Talk:String Quartet No. 12 (Dvořák)

Old nickname
The euphemism "N-word" would not be allowed as I understand under the WP "Offensive material" policy in an article, but I will use it here in Talk. The article as of this writing says "The association with Negro spiritual music led to the quartet's original nickname, the `[N-word] Quartet." There is a footnote to an article by Clapham, 1963. What Clapham actually wrote is: "It is rather misleading to call the Quartet `the [N-word]', for it contains no negro melodies. The link, as Clapham says, is via pentatonic scales, which he says are also used in folk music of "Scotland, Russia, China, and elsewhere. Dvořák had written pentatonic themes... long before going to America." But, Clapham says, the composer's inclination toward pentatonicism in his American works "was undoubtedly stimulated by his interest in negro spirituals." The section on Structure in the article points out occurrences of pentatonic themes at the beginning of each movement of the quartet. For the second movement, spirituals or Native American tunes are alluded to without specifics. It seems to me that under the Offensive material policy, the N-word is not factual enough to be needed and it should be removed as I propose to do. Also it seems to me that spirituals should not be alleged to have had an influence, other than through the pentatonic scale, unless they are specified, as for example with regard to the New World Symphony, "Swing Low, Sweet Chariot" is. Marlindale (talk) 20:48, 18 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Here's the Rip Van Winkle editing effect: just now, almost a year after this was posted, did I notice it and notice that the quartet's original nickname has been deleted.


 * I quite disagree with Marlindale. Under Offensive material, the original nickname should certainly be mentioned. The name might be offensive in the context of modern speech, but at the time it certainly was not; and not mentioning it is omitting an important part of the quartet's history. Here is a key policy statement: "Wikipedia is not censored". I think we should reinclude this information. But I think we should discuss it further before going ahead, since Marlindale certainly does have a point. Others also invited. --Ravpapa (talk) 07:13, 18 November 2014 (UTC)


 * (I should add that I cited Clapham for the original nickname, but, in fact, it appears in numerous sources, including contemporary reviews that I have seen in newspapers of the period. So it is certainly a well-established fact.) --Ravpapa (talk) 07:20, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Maybe a first step could be to list these sources here? Personally I never heard that nickname (so pretty much WP:REDFLAG from where I'm standing), but if it was widely spread a century or half a century ago, it should be mentioned, with appropriate sources to put it in the perspective of its reception history. Are there still other nicknames besides that one and the "American" nickname? That's also a question to be asked: I'd go for the historically most relevant ones. Let's start with listing the most relevant and/or best useable (from a WP:RS viewpoint) sources. Then, select sources to be used, then derive wording to be used in the article. Then select the place where to put it (e.g. hardly seems lede material to me). --Francis Schonken (talk) 09:00, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
 * People often try to add nicknames for sports people but the rule is that such names have to be in widespread use, as shown by reliable sources. The fact that some people "tried to identify specific American motifs" is not of much importance, and the fact that a hundred years ago some used a word that has much sharper connotations today is of less importance. Unless it can be shown that the nickname was a significant part of the work's history it should be omitted. To show significance, there should be more than shock value—was the term commonly used to refer to the work, or was the name tacked on? Johnuniq (talk) 09:09, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

A word is only letters and phonemes; it's the way we use it that makes it offensive or inoffensive. Here all we're talking about is a historical use of the word, and I see no reason to be coy about it if it's reliably sourced. I agree it's not lede material, since that nickname is seldom if ever used today. --Stfg (talk) 09:21, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

In response to the request for more sources, here are two:

"When the great Czech composer Dvorak lived in America for a time, he wrote a symphony: 'the New World', which is full of pentatonic tunes. He wrote a string quartet, known everywhere as the 'Nigger' Quartet..." Paul Spicer, Sir George Dyson: His Life and Music 2014 ISBM 978 1 84383 903 3, p 392

"It is fascinating to note, in the light of our current politically correct clime, that not only was the Dvorak work published as the 'Nigger Quartet', but as recently as 1951, and perhaps even later, this was still shown in the Gramaphone Classical Catalogue under that title. The word, of course, did not have the pejorative connotations it has now." Norman Edwards, Questions of Music 2005 ISBN 978 1 84728 090 9, p 39

