Talk:Maria Anna Mozart

Pronunciation

Questions:

1. On which syllable was Nannerl stressed, originally? Was it NANNerl, or nannERL?
2. How do we know? Is there a published source that gives a ruling on this?

– Noetica 03:27, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't know if there is a published ruling on this, but every Austrian will confirm that a diminutive ending with "-erl" is a) always neuter and b) always stressed on the first syllable.--Suessmayr (talk) 20:40, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

The name is prouncounced on the frist syllable also "NANNerl". I hope, I can help you.

--AndreaMimi (talk) 17:28, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Ambiguity

The sentence "Although her brother rebelled from their father, to a degree, she remained primarily under his direction." is unfortunately ambiguous in that 'his' direction might be either that of the father or brother. It becomes clear contextually from the following sentences that 'he' is in fact the father, nonetheless stylistically this sentence could be improved upon by revision. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.68.173.137 (talk • contribs)

Removed link

When I tried to add the turkish lang ext. it said there was spam protection for the infonet.com.br link, so I removed it. Nerval 17:38, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

"Quarrel over Leopold's will"

There never was a quarrel between Mozart and his sister, because Leopold Mozart left no will. Solomon is unaware of this basic fact, just as he is unaware of the German literature pertaining to the division and auction of Leopold's estate. Because he has never seen the primary sources in the Berchtold zu Sonnenburg family archive in Brno, Solomon's speculations about a "quarrel" are entirely irrelevant.--Suessmayr (talk) 09:21, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

<Opus33 interpolated:>

Hello, Suessmayr, please see my reply to 141.203.250.65 below. Opus33 (talk) 17:26, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Right. Solomon bases his unproven speculations on Walther Senn's article from 1962 and is obviously completely unaware of Angermüller's much later research based on the primary sources. And to make matters even worse, Solomon relates the florin of 1778 to the florin from 1803 and 1829 (mixing up Conventionsmünze with Vienneses Currency). It's the usual comedy of errors.--141.203.250.65 (talk) 14:32, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

If it only were this, but Solomon also still thinks that the Salzburger Lump is Mozart himself (Solomon, Mozart, p.411), while it has been known since 1997 that the scoundrel story actually refers to Mozart's friend Franz Jacob Freystaedtler.--193.170.112.226 (talk) 11:02, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Hello, 141.203.250.65, I would like to consult Senn (1962) and "Angermüller's much later research" but to do so it would help to have the normal sort of bibliographic information so I can search for them. (You probably already know this, but in the case of a journal this would be: both first and last name of author, journal title, year, volume, and page numbers; and in the case of an article in an edited volume: title, editor's name, publisher, place, and copyright date.) If you could specify these for the works by Angermüller and Senn I would appreciate it very much. Yours sincerely, Opus33 (talk) 17:26, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

It is relatively easy to get this information on the website of the Bibliotheca Mozartiana at the "Internationale Stiftung Mozarteum" [1], a simple procedure Maynard Solomon is obviously incapable of. For up-to-date research see Rudolph Angermüller, "Leopold Mozarts Verlassenschaft", in: Mitteilungen der ISM 41 (1993), vol. 3-4, (Salzburg, November 1993), pp. 1-32. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Suessmayr (talk • contribs) 20:49, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, Suessmayr. I'll give this a try. Opus33 (talk) 17:02, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Fixes to the article

The second portrait of Nannerl should simply say "Maria Anna Mozart as a child (1763) – portrait said to be by Lorenzoni." The part "For the counterpart portrait of Wolfgang, painted at the same time, see Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart." was completely out of scope so I removed it.

The last point in the literature section at the end of the article should say "In La sorella di Mozart, a novel by Rita Charbonnier,[17] Nannerl initially tells her life's story through a series of fictional letters to the Major Franz Armand d'Ippold, with whom she is in love." The additional "When they later break off their relationship, it has little or nothing to do with Nannerl's father, Leopold. In this book, Nannerl is portrayed as being supremely frustrated and debilitated by her father's refusal to acknowledge her ability to compose music. At the end of the book, Nannerl goes to Vienna on her brother's death, buys his remaining manuscripts from his widow, and apparently begins devoting her life to the promotion and study of Wolfgang's music, despite their previous estrangement." is unnecessary and superfluous so I reworked it removed parts of it.

