cite gives both dates of birth!!!)  Our article used to say 9 December, but it was changed to 16 June by this edit, with no edit summary or citations. So, where do we stand? Which is the correct date? And how would we decide between the 2 competing dates? -- JackofOz (talk) 07:54, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

This appears to be a continuing saga. I have seen a number of credible references citing both December 9 and June 16, 1843. Grove's Encyclopedia confirms June 16th, as do the All Music Guide, the Brockhaus Riemann Musiklexikon and several Hungarian sources. The 1996 Harvard Biographical Dictionary of Music lists December 9th, while the 2002 Oxford Companion to Music cites both dates. Since Grove's is the most normative, I have taken their date. Hollomis (talk) 02:46, 18 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks, Hollomis. I missed your reply at the time.  Grove's 5th edition (1954) said 9 December, but the 1961 Supplementary Volume changed it to 16 June, with the footnote "Not 9 Dec., as in Riemann and elsewhere".  From what you say, it seems Riemann has since changed its tune, also to 16 June.  So we seem to have a consensus among the major references now.  That's good.  But rather than just asserting one particular date, as if no other candidates had ever existed, I think we need to acknowledge what some earlier sources had to say.  It would be good to get to the bottom of how the wrong date got into the literature in the first place.  --   Jack of Oz    ... speak! ...   00:19, 28 August 2010 (UTC)