Talk:Jacob Obrecht

The 1980 Grove article
I think much of the article should be rewritten using newer sources, as Sparks' text is no longer valid. Wegman's entry on Obrecht in Grove Online specifically addresses the issue, explaining in great detail why Sparks is in error about various aspects of Obrecht's personality, work and historical significance. Unfortunately I am no expert on Obrecht or Renaissance polyphony, but I hope someone more knowledgeable will come along, see this notice and maybe correct the article. Jashiin (talk) 16:01, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Composer project review
I've reviewed this article as part of the Composers project review of its B-class articles. I take issue with the writing in this article; it needs copyediting. Its other main failing is that there is no works list; my full review is on the comments page. Questions and comments should be left here or on my talk page.  Magic ♪piano 23:06, 12 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Yah, thanks for reminding me. This is one of the articles that was savaged by a class assignment in December 2007 (same class as the thread on the Wikiproject composers talk page, but the previous year) and I haven't gotten around to fixing it yet.  Some of it doesn't make sense at all; it's a collection of short choppy sentences riddled with cites, many out of context and misunderstood.  Obrecht is an important composer and making this a good article will be a substantial job.  Antandrus  (talk) 00:00, 13 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, that certainly explains it. You have to wonder if students today are taught how to write paragraphs (never mind anything longer)...  Magic ♪piano 01:13, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Dates don't add up
It says that he was born in 1451 but also that "His portrait, painted in 1496, gives his age as 38, establishing his birthdate" which would mean that he was born in 1458. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.162.181.34 (talk) 15:35, 22 November 2010 (UTC)


 * I own a few recordings of music by Jacob Obrecht, and they all have the birthyear 1457/1458 (see e.g. this on-line catalogue entry. However, probably a more reliable printed source is needed to justify changing it in the article. --Francesco Malipiero (talk) 15:57, 22 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Wegman's article in the 2001 New Grove is more recent than his 1994 book. I updated the article to give the more recent date, citing Grove.  Note that this article was one of the ones shredded by a class project at Union University three years ago; the whole thing needs a rewrite and a careful comparison to sources to pull out contradictions like this.  (I've been intending to do this for a while but haven't.)  Antandrus  (talk) 16:25, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Assessment comment
Substituted at 19:19, 29 April 2016 (UTC)