Talk:Gregor Werner

Comments on use of sources
I don't dispute that "This article is based on the careful and thorough coverage provided in the online edition of the Grove Dictionary of Music and Musicians, which contains further information about Werner, a catalog of works, and a bibliography." Nor do I dispute Grove's excellent reputation. However, that's no guarantee that the author of this Wikipedia article understood what they read in Grove, and the lack of references to a specific edition of the Grove, much less page numbers, make it difficult to prove or disprove that. James470 (talk) 06:32, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

But what're you gonna do about it? Nothing, not tonight anyway, it's too late. But tomorrow, something. Remind me if I forget, if you want. James470 (talk) 07:24, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

So I went to the library. There's this book called The New Grove Haydn, it mentions Werner in just four pages, according to the index. Compress and reword those four pages and you have the bulk of our Wikipedia article. James470 (talk) 02:10, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

However, the conclusion that "Haydn evidently did not harbor long-term bitter feelings about Werner" does not appear in that book. It mentions Haydn's 1804 composition but does not present it as evidence of his not being bitter about Werner. This is the sort of conclusion I would be comfortable with a named musicologist making but not with some anonymous Internet person even if they turned out to be a renowned musicologist. James470 (talk) 02:13, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Please don't remove reference sources
Hello James470, the main source for this article is the article entitled "Gregor Joseph Werner" by Hubert Unverricht, which appeared in the New Grove Dictionary of Music and Musicians. This article concentrates on Werner himself, and you can't substitute the Haydn books spun-off from the New Grove, because these cover Werner only in connection with Haydn. To clarify another point, the New Grove article is only one page long, so citation of page number (or section number) is not possible or appropriate. It is a particularly bad idea to make wild guesses about page number, based on completely different reference sources.

In more general terms: if you are confused about the reference sources for some article, please don't just guess. Consult other editors on the talk page to get clarification first. This will help avoid blunders. Opus33 (talk) 20:55, 1 August 2010 (UTC)


 * If I have a speck of sawdust in my eye, you have a plank. James470 (talk) 22:39, 1 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Hello James470, Re. your heading-change, I don't think what you did was vandalism. Vandalism is based on malice and you were clearly editing in good faith.  So I changed the heading back.  On the other hand, reckless editing can hurt the WP even more than vandalism does and I don't think I'm that far off base in getting a bit indignant about it. In other words, if you don't like having other editors yell at you, please consider doing your editing more carefully.  Yours sincerely, Opus33 (talk) 05:15, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

If we're going to assign blame and yell at people, let's at least make an effort to blame and yell at the right people. (Unless there's a Wikipedia policy against that, which there probably is).

Before James' supposedly reckless edits, this Wikipedia article had:


 * No mention of Hubert Unverricht. This is called PLAGIARISM--the failure to give proper credit for someone else's ideas and research.
 * No mention of a specific Grove article. One could guess it's Grove's Werner article, but anyone who's read the Wikipedia article would have to conclude that the first paragraph was PLAGIARIZED from Grove's Werner article and the rest from Grove's Haydn article.
 * No mention of a Grove edition. Much less any mention of volume or page numbers.
 * Almost no mention of Werner's life pre-Haydn. It's as if the older men came into existence when the younger man was hired. The problem persists, though a little has been done to fix it.

Let's see what James removed:


 * A vague reference to a vast reference work encompassing at least two editions, dozens of volumes, and now thousands of Web pages.

Let's see what James replaced that with:


 * A specific reference to specific pages in a specific book that anyone with a library card can obtain.

Who first mentioned the strange bias towards the subject's semi-retirement period over his long and perhaps distinguished career?


 * James470.

However, this account is biased against Opus33. It's almost as if Opus33 came into existence for the sole purpose of levying false accusations at James470. It all goes to show you that those who know history can still repeat it. Incarnatus (talk) 19:59, 2 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Sounds like a fairly accurate overview of the article's history. James470 (talk) 02:31, 3 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Time to make it even more accurate. Incarnatus (talk) 20:09, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Although this article has come a long way since the thinly veiled plagiarism that stood for almost three years, much remains to be done. A lifetime of work good enough to merit a retirement package in those days is still dwarfed by an incident with an upstart composer, who, good as he turned out to be, was an unknown quantity to the establishment. Furthermore, there are many sources in German which could be consulted, plus at least one dissertation in English. Incarnatus (talk) 20:09, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Encrypted citations
It's not my style to withhold the name of a cited author by failing to even utter it for three years. I find it much more fun to encrypt it, so here goes:

Y. Fpuraorpx, Wbfrcu Unlqa naq gur Pynffvpny Pubeny Genqvgvba. Uvafunj Zhfvp.

c. 90. Jreare jnf uverq ol Cevaprff Znevn Bpgnivn, ng gur erdhrfg bs ure fba Cnhy Nagba. Gubhtu Jreare qvq abg vapernfr gur ahzore bs zhfvpvnaf, ur erivgnyvmrq gur fgnaqneqf bs pbheg zhfvp.

c. 108. Jreare znl unir orra pbeerpg va npphfvat Unlqa bs ybfvat zhpu bs gur puhepu zhfvp sebz gur nepuvirf. Jreare'f "pbafreingvir rknzcyr" bs n Gr Qrhz fubjf n "onfvp gevcnegvgr qvivfvba" bofreirq va Unlqa'f bja frggvatf.

c. 213. Jreare jebgr n Erdhvrz va Q zvabe juvpu jnf cebonoyl cynlrq ng Fg. Znegva ba gur bppnfvba bs gur qrngu bs Cevaprff Znevr Ryvfnorgu ba Sroehnel 25, 1790. N Yvoren Zr, Ubo. KKVVVo:1, znl unir ebhaqrq bhg Jreare'f Erdhvrz.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Incarnatus (talk • contribs) 22:29, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

After applying ROT13
L. Schenbeck, Joseph Haydn and the Classical Choral Tradition. Hinshaw Music.

p. 90. Werner was hired by Princess Maria Octavia, at the request of her son Paul Anton. Though Werner did not increase the number of musicians, he revitalized the standards of court music.

p. 108. Werner may have been correct in accusing Haydn of losing much of the church music from the archives. Werner's "conservative example" of a Te Deum shows a "basic tripartite division" observed in Haydn's own settings.

p. 213. Werner wrote a Requiem in D minor which was probably played at St. Martin on the occasion of the death of Princess Marie Elisabeth on February 25, 1790. A Libera Me, Hob. XXIIIb:1, may have rounded out Werner's Requiem.