There are dozens more - just search google for "Nigger quartet". I recall reading this in a New York Times review of the debut, but I can't find it now. It is well established that this was the common name for the quartet up to the 1930s, and even later. --Ravpapa (talk) 10:36, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
 * The nickname seems to have been widely used as shown above, and so it should be mentioned, with Dyson as a reputable source. Grove Online also mentions it in its 2-line article about the "American" Quartet. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 11:33, 18 November 2014 (UTC)


 * I found this one illuminating:
 * Liane Curtis (ed.) A Rebecca Clarke Reader, pp. 102, 104 The Rebecca Clarke Society, 2004. ISBN 0977007901 ISBN 9780977007905
 * + the Clapham ref (that went lost):
 * John Clapham, "Bedrich Smetana and Antonin Dvorak", in Chamber Music, edited by Alec Robertson (1963, Penguin Books Ltd.)
 * Maybe something like this:
 * (Didn't use the Dyson-related source while not giving much context - however feel free to suggest which sources are best used) --Francis Schonken (talk) 11:48, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes Grove does have it (thanks, Haringey libraries!) and adds the useful "now frowned on". If we must have this word in - and I am honestly not sure whether or not we must - then can we please include something along the lines of that "now frowned on" so that it is clear to readers that it is being recorded here as a matter of history, not because Wikipedia editors think it is such a great word to be using in routine writing? In other words I fear that without such a comment or disclaimer there will be a constant drip of outraged readers taking it out, coming here to tell us which century it is, etc. Along the same lines though can we please avoid anything like the appalling tw@ttishness of Edwards's horrible "in the light of our current politically correct clime" which really is just being an @rse for @rse's sake. And finally, while I am being a whining prescriptivist curmudgeon, can we please please please avoid at all costs saying "up until" which I fear could trigger a relapse and subsequent medication adjustment. :) Best wishes to all DBaK (talk) 12:07, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Another beer, you mean? Yes "up until" is very colloquial. Just "until". --Stfg (talk) 12:37, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Sorry for the "up"; "now" cannot be used (worse than the "up" imho). Curtis has "disturbing", "jarring"... So, rephrased: OK? --Francis Schonken (talk) 12:52, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
 * --Stfg (talk) 13:05, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
 * also ... much much better .. but, with apologies for nitpicking, (1) is the "British sources" bit supported by a reference? Or is it just a quick headcount of currently-extant sources? (No offence intended.) If there's no ref or easy way of validating this statement, I'd suggest leaving that bit out as it makes it sound like the British were particularly fond of it, (those swine!) and I'm not sure that is proven compared with other English-speaking countries. And in any case no British people are racist as we know. (2) Was "Negro" also a name used before/after/alongside? Should it be mentioned? Does it make the situation, to modern eyes, better or worse? I don't feel I know the answer to this, just that I should muse out loud about it! Cheers DBaK (talk) 13:26, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Re "British sources": directly from Curtis 2004 (the link goes directly to the page, start reading the paragraph with the yellowed text, and second footnote on p. 104) - the explanation being that, according to Curtis, the term was perceived as less offensive in the UK. --Francis Schonken (talk) 13:33, 18 November 2014 (UTC)


 * But the nickname was not unique to Britain, but was common throughout the United States, as well - vid other sources. --Ravpapa (talk) 16:45, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
 * If Curtis is alone in her appreciation of the facts, we shouldn't give her interpretation as if it were a fact, agree to that. Is there other confirmation for this being a "British" thing? Or is it only the British stopping to use that name later? --Francis Schonken (talk) 17:04, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

So, Can someone provide the reference for the Grove edition that has the "frowned upon", in order to make this work (if indeed we can agree upon something in the vein of this last proposal)? --Francis Schonken (talk) 06:34, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

In light of the discussion above, I suggest adding the following:

--Ravpapa (talk) 14:48, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Is there any source that makes the "old nickname"&larr;&rarr;"Negro spiritual" connection (even Clapham doesn't if quoted correctly above, he speaks about "negro melodies")? --Francis Schonken (talk) 14:57, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Reference for "frowned upon": Sorry, my mistake - it is not Grove but the Oxford Dictionary of Music. The lovely package that Haringey buys in lumps several OUP music publications together and you have to turn things on and off to get just Grove or just ODM or whatever. Grove does have regrettably many "nigger" references (11) but none of them are this work. Here, on the other hand, is what ODM says:

And here are its refs in MLA and Chicago respectively - are these any use to you? Yes, I don't know what I am doing here!

