Talk:Variations on "Là ci darem la mano"

Title Case in Article Title?
Should not the title of this article be Variations of "Là Ci Darem la Mano" (Chopin)? That is to say, shouldn't we capitalize every word, expect for the word "la" (it being an article)? I'm looking at this page below, which suggests the customary "capitalize (almost) every word, with these exceptions…" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(capital_letters)#Composition_titles

Thanks! Startswithj (talk) 03:33, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
 * No; see WikiProject Classical music/Style guidelines. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 05:26, 5 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks a lot for clearing that up. Strange that that's not in the MoS. Startswithj (talk) 22:29, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Version (or arrangement) for piano solo?
I have a recording (Music & Arts CD-747) of a 1963 live performance in Budapest by Emil Gilels playing this piece (here called simply "Don Juan Variations") in a piano solo version. No explanation or discussion is provided in the booklet or liner notes. Might Chopin have written this arrangement himself, or possibly Gilels or some other editor? Thanks for any info. Milkunderwood (talk) 00:44, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Premiere
That "the work was premiered on 11 August 1829 at the Vienna Kärntnertortheater" can only be meant as a joke. It was premiered in 1827 in Warsaw.--178.191.66.149 (talk) 21:29, 24 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Mieczysław Tomaszewski at The Fryderyk Chopin Institute also gives August 1929 in Vienna. Could you provide a source for your claim of 1827 in Warsaw? Maybe User:JackofOz, whose initial version of this article already contained this line, can comment. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 10:57, 25 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I always research extensively when I write articles, not just relying on a single source for my facts.  Had I come across any reference to this claim, I would most certainly have checked it out.  But I have no memory of any such thing.  So yes, I too would like to see a citation for an 1827 Warsaw premiere.  --   Jack of Oz   [pleasantries]  20:13, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Section Hats off, gentlemen, a genius
The following statement - with manipulated quotations from Szulc's book (Chopin in Paris: The Life and Times of the Romatic Composer, p 64) ''Chopin found the review so embarrassingly cloying that he blocked Wieck's attempts to publish it in French. In a letter to a friend, Chopin wrote that Wieck, "instead of being clever, is very stupid" and that he did not want his musical integrity to "die" because of "the imagination of that ... stubborn German”.'' is  not correct.

Further, Tad Szulc falsified / misinterpreted / misunderstood Chopin's letter to Tytus Wojciechowski from December 12, 1831 (I quote the original English translation in: Chopin’s letters by Henryk Opiensky, ALFRED Knopf, New York, 1931, pages 155-156) - bold type added: ''“A few days ago I received from a German in Cassel who is enthusiastic about these Variations, a ten-page review, in which, after an immense preface, he goes on to analyse them, measure by measure; saying that they are not Variations in the usual sense, but some kind of fantastic tableaux. About the 2nd Variation he says that Don Juan is running with Leporello; that in the 3rd he is embracing Zerlina and Mazetto raging in the left hand; that in the 5th measure of the Adagio Don Juan is kissing Zerlina in D flat major. Yesterday Plater asked me; where is that D flat major? One can die of the imagination of this German, who insists that his brother-in-law should send it to Fétis, for the Revue Musicale; from this the good Hiller rescued me with difficulty, by telling the brother-in-law that the thing is not clever at all but very stupid. Hiller is an immensely talented fellow (a former pupil of Hummel) whose concerto and Symphony produced a great effect three days ago; he's on the same lines as Beethoven, but a man full of poetry, fire and spirit.”''
 * Chopin wrote that the thing (the review and the idea of sending it to Paris) is "instead of being clever, ... very stupid" - and NOT the person Friedrich Wieck
 * Szulc mistakes French (language) for France (country)
 * in the letter there is nothing about the death of Chopin's musical integrity either
 * Chopin has not blocked anything. Ferdinand Hiller persuaded Robert Schumann (the brother-in-law), not to forward the review to Fetish
 * "the imagination of that ... stubborn German" is nowhere to read in the letter — Preceding unsigned comment added by Farafince (talk • contribs) 14:24, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

Handwritten reply by Woyciechowski and Chopin Souvenirs owned by Woyciechowski
How about adding Woyciechowskis handwritten reply to Chopin’s dedication of the variations op.2? It‘s a rare document of Woyciechowski, since his letters to Chopin are said to have vanished.

He replied in his handwriting on the front page of the Variations „J’accepte avec plaisir“ („I accept with pleasure“). The autograph is at Österreichische Nationalbibliothek Wien and available online. Chip-chip-2020 (talk) 23:34, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

Consensus, I‘ll add it.Chip-chip-2020 (talk) 17:38, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

Question for administrator


--Chip-chip-2020 (talk) 20:41, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I've answered this on your Talk page.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:13, 18 April 2022 (UTC)