Talk:Gustav Mahler/Archive 5

Archived discussion

Some past discussion of this article has been moved to Archive page(s). Future archivers, please link and summarize what you moved in this section. Remember to sign & dte. ("~~~~")

• /Archive 1 - archived 8 apparently moot sections w/ posts dating from 2004 (some undated) thru June 2006 (+ 2 comments added to old topics in 2007). Topics include: titles to the sym's; key designations; cause of death; last words... —Turangalila (talk) 01:42, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
• /Archive 2 - 11 sections w/ posts fr Sep. 2005 to Sep 2006 (w/ 1 new note from me). Topics include: quotations; more on titles; bibliography/sourcing/summary style; redirect...—Turangalila (talk) 03:13, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
• /Archive 3 - 7 sections w/ posts fr May 2006 to March 2007. Topics include: minor works; orchestration particulars;Alma (bio & reliability); recordings; song quotes in the sym's...—Turangalila (talk) 03:13, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Hey, what's about Gustav Mahler's birth-place ?

One thinks the place of birth is named, usually, in the info-box or in introducting lines. The impression here is that his place of birth, a remarkable biographical information, might not even known, or something. Only "Bohemia", the region, is mentioned (btw.: Kingdom of Bohemia, then). Why ? --129.187.244.19 (talk) 10:19, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

I don't think this is a matter to go into battle over, but you may like to bear in mind that this featured article has been reviewed by fifteen or so editors at PR and FAC, and the existing wording, with the geographical detail in the main text and not in the lead, has had their approval. Articles do not get to FA without minute line-by-line scrutiny. That isn't to say they can't be improved, but caution is advisable before sailing in. Tim riley talk 16:46, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

go into battle over ? Not at all. But it's not totally understandable why, say 95 % of biography articles deliver this data in a more prominent place. Whereas here, place of birth is, yes, hidden many lines down, in masses of text. --129.187.244.19 (talk) 09:12, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

I have just clicked on the articles for 20 composers – Bliss, Berlioz, Bizet, Debussy, Delibes, Elgar, Fauré, Holst, Leibowitz, Lecocq, Massenet, Messager, Poulenc, Ravel, Saint-Saëns, Richard Strauss, Sullivan, Thomas and Vaughan Williams. None of them give the detailed place of birth in the lead. Some other composer biographies (e.g. Bach, Boulez, Chabrier and Gounod) do. Now you raise the point I think it worth discussing whether mentioning the full name of the place of birth in the lead should be our standard practice – you might like to raise the question at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Composers or Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Classical music – but at present it isn't. Tim riley talk 19:23, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, I may have missed it, but why is his place of birth worth mentioning in the lede? Nationality, sure, but province? Really? Cassianto^Talk 19:34, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

...In the mass of composers articles you thankfully named above place of birth is mentioned at least in the first one, two lines of biography section (...was born in...as son of..., and the like). Why this branch has got no infoboxes, that I don't know... --2001:A61:2B09:B901:10E0:410:52E2:F619 (talk) 08:16, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

Obituaries

I've collected some Mahler obituaries from 1911 (in English and German). Interesting not only for musicologists. I want to add these to the FA article. My proposal is a further reading section (MOS:FURTHER) containing the obituaries. Grimes2 (talk) 06:38, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

Are they used in the article as a source? To add it, simply because you find it interesting, is not a good enough reason I'm afraid. Cassianto^Talk

It is additional information. It helps to learn more about the article subject (MOS:FURTHER). Grimes2 (talk) 08:16, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

The guideline (that's all it is) uses words like "Editors may include..." It's not a given that it must include stuff. Also, note the part that says "This section is not intended as a repository for general references or full citations that were used to create the article content." If you feel that strongly about it, I would get a consensus behind you. Cassianto^Talk 08:24, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

• I have no time to look at these specific (reverted) obits right now, but generally: I think that we do add obituaries when a person dies, and obituaries of historic persons tell us something about the period and evaluation of the subject at the time. I'd be interested, probably not only in links but in mentioning some of it the article. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:11, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

The problem is, that you need free registration at RIPM to access the obituaries. I'm registered via The Wikipedia Library. Grimes2 (talk) 10:37, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

The more important it might be to have some info - not only a link - in the article. Could you propose a paragraph right here, perhaps? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:43, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

Paragraph: Vienna, May 19 - Gustav Mahler, until recently conductor of the New York Philharmonic Orchestra, died here this morning. His death was caused by angina pectoris complicated by blood poisening. Upon his return to Europe from New York he had been taken to a sanatorium at Neuilly, near Paris, but was shortly after removed to Vienna, at his urgent request. Grimes2 (talk) 11:00, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