MLA

"‘American’ Quartet." The Oxford Dictionary of Music, 2nd ed. rev. Ed. Michael Kennedy. Oxford Music Online. Oxford University Press. Web. 19 Nov. 2014. .

Chicago

"‘American’ Quartet." The Oxford Dictionary of Music, 2nd ed. rev.. Oxford Music Online. Oxford University Press, accessed November 19, 2014, http://www.oxfordmusiconline.com/subscriber/article/opr/t237/e357.

Hope this helps, best wishes DBaK (talk) 21:52, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
 * 1996 seems like an acceptable publication date (Concise Oxford Dictionary of Music) — always interesting to know when the frowning began... Google books:  --Francis Schonken (talk) 06:59, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Bringing together a rephrasing and the applicable refs:

--Francis Schonken (talk) 12:13, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
 * 1) John Clapham, "Bedrich Smetana and Antonin Dvorak", in Chamber Music, edited by Alec Robertson (1963, Penguin Books Ltd.)
 * 2) Michael Kennedy and Joyce Bourne (eds.) "‘American’ Quartet" in The Concise Oxford Dictionary of Music. 1996. ISBN 0198608845 ISBN 9780198608844 (2004 reprint)
 * 3) Liane Curtis (ed.) A Rebecca Clarke Reader, pp. 102, 104 The Rebecca Clarke Society, 2004. ISBN 0977007901 ISBN 9780977007905
 * 4) Norman Edwards, Questions of Music 2005, p 39 ISBN 978 1 84728 090 9


 * I think this is fine. For some reason, I want to put "as" in, between "perceived" and "less pejorative", to make it read "perceived as less pejorative". But maybe that's just me. I do feel that this version wraps it up pretty neatly and I would support its use. Best wishes DBaK (talk) 13:08, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
 * added "as", as suggested by DBaK --Francis Schonken (talk) 13:21, 20 November 2014 (UTC)


 * I think the bit about being frowned upon is a bit irrelevant and gratuitous. I would leave off "later they were frowned upon." After all, the article is about the quartet, not about the word. Otherwise, seems fine. --Ravpapa (talk) 13:26, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
 * It sort of doubles the info on the earlier lack of pejorative connotations, so:


 * --Francis Schonken (talk) 12:13, 20 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Looks good to me. go for it. --Ravpapa (talk) 14:49, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Went ahead, and after turning around the sentences a bit appended it to the paragraph with Dvořák's "negro melodies" quote. If it needs further finetuning: well, this is a wiki you know. --Francis Schonken (talk) 15:09, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Great work, team. --Ravpapa (talk) 04:18, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Capitalization-wise: "Negro spirituals" but "negro melodies" (I think?) — so I'd tend to revert this --Francis Schonken (talk) 07:20, 21 November 2014 (UTC)


 * You should check these things first. All style manuals that I know - NYT, Chicago, McGraw Hill (Words into Print), Associated Press - specify that race and ethnic group names are always capitalized. the Wikipedia article also notes that 'Negro' is capitalized, though there is nothing in the WP style guide about it. --Ravpapa (talk) 08:53, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Sorry, didn't know: and in the Dvořák quote? As it appears to have been something he said, there's no obligation to follow the capitalization of the source then I suppose? --Francis Schonken (talk) 08:57, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Wanted to correct, but I see you already did, tx. --Francis Schonken (talk) 08:59, 21 November 2014 (UTC)


