Talk:Leoš Janáček

Was Janacek a Czech or Moravian composer?

I am surprised to see the last undo and the note in the article that Janáček was a Czech composer and that this is supported by sources. So let me open a discussion on this issue, let's do this in a civil way and support our claims by suitable references. As I have no sources that I can quote I will not take a stand but I am willing to learn something new about my beloved composer. TomyDuby (talk) 21:11, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Strictly speaking I suppose he was "Austrian" since in 1854, when he was born in Hukvaldy, the Czech Republic did not exist? But if Moravia could be considered more of a "country" than the Austrian Empire, in 1854, then I guess he could be more accurately be considered as "Moravian". But I would certainly give most weight to any sources which might indicate what nationality Janáček felt himself to be. 22:54, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for starting the discussion. I'm one of the major contributors to the article, so here is the start of my explanation: Janáček's nationality is a sensitive topic, it was discussed widely on various forums and the article here was affected as well. In my opinion, we should follow the most authoritative sources/dictionaries of English, German and Czech musicology. The main sources are in my opinion: The New Grove Dictionary of Music, Musik in Geschichte und Gegenwart ("MGG") and Československý hudební slovník (Czechoslovak Music Dictionary). I don't have access to Grove or MGG, but I own Czechoslovak Music Dictionary (1963). The book was created by the musicologists closely associated with Janáček and Brno: Gracián Černušák, Vladimír Helfert and Bohumír Štědroň. It is slightly out of date and contains errors, but it is still the most authoritative dictionary of Czech music, as far as I know (I noticed that some entries in Grove are almost identical translations of CMD). Leoš Janáček is labelled here as a Czech composer, organically integrated into the Czech musical tradition, together with Smetana and Dvořák the most original creator of Czech music. (... zůstává organicky začleněn do české hudební tradice a je vedle Smetany a Dvořáka nejmocnějším a nejpůvodnějším jejím tvůrcem). Recently I bought an old book containing memoirs of Janáček's contemporaries and collaborators, and one person (I can't remember the name but I'll find it out) explained in detail Janáček's approach to Czech/Moravian question. The result was clear: Janáček considered himself Czech composer, and he explained the matter simply, from linguistic point of view: Czechs and Moravians speak the same language, with minor variations (my vague recollection). I'll add proper citation/translation as soon as possible, the book is not in my hands right now. For further information see this link, but it is rather my personal opinion, not a sourced information. I read a lot about Janáček's life and music and I know about his Moravian roots and inspirations. In the article, I attempted to emphasize this in various sections. However, I'm not the only bearer of truth or a leading world's expert on Janáček and I'm willing to listen to reasonable arguments of others. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 08:59, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Grove by the way begins its article on Janáček with the statement 'Czech composer'. It continues '[...]he is regarded not only as a Czech composer worthy to be ranked with Smetana and Dvořák, but also as one of the most substantial, original and immediately appealing opera composers of the 20th century. Janáček was born into the Czech cantor tradition [...]'.--Smerus (talk) 12:55, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

• Janáček vzpíral se tomu, aby byl zván skladatelem moravským - prohlašoval se skladatelem českým. Plným právem. Jako jediná je česká mluva - tak také jest jediný náš jazyk v tónech po česku hovořící. Oba jazyky znají jen krajové odchylky - nářečí.
• translation: Janáček refused to be called a Moravian composer, he claimed to be a Czech composer. With all justification. There's the only Czech speech and there the only language speaking in Czech in tones. Both the speech and the language know only regional variants - dialects.

• The above mentioned (and loosely translated) quote is from the book Leoš Janáček. Vzpomínky, dokumenty, korespondence a studie, edited by Bohumír Štědroň and published by Editio Supraphon in 1986 (p. 137). It was originally published by Národní listy on 12 February, 1938. The author is Antonín Šilhan (1875-1952), Czech music critic [1], [2]. Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 22:00, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Re: your edit summary - yes, that's clear, and could be nearest to a contemporary, reliable source on the matter. Well found. Haploidavey (talk) 22:13, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

He was a Moravian. Obviously. He was born and lived his life in Moravia. Why should others cash in on his nationality (which in any case, if anything, was Austrian as Moravia was then Austrian Crown Land). 2A00:23C4:B617:7D01:1515:1B5E:86A6:731 (talk) 09:50, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

---

Janáček's letter to Karel Kovařovic from 9 February, 1904:

• Žaluji jen, že bylo nespravedlivé odmítnouti Její pastorkyni. Žaluji si na to jako český skladatel, jemuž nechce se dopřáti sluchu.
• translation: I complain that it was unfair to refuse Jenůfa. I complain as a Czech composer who is not heard. (Alt.: whose [pleas or compositions ?] aren't heard.)