• I support the inclusion of the obituaries in a "Further reading" section. They are not just random stuff floating around in the web, but historically relevant. As User:Gerda Arendt notes, they could even be of further use for inclusion in the article. (may does not mean must, nor does it mean must not) –Austronesier (talk) 09:36, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
• Yes, I think "Further reading" would do pretty well, and would address the objections that Cassiantio rightly raises. My original reason for putting my oar in was that I wasn't keen on the list of obits appearing as though they were sources. Adding under "Further reading" would deal with that problem. (I smile to myself at recalling that BB – the sorely-missed main editor of this article – picked me up years and years ago for adding a Further reading section chez Elgar, I think: "If they're worth mentioning, why aren't they in the text?", but I don't think he'd have frowned to see the obits added under such a heading.) – Tim riley talk 13:15, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
• If some obituaries are added to a "Further reading" section, I would hope that someone vets them to see that they are from reliable sources and each contain a substantial amount of information, not just a lazy repeat of other obits. Two good, well-written obits would be better than four slapdash or breezy ones. The one quoted above, for instance, seems to include very little interesting information at all. -- Ssilvers (talk) 02:45, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

Revolutionary new facts are rare in obituaries. Don't expect too much. They are simply historically relevant. Grimes2 (talk) 09:25, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

Ok. Condensed to two obits. Grimes2 (talk) 11:47, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

Wikidata infobox

I think that it would be great to have a wikidata infobox. I've just checked, and it would have almost the same information it has now. Moreover, if any changes were made it would be easily detected, no matter the language where it was done. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Afernandez.52 (talk • contribs) 11:11, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Fascinating. Tell me, who are you a sock of? You're not telling me you are this fluent in coding and wiki data as a new user. Cassianto^Talk 11:25, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

No. Wikidata is a steaming turd of a project. Populated with unsupported or uncited material, easily vandalised (with so many less editors to watch articles), the "data" it unthinkingly dumps into articles goes against many of the guidelines we have, and it also includes the fucking stupid pencil icons at each line. That's the initial reaction, but I could list a shed-load of more problems that mean Wikidata baoxes are utterly horrible and should never be used. p.s. Could you please try to remember to sign your comments? - SchroCat (talk) 11:42, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Infobox

Would there be objection on the addition of an infobox? Is there a large debate such as has occurred in the Mozart page that I am unaware of? Humusamirs (talk) 04:00, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

Yes, there would. Believe it or not, you are not the first to have this idea. See the archives. Johnbod (talk) 05:05, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

Vegetarianism

Gustav Mahler‎ was a vegetarian but this has been removed [1]. Indeed, there is a whole page about it here [2]. I don't see how this is "trivial". Every biography of Mahler that has been published has mentioned he is vegetarianism. Is there any real reason not to mention this? I am not saying we need an entire section on it, but the idea to whitewash any mention of it seems extreme. Psychologist Guy (talk) 12:04, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

@Psychologist Guy: "The vegetarianism that Wagner preached ... suddenly became de rigueur, and for a time Mahler, too, became a committed vegetarian. As with Wagner himself, however, the enthusiasm proved short-lived: an acquaintance of his reports seeing him tucking into a joint of meat with horseradish sauce at a restaurant in Budapest." (Fischer, p. 82). This passing fad of Mahler's is too unimportant for a place in the 9,600 words of this encyclopaedia article, in my view, particularly as it is mentioned only in passing in the full-length biographies. Where vegetarianism is of real importance in a subject's life – for example Bernard Shaw (of which article the main author of this article was joint main author) – we give it due mention. Tim riley talk 09:23, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Mahler's last days at Budapest Opera

An editor has sought to censor as "False and biased" the sentences that reads: "In 1891, Hungary's move to the political right was reflected in the opera house when Beniczky on 1 February was replaced as intendant by Count Géza Zichy, a conservative aristocrat determined to assume artistic control over Mahler's head." The source – the article in Grove by Professor Peter Franklin – reads: "On 22 January 1891 Beniczky was replaced as Intendant by the nationalist Magyar aristocrat Count Géza Zichy. His agenda, supported by the conservative press and the new political climate, was clear: to remove from Mahler all executive power over artistic decisions. Zichy, a one-armed pianist with pretensions as a poet and composer, imposed his own artistic views with a determination that was coloured by anti-Semitic prejudice". Not much room for doubt there, other than the date, which I'll check. Tim riley talk 08:33, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Later: The difference between the two dates is explained in La Grange, Vol 1, p. 222 and Fischer, p. 188. Beniczky left on 22 January, Zichy's appointment was announced on 30 January and he took up his post on 1 February. No need to change the text, I think. Tim riley talk 09:23, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