 * I had deleted the "Now frowned upon" N-word name but it has been restored. I concede I have been outvoted on the point. But the article says the N-word was "without negative connotations at the time...". I believe it for centuries had some negative connotations in the United States which nowadays are very intense. Suitable references for this point are sources not on music but on American culture and ethnic group relations. There is a WP article whose title is the one word. Marlindale (talk) 21:25, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
 * According to the Wikipedia article (which is very well sourced), the word had no negative connotations prior to 1900. --Ravpapa (talk) 05:41, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
 * What the article specifically says is that "By the 1900's" the N-word "had become a pejorative word." From the late 18th through the 19th century the word "was not always derogatory" which is far from saying it was never derogatory. Reference is to the Oxford English Reference Dictionary, a British source, yes? Anyhow it does not contradict that it may have been pejorative earlier in some usages. "In 1904 journalist Clifton Johnson documented the opprobrious character" of the N-word, "emphasizing that it was used in the South [by some whites?] precisely because it was more offensive than `colored.'" I do not see support here for this suddenly having become true about 1900. Please take note of the preceding passage in the N-word article mentioning Abolitionists in Boston. There is a WP article Abolitionism in the United States referring to the movement in mainly in the northern United States to abolish slavery, until that occurred in 1863 during the American Civil War. A more specific article Boston Vigilance Committee says that was an abolitionist organization founded in Boston in 1841, which after 1850 (when a strengthened Fugitive Slave Law had passed) put up posters: "Caution!! Colored People of Boston" ... to "Keep a Sharp Look Out" for "Kidnappers and Slave Catchers." There had been a "Massachusetts General Colored Association" founded in 1833, relating to similar organizations having "anti-slavery" in their names. Note that the word "Negro" was not being used there by African-Americans and their white allies, although Martin Luther King much later did use it. It seems to me that next to the N-word more pejorative end is "Nigra", a pronunciation of "Negro" by some southern whites.
 * Further about that Oxford Dictionary, it mentions three authors: Joseph Conrad, Polish-British; Charles Dickens, British; and only Mark Twain American, and so interesting: he is said to have given the N-word in reported usage but "negro" in his own (white) narrative voice.
 * I am not yet ready to propose specific alternative language in the article, as there seems to be no consensus. Marlindale (talk) 21:19, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Which is all quite irrelevant, I'm sorry to say...
 * Contrary to Marlindale's assertions it's whether or not the epithet had negative connotations in the context of Dvořák's music. When the composer spoke about "... Negro melodies ...", "Negro" had no negative/pejorative connotation in his mind as far as we can tell (at least it is clear he was only positive about the music he qualified thus). Same for whoever came up with the Nigger Quartet nickname, nothing negative or pejorative rubbed off on the music at the time.
 * The word "Bohemian" can have negative connotations, none of these connotations rub off on a Rhapsody that is qualified as Bohemian. When we're describing the Rhapsody, we can safely say the epithet "Bohemian" has no negative connotations in the context.
 * Similar for "the fat one," everyone agrees that being called a fat one is usually not a compliment and can have a host of negative connotations. If you translate that to Spanish, you get "El Gordo", and after applying it to the Spanish Christmas Lottery you can safely say that in that context the qualification doesn't carry any negative connotation.
 * So no, the article on the Dvořák string quartet does not need to expound on the sum of all meanings an epithet may have throughout history, but it is correct in pointing out that a historical nickname does not indicate a negative connotation in the context where and when it was used. --Francis Schonken (talk) 22:06, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I revised the article, intending to clarify a sentence in just the direction you suggested. I hope we can agree on that.Marlindale (talk) 16:54, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
 * You made it something about "intentions", which is not in the quoted sources (so WP:OR), so I reverted. --Francis Schonken (talk) 16:57, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I obviously have strong feelings on this topic. At least one other editor, DBaK, is uncomfortable about the word: "If we must have this word in, and I am honestly not sure if we should..." I tried for a compromise (far short of what I would have liked) but was rebuffed. I've decided I will not return to this article until 1 July 2015 at the earliest.Marlindale (talk) 17:36, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
 * That's a shame, Marlindale (pinged in case this is off your watchlist already) —I've really enjoyed watching your improvements pile up. But it's probably the smartest choice to minimize your WikiStress, so so much the better for whatever articles you turn your attention to! FourViolas (talk) 00:14, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Which word, which place, as well as what time?
I'm returning to this well after the time span I'd set for myself. I'm not yet proposing any particular change in the article, but I looked into a couple of sources not yet mentioned in this discussion I think. Hughes, 1967, p. 165, mentions the quartet as "commonly known as the 'Nigger' quartet (although since that word has become taboo in the country of its origin the nickname has fallen somewhat into disuse)."

The word "Negro" I think should not be grouped together with 'nigger', there is a big distinction. An institution, the United Negro College Fund exists, although in modern U.S. usage the usual word is 'Black.'

The word "taboo" conveys a strong offensiveness beginning at some time, no later than the 1950's? The Hughes quote suggests that in the UK, the word might have been relatively inoffensive at least up until the mid-20th century.

On American usage and views I think Adventures of Huckleberry Finn by Mark Twain is interesting. The novel was published in 1885 in the USA. Quoting the article,

"It was criticized upon release because of its coarse language and became even more controversial in the 20th century because of its perceived use of racial stereotypes and because of its frequent use of the racial slur 'nigger'", although the tenor of the book is "anti-racist'. (Citations are given.)