ICE77 (talk) 00:36, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

"Marianne"?

From the article's third paragraph on, the subject is referred to as "Marianne". Shouldn't there at least be a parenthetical explanation of this transition? SomeAvailableName (talk) 07:10, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

"Mozart's unhappy visit to Salzburg in 1783"

This is mentioned twice in the text, but never explained; why did he visit, and why was he unhappy? -Ashley Pomeroy (talk) 13:57, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Even more mysteriously, the article doesn't actually say Mozart was unhappy; it says the visit itself was unhappy, which could be interpreted in various ways (considering that the visit could not literally be unhappy). Maybe Mozart himself was perfectly happy but managed to make others unhappy. TheScotch (talk) 18:10, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

I took out the two "unhappy"s. You can find the original case for an unhappy visit in Otto Jahn's 1856 biography, tr. Pauline Townsend; (Google Books) [2] but it seems based on rather little concrete evidence.

What Jahn says is: "the object of Mozart's visit, which lay nearest his heart, was the establishment of friendly relations between his wife and his father and sister; and this unfortunately in great measure failed." (Mozart had reason in advance to worry: Leopold had been strongly opposed to the marriage, and neither he nor Nannerl attended the wedding). Opus33 (talk) 17:22, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

RfC: hatnote dispute

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I feel that a redirect hatnote for "Nannerl" is necessary for Nannerl O. Keohane. However, Opus33 disagrees. Therefore, I am requesting a third opinion. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:19, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

That's her first name -- not her last name. If it were a last name, a hatnote would be useful. But a first name, however unusual, does seem like a stretch in calling for a hatnote. Just my opinion. Antandrus (talk) 00:33, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

Per above, I don't think such a hatnote would be necessary - unless you can demonstrate there is a significant chance that somebody who looks for "Nannerl" would not expect to find this page. 69.165.196.103 (talk) 01:27, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, I also don't think we probably need a hatnote. People don't usually search on just the first name. I mean, it's not like it could never happen ("Who was that professor gal, Nannerl something...?") and for those cases a hatnote is indispensable. But to balance that, everybody at this article has to read past the hatnote, and there's already a couple hatnotes and it's getting a little crowded, so if we're serving just a few people a year {and anyway entering "Nannerl" in our searchbox brings up a list with Keohane in it, and Googling "Nannerl professor" brings up Keohane as the first entry, so those people will get there eventually)... it's a net drag on the article. And yeah Nannerl is just Mozart's first name also, but she's a whole lot more famous and known by that name as more of a mononym really, so the overwhelming majority of searches are looking for this page, probably. Herostratus (talk) 04:47, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

I would be surprised that anyone looking for the article about Nannerl O. Keohane would be so intellectually deficient as to (a) search simply for "Nannerl" and then (b) when confronted with a page about Mozart's sister not simply search again with a better string. So I agree that a hatnote is unwarranted. Syek88 (talk) 20:34, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

"Never underestimate the ingenuity of complete fools"... 69.165.196.103 (talk) 23:04, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

4th (or 5th) opinion: I'd not only be suprised, I'd be astonished. Per that linked advice, and with due consideration of WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, I concur that the hat is unnecessary. 86.20.193.222 (talk) 17:10, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Completely unnecessary. Me-123567-Me (talk) 23:13, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Meeting with Franz Xaver Mozart

"In 1821, Marianne enjoyed a visit from Wolfgang's son, Franz Xaver Mozart, whom she had never met during her brother's lifetime."

This may be literally true but it's a little misleading: since Franz was only a few months old when Wolfgang died it would hardly have been possible to "meet" him. Should the sentence simply say "...whom she had never met."? Paulwilliam2 (talk) 19:18, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

Was she really inlove with the men or was she just doing it for her Dad?

^^^ RAZZZBABY (talk) 22:17, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

Jane Glover's book 'Mozart's Women' certainly suggests that the latter was the main motivation, and this article touches on Maria Anna's wish to please her father, eg with what happened to her son. But as so often the answer is probably that we don't know - or it wasn't just one thing or the other.Ponsonby100 (talk) 10:07, 21 October 2023 (UTC)