Talk:A German Requiem (Brahms)/Archive 1

Archive 1

Capitalisation

Is this the correct capitalisation for this? The English is German Requiem, both because German is derived from a proper noun and because titles always get a capital, but I'm uncertain enough about German capitalisation not to move it myself. DJ Clayworth 19:49, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)

This is the correct German capitalization. Nouns are capitalised, adjectives are not, not even "proper" adjectives like deutsch. Angr (talk • contribs) 19:33, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Karajan Recording

Karajan - a conductor that rarely participates of my favorite hall of interpreters - has a superb recording of this work with the Berliner Philharmonic, Hans Hotter and Elizabeth Schwarzkopf. Do anybody know it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Leonardo Teixeira de Oliveira (talk • contribs) 00:29, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

That is his first account but not with Berliner Philharmoniker but Wiener Philharmoniker.I guess he made three recordings of it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.233.150.239 (talk) 14:30, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Notable performance

I do not have the skills to write a formatted article. But I would suggest to mention the performance 9/20/01 in NYC by Masur and the Pulizter price won for the criticism (http://www.pulitzer.org/year/2002/criticism/works/092201.html) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nostrada (talk • contribs) 03:07, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

It's an interesting link, but I'm not sure how or where it should be mentioned in the article; I know not many classical music articles discuss specific performances, but this one seems to be very notable. However, it's already mentioned in September 11, 2001 attack memorials and services. Graham talk 04:25, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

1 feb

last one was a restore edit from 1 feb 2007. Mion 08:15, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes but it's a dead link and dead links are not useful to Wikipedia. I've therefore reverted your revert. Graham87 03:29, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

English vs German title

Quote from lead para:

• Ein deutsches Requiem, nach Worten der heiligen Schrift, Op. 45 (English: A German Requiem, to words of the Holy Scriptures) is a large-scale work for chorus, orchestra, and soloists, composed by Johannes Brahms between 1865 and 1868. Ein deutsches Requiem is sacred but non-liturgical. It comprises seven movements, which together last 70-80 minutes, making Ein deutsches Requiem Brahms's longest composition.

Then the article goes on to consistently refer to the work as Ein deutsches Requiem. This troubles me. It's almost never known as this in English, but rather as "A German Requiem" or "Brahms's German Requiem" or similar. I'm not even convinced it's fine to have its German title for the name of the article. We don't have an article on Beethoven's Wellingtons Sieg oder die Schlacht bei Vittoria, but on its English name, Wellington's Victory. I'm inclined to make some changes, but will wait for others to comment. -- JackofOz 03:42, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, um, perhaps it should (*) depend which language it is sung in :-). (Alas, it scans much better in the German original)

To develop the point - the text was, we understand, of considerable importance to Brahms, and his title carefully chosen - the English equivalent does not fully capture that it is a requiem IN German (so accessible), not FOR Germans. Bob aka Linuxlad 09:20, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

• and does - my Previn/RPO/Ambrosian Singers recording is sung in German and uses the German title (confounding your confident statement on usage). Whilst the recording I have of my missus' (amateur) choir singing it in English is English titled. There are other examples (eg Kindertotenlieder) where choral works are titled in the language they are sung in. Leave well alone I says. You can always redirect anyway Bob aka Linuxlad 10:25, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Linuxlad. The language in which the Requiem is sung was not really my point. (I've never known it to be sung in anything other than German - and, indeed, with all due respect to your missus's choir, it would be somewhat oxymoronic to sing "a requiem in German" in some other language. Was the choir's performance billed as "Brahms's Requiem in German in English", or "Brahms's English Requiem", or "Ein anglisches Requiem", or misleadingly as "Brahms's German Requiem"?) My point was the title by which the work is generally known in English-speaking countries. I know that it sometimes gets an airing as "Ein deutsches Requiem", but that is probably the exception rather than the rule. (And I appreciate that the titling of musical works is a minefield. Sometimes they keep their original-language title, sometimes they're translated, and there's not a great deal of rhyme or reason as to why this is so. I must write a book on this subject some day.)