Even "coarse languge" might imply some negative connotations, and stronger ones are indicated in the 20th century.

A question: when if ever was "nigger" lacking in negative connotations to black people? Or to white people favoring civil rights for blacks, of whom there were many in the US ("abolitionists") by the 1850's or earlier? Marlindale (talk) 00:32, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I thought it had become clear in the preceding discussion that connotations, regional or universal, are irrelevant here. What counts is what happened. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 00:55, 20 April 2016 (UTC)


 * I am questioning the phrase "without negative connotations at the time". It is there in the article, should it be, as is? Marlindale (talk) 01:31, 20 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Didn't the preceding discussion come to that, sourced, conclusion? -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 02:10, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

I started "Old Nickname" in January 2014, my first month editing WP. At the time I was aiming to get the word "nigger" out of the article, which I am no longer aiming at at all. By the way "Nigger Quartet" is mentioned in the Burghauser Catalog, 1960, maybe later? My issue now as mentioned is, in the article, section Negro, American or other influences, the passage "nicknames, such as Negro or Nigger... Such older nicknames, without negative connotatioins at the time, were used until the 1950s."

Two sources given in the discussion were:

Spicer, Sir George Dyson... 2014, "a string quartet known everywhere as the 'Nigger' Quartet....."

By 2014 and long before, it was not.

Norman Edwards, Questions of Music, 2005, "as recently as 1951,.... this was still shown in the Gram[o]phone Catalogue" as 'Nigger Quartet' "The word, of course, did not have the pejorative connotations it has now."

On the contrary, "nigger" did have negative connotations as early as 1904 and probably before. Marlindale (talk) 01:06, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

In the article, the Spicer reference is not given; the Edwards one is, and another, from the Rebecca Clarke Reader, saying:

"Clarke is writing from a british perspective, where the term Nigger did not have the charged and derogatory meaning it came to have in the United States during the Jim Crow era." According to WP Jim Crow Laws, that era was from about 1866 (just after the end of the U.S. Civil War) until the 1960s Civil Rights era. This agrees with Hughes in mentioning a difference between the US and UK, with 'nigger" more derogatory in the US. It does not support the statement that in the 1890s it was not derogatory, does it? Marlindale (talk) 02:58, 21 April 2016 (UTC)


 * What should be changed? Do you want to rewrite "Such older nicknames, without negative connotations at the time, were used until the 1950s." into "This was done despite the offensiveness of such an epithet." or similar? -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 03:54, 21 April 2016 (UTC)


 * I favor removing the qualifying phrase altogether. First of all, whether or not the word at the time had derogatory connotation appears to be unclear; second, even if it was clear, it is not relevant to the article - certainly in this context (as the nickname of the quartet) it was not meant to be derogatory. Third, it seems to me that it is more important here to be accurate than to be politically correct. --Ravpapa (talk) 05:08, 21 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Thank you, I would also favor removing the phrase, but as a lot of people joined in the older discussion, I will wait a while, say a week, before acting. Marlindale (talk) 16:00, 21 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Re. removing: of course not, it is a historical nickname, mentioned in reliable sources. Suggesting WP:PRESENTISM as my view on how to approach this., could you have a look at that PRESENTISM page? Tx! --Francis Schonken (talk) 16:32, 21 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Hi Francis, please reread the discussion more carefully. What I and Ravpapa so far agree on is removing the phrase "without negative connotations at the time". I don't see any PRESENTISM issue in that. Marlindale (talk) 16:48, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
 * No, of course not, the sentence is well-referenced. Please see WP:PRESENTISM. --Francis Schonken (talk) 17:07, 21 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Well referenced? In the recent discussion I addressed the two references given in the article and one other given in the older discussion. So I got into the details and hope others will also before passing judgment. I have looked at WP:PRESENTISM and noticed that it gives the quartet nickname as an example, but that is a secondary (or tertiary?) source and outdated in that it had not taken account of our current very recent discussion. Marlindale (talk) 22:40, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
 * The misunderstanding still (that is: after being explained already a few times on this talk page) seems to result from thinking that "nickname" refers to the "negro" and "nigger" epithets in general. It doesn't. It refers to the nicknames for the string quartet: while it was known as the Negro or Nigger quartet there was no negative connotation for the composition. What general connotations for these words were (and when) is of no importance for this article. See my change here, trying to make that approach more explicit. --Francis Schonken (talk) 09:22, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
 * (side-note: for some positive connotations of nigger (possibly "nigga'") in 2015 see this — Dvořák was however not among the many musicians mentioned in that speech, so alas can't be used for the Wikipedia article on his 12th string quartet. --Francis Schonken (talk) 09:48, 22 April 2016 (UTC))
 * (side-note to the side-note: note Wikipedia's bowdlerized version of the article that should mention aforementioned speech --Francis Schonken (talk) 09:57, 22 April 2016 (UTC))


