Talk:Haydn and folk music

Revert
I've reverted


 * "Real music lovers feel that Haydn's ethnicity is not only unknown, but irrelevant: his music would be equally significant and beautiful no matter who his ancestors were."

to begin with "Many" instead of "Real".

It would be nice if all "real" music lovers held the opinion that the ethnicity of a composer doesn't matter to the music. But I doubt very much that this is true. For example, Richard Wagner was unquestionably a lover of music, yet he felt the composer's ethnicity mattered very much indeed. You can read about the details, which are disgusting, in the good current Wikipedia article on Wagner. And Wagner is just one of many...

If we were to say "real" in this context, we would be expressing a wish rather than reporting the facts, which goes against the principle of NPOV. So I'm reverting to "many", which I think really is true. I hope this is ok with my anonymous colleague. Cheers, Opus33 03:38, 9 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Szabolsci 1959
Reading AP Brown, he summarizes much of the discussion here, mentioning Hadow's early links to Croatian music followed by Schmid's counter-claim about the Austrian/German origins. Then Brown states "In 1959, Bence Szabolcsi put much of this discussion to rest by demonstrating that these formulas belonged to the region in general and not to any specific group." Sounds like the Szabolcsi article would be interesting reading for interested editors. I don't know how to get a hold of it, but here is the reference: Szabolcsi, Bence. "Joseph Haydn und die ungarische Musik." BzMw I/2 (1959): 62-73. DavidRF (talk) 02:42, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

What's going on here?
I've added a few tags to the article that pick up the main issues, but I'm not really sure what to do with this article. It's obviously very unencyclopedic, and doesn't have nearly enough inline refs. It's been almost abandoned for years. I'm not sure it's even a viable article. What should be done here? sawyer * he/they *  talk  03:22, 29 December 2023 (UTC)