Side comment, not to be taken (I hope) as undermining my above argument: Whenever it's performed or broadcast nowadays, the point has to be made that the word “German” in the title refers to the German language in which it is sung, as opposed to the Latin in which requiems are mostly sung. This is because the usual English rendering “A German Requiem” is not a very true translation of the meaning of the original title. It translates the words literally, word for word, whereas the meaning of the whole phrase is what a translation should be about. Maybe “A Requiem in German” would have been closer to the true meaning, but I guess we’re stuck with the one we have. I would even go so far as to say that Brahms over-stated his point with his title. The fact that he set it to German words rather than the more usual Latin words has always been sufficient indication that it's a German requiem. Maybe he was being a little theo-political, who knows. -- JackofOz 05:29, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

we're in danger of going on a bit here, given that we can set a redirect from the other title. We've both discussed the meaning of 'German' adequately. However, I'm surprised you think it very unusual to sing the work in English; I would think that many English choirs, especially in the 'the provinces' do that. (The scansion of English and German aren't _that_ different, except alas in the two outer movements, where 'Blessed' is no substitute for 'Selig Sind'). But, since facts are also sacred, I'll check with the choir secretary :-) Bob aka Linuxlad 09:03, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

I bow to your greater knowledge of the practice in your country, but when it's sung in English I'd still be curious to know how they reconcile that with the (now misleading) title. -- JackofOz 08:47, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Category:Requiems

I see the note in the text instructing me not to add the requiem category because it would be misleading. But this article has requiem in the title, isn't it misleading *not* to put it there? Wouldn't it be best to add it to the requiem cat and then add a note near the top stating how this is called a requiem although it is not "technically" a requiem? My two cents. DavidRF 03:19, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

• I see that other non-liturgical "requiems" (e.g. Britten) are listed in that category, fwiw. Eusebeus 15:54, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Karl Martin Rheinthaler

Searching through the web for "Karl Martin Rheinthaler", I found several different spellings, with combinations of: 1)"Carl" rather than "Karl" 2)without his middle name "Martin" 3)"Reintaler" rather than "Rheintaler". He appears to have been also a composer of church music and a conductor.--Atavi (talk) 11:50, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Usage in documentary

The second movement was used in a famous documentary about Nazi Germany, which hasn't been mentioned on the page. The Documentary was called "The Nazis: A warning from history", and was done by Lawrence reese.

---

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Vaanic (talk • contribs) 06:55, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Critical Appraisal section

I removed this section, which consisted only of an unsourced alleged quotation from George Bernard Shaw.

If the article on a work of this stature is going to have a section of critical appraisal, I think it deserves a more informed approach.

GBS may have had credentials as a music critic but they are not apparent from this "quote".

Wanderer57 (talk) 15:27, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

GBS's credentials as a music critic are of course well known (see New Oxford Companion to Music p1675), as is his pro-Wagner bias. Taken in this light his oft-quoted criticism (*) of this piece contains a valid comment on its musical language and quasi-classical ('high-class funeral parlour') outlook I leave you to have the wit to reinstate :-) Bob aka Linuxlad (talk) 15:07, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

• (see eg [1], which also contains much other useful material for such a section) )

Thank you for restoring it, Wanderer57. It was actually on my to-do list. I found numerous sources that quoted this and attributed it (to one of his "Corno di Bassetto" columns), and even a statement that he actually apologized for it when a collection of his columns was published in book form in the thirties, but couldn't get at the original. I'll add one of the secondary sources when I get a Round Tuit unless someone else beats me to it. Dpbsmith (talk) 22:59, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

I restored the quote based on another opinion I received. However, I continue in the belief that the quote by itself makes a very sparse and unbalanced "critical review" section. Doubly so if, as Dpbsmith indicates, Shaw later thought better of his comment. Wanderer57 (talk) 04:49, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Happy to agree with this. I think Nancy Thuleen's essay contains some pointers to more positive commentories Bob aka 80.177.213.144 (talk) 20:45, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Music clips

Are the music clips credited? Wanderer57 (talk) 15:29, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

They are now, with the information on the image description pages. It'd be nice if more information was available about them though. Graham87 01:58, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Addition of text passages from the Requiem

I'd like to add the english translation of the text used in the requiem to the page, preferably right next to the audio snippets. I know I looked for it here in Wikipedia when I performed it last spring. Is there a reason that it's not listed on the page?Jdvcmu (talk) 19:38, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a repository of source texts, so adding the translation isn't appropriate. It's already in the external links. A better place to integrate the original text, translation and recordings would be at Wikisource, as is done at Handel's Messiah. Graham87 00:59, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

I think that the recordings being in the page is great, and would actually hate to see them disappear into WikiSource where they would probably get much less visibility than they do now. I'm adding the texts because they are an integral part of the work. Part of the historical significance of this work is that Brahms went against the grain of the traditional requiem and selected the texts himself. So yes, the passages themselves are biblical, but because of the context they would not be a repository of source texts. Instead they provide insight into the artist's thought process and inspiration. His selection and ordering of the text is intrinsic to understanding the piece and is itself like a derivative work.Jdvcmu (talk) 19:11, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

