Talk:Christian Cannabich

Rewriting of article on Christian Cannabich

I started to rewrite this article beginning on January 24, 2010. Please late me state my reasons for doing so. The existing article had the following problems:

• There were no references or footnotes.
• The only source given was a very old article from the Encyclopaedia Britannica (1911), thus only one terciary source was used.
• The lifetime of Cannabich’s father was incorrectly given as: 1700-1783 (and still is on the Italian and French pages). According to Randel, Don Michael, ed. The Harvard Biographical Dictionary of Music. Cambridge, Massachusetts: The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, 1996, the lifetime was: 1690-1773
• The important relationship between Cannabich and Mozart was not treated at all.
• No discography was given.
• The important contribution of Cannabich to ballet music, the treatment of the clarinet, and of woodwinds in general, was not described.
• The article was partially translated from the German article; the translation was unidiomatic.
• The role of Cannabich as leader of the Mannheim orchestra was not described.Thomas W. Jefferson (talk) 18:27, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Recent edits by user Cgingold

Dear user Cgingold, your recent edits to the article on Cannabich were not always helpful. You deleted an entire section (e.g. discography). I clearly marked the article “as work in progress”.

It is a matter of debate whether your “improvements” could be classified as such. Is “he took a liking to Cannabich” preferable to “he took a shine” to Cannabich”. What kind of improvement is this? I am trying to write modern lively, and this means I am also trying to avoid the stodgy, boring kind of wording associated with 19th century encyclopaedias. Thomas W. Jefferson (talk) 07:52, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Oh dear. Firstly, TJW, I want to say that I really appreciate all the work you've put into the article. In fact, I was delighted to learn from your user page that you are a musicologist, and I was planning to leave you a note on your talk page to thank you for joining the Wiki community -- and to let you know that I was/am looking forward to working with you.

I can understand your reaction, as I well remember how I felt early on when I was learning the ropes here at Wiki. It takes a bit of getting used to. My edits are based on my knowledge & experience gained in 3-1/2 years of editing here. So let me address the points you've raised.

• The discography needed to be trimmed (NOT "deleted") simply because it isn't appropriate to detail the contents of the recordings, just as the chapters of books aren't listed in bibliographies.

• I removed the "editable sections" because they simply aren't called for. They're only needed when there is a more substantial amount of material in a given section or sub-section. Otherwise they simply amount to unnecessary clutter.

• As a professional writer and editor, I really sympathize with your desire to liven up the writing here on Wiki. I always do my best to avoid boring prose whenever possible. However, the standard of neutral and "encyclopedic" writing that is expected here requires us to eschew the use of slang words & phrases such as "took a shine to". I still remember the time I used the term "lady love" in an edit. It was unquestionably the right term, but I had to concede that it didn't conform to Wiki style standards -- even in an article about a rock musician.

I see from your talk page that you have responded quite well to corrections and suggestions from other editors, and I sincerely hope that you will respond in the same spirit here. Regards, Cgingold (talk) 10:24, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

PS - I was also planning to tell you that I think this article might qualify for the Did You Know feature on the Main Page, thanks to your recent expansion. It's up to the editors who are in charge of DYK, of course, but I think they'll go for it if we provide them with a summary & short passage that piques their interest. Cgingold (talk) 10:37, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Dear ...

This is a wise and considerate answer. I concur with what you say. I will respond shortly. Regards, TWJThomas W. Jefferson (talk) 11:46, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, I appreciate your comments and I guess I can subscribe to it. You are more experienced than I am in things concerning Wiki. I do, however, think that a modern encyclopaedia, particularly an online encyclopaedia that can be changed on a daily basis, should show more lively, contemporary, sometimes even colloquial writing than the traditional encyclopaedias whose stodgy writing had a tendency to enshrine the status quo. Speaking for myself I might add that I always want to present in a biography (so far I only worked on articles on people) what is extraordinary about this person, I am also always hunting for titbits that show what kind of a person someone really was (or is). For instance, Schindler in his Beethoven biography says that Beethoven hired and fired 10 or 12 domestic helpers within a few months. People are always saying that Beethoven was an irate character (Goethe does so in a letter to Zelter), but this little story of Schindler tells me more about Beethoven than Goethe’s of the cuff remark. Back to Cannabich: This man was a mediocre composer (Mozart knew this immediately) but a powerful force in the musical world. It is strange that most sources claim that he and Mozart were such great friends. Frankly, I don’t buy this. Mozart had come to Mannheim to seek a position and this could only have meant a position as resident composer or Kapellmeister, and Cannabich was both. Cannabich must have sensed that Mozart with all his prodigious talents must have been mortal threat to him. I would be an honour to qualify for the DYK feature, but I will still have to add much more material concerning Mozart and C. Thanks for your understanding. Thomas W. Jefferson (talk) 21:52, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Christian Cannabich. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080820065957/http://www.mozartforum.com/Contemporary%20Pages/Cannebich%20Contemp.htm to http://www.mozartforum.com/Contemporary%20Pages/Cannebich%20Contemp.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:29, 23 November 2016 (UTC)