 * I don't know who might have claimed or thought that the nickname had derogatory connotations about the piece, but Francis wanted to make clear that they were not about the piece, so OK. The footnote I added from Hughes 1967 explains that because the word 'Nigger" became 'taboo' In the US sometime (well after the 1890s presumably), therefore the old nickname was dropped sometime in the mid-20th century, even in the UK. There are two older footnotes given at the same place which I have argued against, maybe they should be deleted, but I left them for now. Marlindale (talk) 17:37, 22 April 2016 (UTC)


 * The review in the NY Times of 14 Jan. 1894, now quoted in the article, does not give any nickname for the piece (neither Nigger nor American). It does say "The inflection and rhythms of negro times abound" in both the quartet and the American Quintet. Marlindale (talk) 22:41, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

Pentatonicity, this piece vs. New World Symphony
Belatedly, I'm agreeing to a deletion Ravpapa made in September, of two sentences I think I wrote, but for one thing they didn't make a coherent point. In the first measures of each movement, shown in Burghauser, the Quartet does look much more pentatonic than the New World Symphony, but the Symphony does contain a flute theme (not at the beginning of a movement) which for a while is similar to the spiritual "Swing Low, Sweet Chariot" which itself is entirely pentatonic. This got discussed on the Talk page of the Symphony. Marlindale (talk) 22:39, 17 November 2014 (UTC)


 * I think you are trying to make an important point, but I can't figure out what it is. What does it mean that one piece is more or less pentatonic than another, and what difference does it make? It doesn't seem to me to be something you could judge from the opening bars of the pieces. I bet someone has written a doctoral thesis on pentatonicity in Dvorak's American works, and has offered answers to these questions. --Ravpapa (talk) 07:00, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Kovariks
They were a father, son, and daughter from Spillville who participated in the first, "private" performance of the the Quartet. I recently inserted mention of the father and son in the main Dvořák article and would like mention of the family in this article to be correct. The son was not a "child" but a young man who had studied violin at the Prague Conservatory and served as the composer's secretary in the United States. I am ready with references.

I do not want to return to the subject of the old nickname for at least the half year I already promised. If anyone thinks that promise would apply also to an edit such as I now suggest, I would seriously consider that. Marlindale (talk) 03:31, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Good Lord no! If you have something germane about these Kovariks, by all means add it. --Ravpapa (talk) 04:45, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Kneisel's nationality
The quartet had its first two public performances by the Kneisel Quartet, named for its first violinist Franz Kneisel. Hughes says Kneisel was a "compatriot" of Dvořák, a Czech, but the article Kneisel Quartet says he was born in Romania and later was in Vienna before going to Boston (as concertmaster of the Boston Symphony). In this article, I suppose there is no need to mention the nationality? Marlindale (talk) 18:09, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Theme of second movement
has added a sentence suggesting that the theme of the slow movement is a quote from Lalo's Fantasie Norvegienne. I have looked at this piece, and it has only the most passing similarity to the theme of the slow movement - the first three tones are the same, but the rhythm is completely different, the time signature is different, and, aside from that ephemeral fragment, the theme is altogether different. So I am wondering, do you have some source that suggests that the theme is a quote from Lalo? Or are you relying on your own knowledge of the piece? If the latter, I will remove the sentence. Thanks, --Ravpapa (talk) 14:01, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

The "autograph score" image
Whatever this image is, it isn't the autograph score. It's only on two-staves, and seems to me to be more in the manner of a composer's working sketch. I'd like to know what it actually is, and to modify the caption accordingly. Anyone else recognise it, or have access to the source (Burghauser, Jarmil, p. 87) to see what it says? --RobertG ♬ talk 15:25, 17 November 2019 (UTC)