Michael Bednarek (talk) 12:50, 11 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry that was too easy and no fun. Tomorrow, a better one at a higher level of encryption, I promise! Incarnatus (talk) 20:04, 11 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Sorry about breaking my promise. My wife reminded me that I have kids... and a wife! But don't completely rule out a more challenging encrypted citation on this topic in the future. Incarnatus (talk) 20:12, 24 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Before you do that, you might want to familiarise yourself with Talk page guidelines. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 02:52, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Oh yeah, it'll give you grounds to ban me. Here goes:

894405378238, 28342179, 424, 1194874106 APOSTROPHE 15, 603, 1248695 SEMICOLON QUOTE 603, 1248695, 2715520287075, 1126,

25, 39558414, 49392531, 1433914216 NUMBER:IV 854995, 27 41076636151, 32806, 690025763, 959, 741074, 1194874106, 59365715

QUOTE 28309059, 30339, 21431, 56514733303, 854, 45204, 1536452941, 63001441385742, 39820203, 51620911786, 48147069, 1126,

2219033977730, 587, 3373180171629478192214, 80137174611911, 1194874106, 43704817258310, 19, 83637129449931674, 30194, 29,

36661458938, 1536452941, 844, 48494284, 40011, 2138554261539, 39734, 527421, 1321250, 34544371191, 730248 NUMBER:II

1916471536281087, 56110879132, 2503533286220956, 30194, 894273415324, 1536452941, 885 YEAR SEVENTEEN THIRTY SEVEN

2138554261539, 39734, 1442151747, 80156542487855, 100105607204007, 1194874106, 45101858, 34748929492118, 23, 30787407,

424, 722802, 23, 927603, 24601743, 786220, 1107, 42526898, 1284022, 740405, 33337701731, 21247215, 45101858, 1194874106,

32580747, 23, 72911048000379, 714485, 1126, 21843, 1840315634614, 1931933648566, 58511045572, 1126, 1604835,

80156542487855, 26054566, 47723135, 60398098822, 77577819415589, 371, 1442151747, 38111, 877529158, 732051, 32392824578,

59334458, 58529180171, 2780711301267, 374, 49537526, 1097258, 24375809, 2219033977730, 45101858, 1126, 1860597090694,

587, 40011, 1663149, 946809350, 778955307, 21304450, 21843, 21431, 2390065682595, 1369159016335359, 21304450, 21843,

4118404076885207518, 2567050438926, 1591421859, 39820203, 51620911791, 1134668046, 959566131, 39820203, 2408425261007889,

2219033977730, 36698, 1194874106, 1088070804235778, 15, 92551350375713979, 778955307, 26375427, 36698, 2145610571,

899091527, 371., 1442151747, 724298, 1194874106, 32580747, 23, 1983696638699, 36698, 19167382, 1126, 1604835,

80156542487855, 26054566, 49537526 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Incarnatus (talk • contribs) 21:57, 26 August 2010 (UTC)


 * No, you're not going to get banned. Indefblocked most likely, but not banned.  Still, I think your point has been abundantly made: Wikipedia is not worthy of honest research from books, but instead prefers plagiarism from online resources requiring user registration and payment.  Case in point: the Schenbeck book you cited in your first encrypted citations really does say what you say it says, and though p. 90 doesn't say anything not already in the article, no one is going to use the stuff from the other two pages.  James470 (talk) 00:50, 27 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Hint: "leet minus one." Second hint: ROT13 is still involved, and one other step. Incarnatus (talk) 21:53, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

RISM
especially for works by Kapellmeisters of this era, a lot more works are, I gather, likely to be found in various and sundry libraries in autograph and copy manuscripts than ever reached typeset publication, so restricting a worklist mostly to published works will give a limited view of these composers' output. It's often a good idea to have RISM accessible- I don't, but RISM-online (opac.rism.info) covers part of RISM and, as in this case, describes some 500 materials (not all of them necessarily different works- possibly; but with other composers one might have at RISM for that composer, 15 different instances at 8 different libraries of 4 different copyists' and arrangers' takes on only 2 different works, e.g.; and a search just for a composer's name will also bring up works in which they are mentioned in some way/dedicatees/etc., unless one uses the advanced search...) -

anyway... it seems that about 300 of these 500 are autographs, all at the same location, some of them possibly fragmentary scores or of incomplete sets of parts and may some of them be autographs that later turned into the published scores mentioned, but still, worth a view if one wishes to bring more of his music to light (similarly with other composers of this period especially, so perhaps this comment belongs under RISM- though that makes it somewhat circular as a suggestion to look there in the first place). Anyway, one of many resources, not specific to this composer, but possibly useful here. (Very useful for some other composers as the RISM pages give references to modern scholarship and worklist information, e.g. "PadK" numbers for Kramar, etc.) Schissel | Sound the Note! 13:09, 20 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks for adding this, Schissel. Opus33 (talk) 01:26, 22 October 2013 (UTC)