Published in:

• Vogel, Jaroslav (1997). Leoš Janáček. Prague: Academia (p. 58). (Czech). (First Czech edition: 1963, English: 1962, German: Alkor, Kassel, 1958)
• Ort, Jiří (2005). Pozdní divoch. Láska a život Leoše Janáčka v operách a dopisech. Prague: Mladá fronta (p. 52). ISBN 80-204-1256-5. (Czech)
• available online (without proper attribution): The International Festival Janáček Brno

I think the entry in Grove should be the most authoritative source for Wikipedia. Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 08:25, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Leoš Janáček/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Pyrotec (talk · contribs) 16:00, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

I will review. Pyrotec (talk) 16:00, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Overall summary

I've been looking at the article as well as reviewing another GAN for most today. I've made no alterations to the article (its often more effective to wikilink or correct a typo rather than list it in the review as a "problem", wait for corrective action to take place and then reassess), so my footprint on this article is very small.

To be precise, I'm not listing any corrective actions, so I'm now going straight to the final assessment stage. Pyrotec (talk) 21:52, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

---

A comprehensive, informative and easy to read article on Leoš Janáček.

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality:

   B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:

   YES. The WP:lead is perhaps rather thin in respective of its "summary function", but not sufficient to merit an "On Hold" at GAN.

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. References to sources:

   B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

   C. No original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   B. Focused:

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

   Well illustrated.

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

   Well illustrated.

   B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   A strong GA.

I'm awarding this article GA-status without hesitation. I suspect that with further work it could make WP:FAC if that was the aim of its contributors. This was not intended as an FA-assessment. If it was, I would have expected the lead to have been expanded to provide more of a summary of the main points of the article and the one paragraph without a citation. But as this is GA, I'm not going to.

Congratulations on a fine article. Pyrotec (talk) 21:52, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Thank you Pyrotec for the review and for your kind words. I, together with patient and overall fantastic help of User:Haploidavey, compiled major part of the article. Yesterday, I've noticed your notification at Talk:Leoš Janáček/GA1 and I've reread the whole article again. I have several suggestions for future improvements:

The article was written mainly with the help of Czech sources, some older and others more recent. I think it would benefit from revising some of the claims with the help of up-to-date English scholarly sources (the recently published English literature on Janáček is more detailed than Czech), most notably with John Tyrrell's two-part book Janáček: Years of a Life. I don't think the article is factually incorrect, but it should follow rather modern musicological opinions on Janáček ... some of the passages in it seem to me a bit 'romantic' :) But on the other hand, we attempted to create an interesting piece of reading, not an unimaginative list of scientific facts.

The section 'Style' is quite incomplete and omits several important stylistic trademarks of Janáček's style, but I think it covers the most important elements in a good way. There are of course many ways how to write such a complex article, one author might emphasize different elements than another one etc.

I'll try to clarify some unclear passages that I noticed during my reading, but I think those are really minor issues.

Thank you again for your time, I'm really surprised that the article passed so easily :) --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 09:13, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

In case this might encourage anyone: I bottled out of doing the GA review because I don't read Czech and couldn't access many of the sources, but this article strikes me, too, as already well on its way to FAC quality. --Stfg (talk) 18:04, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, Stfg. I'll think about further improvements. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 16:01, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Phonetic Transcription of Name

The article says [ˈlɛoʃ ˈjanaːt͡ʃɛk] (first syllable stressed) but in the audio sample the stress seems clearly on the second syllable – ??? Dan ☺ 13:52, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Despite the efforts of numerous BBC Radio 3 presenters, I've always assumed the correct pronunciation is as in the audio sample, with the second syllable stressed. (But then I do come from Newport, lol). Czech language#Stress tells us that: "The primary stress is always fixed to the first syllable of a stressed unit, which is usually identical to a word." (but with some exceptions). But the accent makes that /aː/ a long vowel, which thus takes the stress. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:23, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes, it is correct, apart from the pronunciation at the end of this fantastic performance by BBC symphony and Pierre Boulez. --Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 16:08, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

There's a difference between Janaček and Janáček, that has nothing to do with whether the first syllable is stressed or not. The first syllable is stressed in both words. In Janaček, the second syllable is more like a schwa (ə), while in Janáček it's more like -ah-. But just because the vowel is lengthened in the 2nd case, does not mean it is stressed. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 20:17, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

I'd agree that, in principle, stress and length are not the same thing. But you'd need someone more expert than me to demonstrate that. In my view the audio samples are correct. It's a matter of how that pronunciation is shown by means of the phonetic transcription. Perhaps you could advise? Martinevans123 (talk) 21:37, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

In the audio file, both the first and second syllables seem to have roughly equal stress to me. For what it's worth, It probably would have been [jaˈnaːtʃɛk] in his local dialect. – filelakeshoe (t / c)  09:40, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

I am sure the first syllable is stressed, while the second has a long vowel. In Czech, word stress and vowel length are two quite different and distinct things. The stressed 'Ja-' is marked with a slightly higher pitch. This is Czech, not Italian!... 153.19.31.79 (talk) Wojciech Żełaniec