The first performance

I'd like to add information about the 1st performance because it's kind of funny (though I'm sure it wasn't at the time)

This partial premiere went poorly due to a misunderstanding in the timpanist's score. Sections marked as pf were played as f or ff, essentially drowning out the rest of the ensemble. The first performance of all 6 moments premiered in the Bremen cathedral six months later on Good Friday, 10 April 1868, with Brahms conducting and Julius Stockhausen as the baritone soloist. I found this information here Ein deutsches Requiem: (Mis)conceptions of the MassJdvcmu (talk) 19:45, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. That is definitely a reliable source. Graham87 00:59, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

70-80 Minutes?

70-80 minutes seems to me to be a very wide range. Would an 80 minute performance be largely due to long pauses between movements, or could it be due to a conductor setting a very leisurely pace? Wanderer57 (talk) 06:48, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Conductors can take notorious liberties with tempo, as I'm sure you know. ;) My recording (Otto Klemperer, Philharmonia Orchestra and Chorus) is 69:09, so I would actually venture to say it might better read "65-80 minutes". —  $PЯINGεrαgђ  04:24 29 November, 2008 (UTC)

Another unifying musical sequence

The "Orchestration" section of the article describes "a three-note motif of a leap of a major third, usually followed by a half-step in the same direction". Another recurring sequence is the three notes of a major triad in the order 3-5-1, usually associated with the recurring shift from anxiety to comfort which runs through the piece. For instance, in the second movement, the first three words of "Die Erlöseten des Herrn" occur on that sequence followed by an octave leap to "Herrn" (3-5-1-8); in the fourth movement "Wohl denen, wohl denen, die..."; in the soprano solo, "Sehet mich an"; in the sixth movement, the baritone entrance: "Siehe, ich sage euch ein Geheimnis" is this three-note sequence followed by a jump of a minor seventh (3-5-1-7--the comfort is delayed but the baritone is initiating the harrowing passage which ultimately leads to it). Now this is easily verifiable (as I have just done) and it'll certainly enhance the enjoyment of the piece for any reader who is not already aware of it, but I don't remember where I first read it, so can't source it. What should I do? To post or not to post? Please advise. SingingZombie (talk) 05:24, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

I'd say not without a source, per this guideline, but it's probably on the borderline. It's an interesting observation though! Graham87 11:45, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Christocentric?

A new reference - not online unfortunately - speaks of this term that I probably don't understand, because the name Christ is carefully avoided in the selected bible words. I would like an explanation here. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:53, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure what it means, but I've added a link to the term in the main article text. Unfortunately, the abstract doesn't help at all here. Graham87 13:06, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the better ref. I read the abstract, no hint there of what is said in [[Christocentric]] (a term younger than Brahms), and his work does not mention Jesus Christ. So I think the term is wrong in this context and should be replaced. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:14, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

I've put in a request at Wikipedia:WikiProject Resource Exchange/Resource Request to get the full text of the paper. Graham87 08:24, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, Graham, for that effort. Until the discussion is resolved I suggest to have the lines in question here, not in the main article: <br /> Others have seen this ''Requiem'' as [[Christocentric]].<ref>{{cite journal| title=Brahms's Opus 45 and German Protestant Funeral Music| year=2002| last1=Leaver| first1=Robin A| journal=Journal of Musicology| volume=19|pages=616| doi=10.1525/jm.2002.19.4.616}}</ref> --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:06, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

The text was emailed to me a few hours ago, but I've only just gotten the chance to read through it: The relevant sentences are these:

There is the issue of what Hanns Christian Stekel calls "das christol- ogische Defizit" (the Christological deficit) of Ein deutsches Requiem. Reinthaler and the Bremen clergy had expectations that Brahms's op. 45 did not fulfil. They were looking for music that, if not a passion in the traditional sense, at least presented in some way the significance of the Christological event that is marked by Good Friday, the day appointed for the Bremen first performance. When Reinthaler could not persuade Brahms to compose additional music, he and the Bremen cathedral clergy arranged for further music to be heard with Ein deutsches Requiem . on that day: "Erbarme dich" from Bach's St. Matthew Passion and "I know that my Redeemer liveth," "Behold the Lamb of God," and "Hallelujah" from Handel's Messiah. But the Christological deficit of op. 45 is not a Christological absence. Even though the name of Christ is not mentioned in the text, the structure of Ein deutsches Requiem is nevertheless Christocentric in the sense that it is framed by the words of Christ, and each group of words is a beatitude.

