Talk:Duetto buffo di due gatti

Learn more about this page

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Duetto buffo di due gatti article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Classical music

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Classical music, which aims to improve, expand, copy edit, and maintain all articles related to classical music, that are not covered by other classical music related projects. Please read the guidelines for writing and maintaining articles. To participate, you can edit this article or visit the project page for more details.Classical musicWikipedia:WikiProject Classical musicTemplate:WikiProject Classical musicClassical music articles

Author? edit

Latest comment: 2 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

I've found the following comment on Youtube,

The correct title is "Cat Cavatina" and was composed by the Danish opera and song composer Christoph Ernst F. Weyse, not Rossini.

If someone could confirm this from a more reliable source, it can be added to the article. 84.121.137.200 (talk) 14:31, 13 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

If you read the article, you'll see that the "Katte-Cavatine" by the Danish composer C.E.F. Weyse is already mentioned there ("Katte" being Danish for Cat). However, this piece also includes some genuine tunes from Rossini's Otello, as the article also says. The article already quotes reliable sources, so no alteration is required. --GuillaumeTell (talk) 19:03, 13 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

I've now cleaned up the article to try and make matters clearer! --GuillaumeTell (talk) 22:25, 13 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

For some reason, Chr. Weyse no longer appears in the article as composer... Lawrence18uk (talk) 05:56, 3 November 2021 (UTC)Reply

Which "same act"? edit

Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Without confirming that (as i presume) 85.18.227.229 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) was correct in changing the order of the movements, i have fixed their having inattentively made nonsense of the wording "same act".
--Jerzy•t 18:40, 30 August 2009 (UTC)Reply

Add topic