In the first audio sample (female voice) the stress is clearly on the first (short) syllable, whereas the second syllable is long and unstressed. The standard Czech pronunciation is definitely [ˈlɛoʃ ˈjanaːt͡ʃɛk] (fixed first-syllable stress). However there are some Czech-Silesian dialects with the fixed penult stress (like in Polish). It may be the case of the dialect spoken in Janáček's native Hukvaldy, but most Czechs pronounce Janáček's last name "normally" with stress on the first syllable. Bibulus (talk) 07:28, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

In the both pronunciations, in this great musician's surname, I discern the stress clearly on the second syllable; i.e. I hear it as [jaˈnaːtʃɛk] not [ˈjanaːtʃɛk]. Besides this, I have heard it many times with a strong stress on the second syllable. Please check out this website too. Is here also the issue of long and short vowels discussed in Czech, as has been mentioned above? In this case, I have no Czech phonological knowledge. – Hamid Hassani (talk) 11:23, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

Yes, the first pronunciation on that website clearly has the accent on the first syllable - distinguished by pitch - and a long vowel in the second. The audio file used here is less clear. This is all explained in the Tyrell ref given next to the pronunciation. See also Czech language#Stress. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 14:04, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

The Tyrrell book seems to be available for preview online. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:24, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

Ordering of sections

I wonder if anyone else feels, as I do, that sections 4 through 6 are perhaps out of order. I'm hesitant to make a change unless there is a consensus. It seems in particular that sections 4 and 6 fall in the wrong order; shouldn't inspiration precede legacy? I think, too, that section 5 is unduly prominent, especially in view of the fact that these criticisms look rather misguided when we consider current estimations of this composer. I feel a more natural order would be 4 -- Inspiration, 5 -- Legacy, 6 -- Criticism. Ishboyfay (talk) 00:07, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

Your proposal makes sense, Ishboyfay. As an editor who worked significantly on the article in the past, I agree with the sections reordering. --Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 09:44, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

OK, I've done it. Ishboyfay (talk) 22:49, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

Citation 42

Hey, so I don't know how to properly add links here, but citation 42 is listed as a dead link and I found it on the Wayback Machine. https://web.archive.org/web/20130613153353/http://www.leosjanacek.com/glagolitic.htm — Preceding unsigned comment added by CSU150-HistoryIntern (talk • contribs) 06:09, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

IPA error?

Am I not understanding something, or does the IPA pronunciation shown here, incorrectly show the accent on the first syllable of Janáček instead of on the second syllable? Bhami (talk) 20:52, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

This matter is fully discussed under 'Phonetic Transcription of Name' above. Geierstein41 (talk) 19:22, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

GA Reassessment

Leoš Janáček

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.

---

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review

Result: Kept, with thanks to filelakeshoe. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:38, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

Lots of uncited sections, cn tags since July 2020. Z1720 (talk) 17:37, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

Following this - got a few sources at home, and a lot of the cn'd statements are cited and discussed in more detail in linked sub-topics. (One was even on a fully substantiated claim, which I've just removed). – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 08:02, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

To the "unreferenced" tag in the "Selected writings" section, what exactly are we supposed to add as a source there? It's literally just a list of publications, which can be verified by looking up each publication as you would any other reference. (There is a much longer list on the Janáček foundation website[3], but requiring a citation here seems a bit ridiculous to me) – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 08:30, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

Some bibliographic information would be good; e.g. location and publisher. At minimum, the section should link to that website, preferably in English: Writings published during Janáček's lifetime. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 10:39, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

Thanks - there's also an index at the back of Tyrrell 2006–7 (pp963–971) so I've added that too. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 19:54, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

Currently reworking the lede, btw, as it's too short and the cites need to be moved into the body (except the one on the pronunciation) – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 08:31, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

I've cited Grove for some of the {{cn}} tags and fixed a couple of others.—Jon (talk) 10:21, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

I've removed this paragraph:

Janáček was an atheist, and critical of the organized Church, but religious themes appear frequently in his work. The Glagolitic Mass was partly inspired by the suggestion by a clerical friend and partly by Janáček's wish to celebrate the anniversary of Czechoslovak independence.

The only bits of this which I can verify are "critical of the organized church" and "religious themes appear in his work" (which is certainly true but the "frequently" might be doing a bit of work). While looking for info on inspiration for the Glagolitic Mass I found this [4] and Paul Wingfield's monograph on the piece, the intro of which is publicly viewable on gbooks. [5] These sources describe Janáček as "not particularly religious", "rejecting Catholicism", "pantheist" and "agnostic" which are all different from being an atheist. Also none of these sources suggest who the "clerical friend" was or make any link to Czechoslovak independence day (28 October). Rather Wingfield seems to suggest the mass was inspired by a trendy pan-Slavist movement which sought to revive OCS liturgy. Even if those facts can be verified I think they're probably being given undue weight. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 11:42, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

There's now just one cn tag left on the first para in "legacy", does anyone have access to the source "Sehnal & Vysloužil 2001, p. 175"? I don't, and it's possible that might have been intended to be a cite for the whole paragraph. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 19:48, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

Just found it in the library - it substantiated the first part of that paragraph, I found another paper which talked about Volek et al and Janáček's influence in music theory. No cn tags left now. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 16:08, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

References

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.