It goes on to talk about the cyclic nature of the Requiem. The idea that the work is Christocentric doesn't seem to be a major thesis in this 24-page paper, so I don't think it should be mentioned in the main article. Graham87 12:18, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks again! If I read this right rather the opposite is true: Brahms didn't fulfill Christological hopes. To still call his work Christocentric ("in the sense" ...) seems not to go well with Brahms' intentions to have the piece console a broader audience, not only (!) Christians (and not only Germans). I agree with your conclusion. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:30, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

One more remark: the last beatitude (claimed as part of a frame) is not of Jesus but from Revelation. I removed the links to the article Christocentric as not justified. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:20, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Translation Issues

I just wanted to bring up the translation of 'Posaune' to 'trump.' My change was reverted with the explanation that this was the standard translation. Looking at various translations though, both are used, for instance: http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Corinthians%2015:52&version=NIV - given this, I want to argue for the use of 'trumpet' in this sense, since trump is archaic usage and readers unfamiliar with the passage are likely to be confused with the meaning (certainly I had to think about it for a second). vckeating (talk) 08:52, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

To make thinks more complicated: the German "Posaune" would translate to trombone, not trumpet. As this concerns the German Requiem that should be reflected, I suggest. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:10, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Never heard of a musical instrument called "trump." For some reason poets prefer trumpets over trombones. James470 (talk) 02:59, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

It's no question of poetry but how to name a known instrument that is similar to the Greek original - certainly none of our modern instruments. Martin Luther chose Posaune, that is what Brahms composed and what you hear, therefore it should be reflected in the translation, at least in brackets, if you ask me. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:01, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Is it a Requiem Mass or not?

There's been some disagreement at Requiem (disambiguation) about whether this piece should be listed under the heading "Music associated with the Requiem Mass". What this article says is: "A German Requiem is sacred but non-liturgical, and unlike a long tradition of the Latin Requiem, A German Requiem, as its title states, is a Requiem in the German language."

So it's sacred, but it's non-liturgical, but it is a Requiem, which according to that article is the same thing as a Requiem Mass. This doesn't make any sense. Is that last link to Requiem just totally wrong and it's NOT a Requiem as defined by that article? Propaniac (talk) 14:55, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Requiem has come to have a broader meaning than Requiem Mass, the Requiem article should reflect that. Ein Deutsches Requiem is no mass at all, not Latin, not liturgical. Nor is the Rutter Requiem, nor the Reger Requiem, to mention a few. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:16, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Okay, so it's the Requiem article that doesn't make sense. I can buy that. I've revised the introduction of that article so that it doesn't state at the beginning that the topic IS the Requiem Mass. Propaniac (talk) 16:31, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Is Nancy Thuleen link a reliable source?

According to her homepage this is just a collection of undergrad and grad school essays that she's posted on the internet for a while. There's no reason to treat her as a reliable source. Moreover, her essays contain individual citations to the scholarly literature so it's those references that should be checked and then cited to. On at least one occasion, in her "German Requiem" article, she cites a source stating that the Franco-Prussian War ended in 1866! So either her source or her citation is incorrect there; it would be wise since she does not appear to meet WP:RS any more than if she had put up her undergraduate essays on a geocities page, for such references to be checked rather than simply changing our references to match her citations without double-checking them. TheGrappler (talk) 17:24, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

She's way more reliable than the Wikipedia geniuses who wrote David Beckham was a Chinese goalkeeper in the 18th century, or the Brian Chase who slandered Seigenthaler, or Essjay. I probably wouldn't cite her in anything I wrote to get paid for, but for Wikipedia she's just plain fine. James470 (talk) 02:36, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Recording

There's an incredible recording by CARLO MARIA GIULINI conductor Barbara Bonney soprano, Andreas Schmidt bariton, Wiener Philarmoniker, Konzertvereinigung Wiener Staatsopernchor, Walter Hagen-Groll Chorus Master - DEUTSCHE GRAMMOPHON edition 445 546-2 For a correct learning of this score that's important to hear it. It's really an excellent document, a materpiece of recording history. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.40.170.50 (talk • contribs) 13:01, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

It just happens to be used in the listening guide in the external links. I'll add it to the notable recordings section. Graham87 13:56, 24 March 2011 (UTC)