The opening part about the general political climate in Hungary (...Hungary's move to the political right...) can also be attributed to the source (in case the contestation was aimed at this part): "There had been a significant move to the nationalist-conservative right in Hungarian politics. The resignation in March of the Prime Minister Kalman Tisza and his replacement by Count Gyula Szapáry were the outward signs of a process that was clearly threatening to the Intendant, Beniczky." –Austronesier (talk) 10:02, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Concerning the 1st part of the statement (In 1891, Hungary's move to the political right was reflected in the opera house when Beniczky on 1 February was replaced as intendant):

Beniczky’s sacking had nothing to do with “a move to to the political right”. He inherited a huge deficit (Count Keglevich, his predecessor was dismissed because of it) and had to impose strict austerity measures. He had to stop all investments, cut program, wages and staff. Vacancies were not filled, guest appearances were reduced to a minimum. Expired contracts were not extended or only at a significantly lower salary. At the same time Mahler and Beniczky were expected to premiere new operas and raise the standard of opera performances. A clear "mission impossible". Nevertheless Mahler tried hard to meet the expectations and demanded more and more commitment from the actors and musicians. Beniczky and Mahler actually reduced the deficit, but the price was very high. The theater members were angry, they turned to the press, there were refusals to work, the planned program had to be changed frequently – not seldom at the last minute - and there was a lack of good performers. The repertoire - under Erkel comprised around 60 operas - sank to around 30. This had angered the audience. (Tibor Tallian’s analysis in Geza Staud (ed) “A budapesti Operaház 100 éve”, Budapest 1984, pp 63-89, and the collection of official documents in Pukánszkyné’s “Iratok a Nemzeti Szinház történetéhez” Budapest 1938, pp 591-647)

Concerning the 2nd part: (Count Géza Zichy, a conservative aristocrat determined to assume artistic control over Mahler's head.)

This statement is completely unfounded. Count Zichy had nothing to do with the state theaters until late October 1890 when he was asked whether he was willing to become intendant. For two decades he was busy with his concerts in Hungary and abroad. At the beginning of October 1890, the first rumors appeared in the press that Beniczky would be appointed lord-lieutenant of Pest castle-district by the Emperor. It happened on the 27th October. He was obliged to continue running the state-theaters until a successor was found. After all preferred candidates had rejected, Count Zichy was asked. He made certain conditions (he wanted to have the rights which were abandoned by Beniczky) and was appointed Intendant by the Emperor on January 22nd, 1891.

There is a letter of resignation from Mahler in the archives of the Budapest Opera from January 1, 1890 - at that time no one suspected that Beniczky would be sacked. According to Franklin, Mahler has been negotiating with Pollini since the summer of 1890. According to Mahler's correspondence with Pollini, the conditions were set on November 7, 1890, and according to the Wiki text the contract was signed on January 15, 1891. Zichy started on February 1st and Mahler said goodbye on March 14th. They “reigned” together for only six weeks. All these steps are recorded in contemporary newspapers and official documents.

Concerning the bias: The wiki-wording is a Monument of Objectivity and Impartiality, compared to that of the Grove or Peter Franklin or Jonathan Carr. (I put the objected statements in italic)

• Franklin’s Mahler book (page 79): “on 22. January 1891, Beniczky was officially replaced as Intendant by Count Géza Zichy, a one-armed pianist, erstwhile poet and composer and Magyar aristocrat of arrogantly conservative, nationalist and anti-Semitic persuasion. Zichy did not want Mahler to remain as director, and altered the opera’s statutes in such a way, as to ensure that he had the power of veto over anything that Mahler did.” Franklin provides no evidence to support his bias. Zichy could not alter the opera’s statutes because he as Intendant was not authorized to do so. Further, the intendant could always block his director who had to have his plans (contracts, salaries, investments) approved by the intendant. If he didn't like an idea, he simply refused it until the director came up with the "right" one. ″erstwhile poet and composer″: Zichy kept on writing until his death and he composed all his operas later.
• Grove (a partly altered text of Franklin): On 22 January 1891 Beniczky was replaced as Intendant by the nationalist Magyar aristocrat Count Géza Zichy. His agenda, supported by the conservative press and the new political climate, was clear: to remove from Mahler all executive power over artistic decisions. Zichy, a one-armed pianist with pretensions as a poet and composer, imposed his own artistic views with a determination that was coloured by anti-Semitic prejudice''". There was no new political climate and Zichy’s agenda was to act as requested by §3 of the statutes (to promote Hungarian culture, opera and artists) – badly neglected by Mahler. (In Mahler's time only a fifth of the premieres were Hungarian operas, while under Zichy half.)
• Carr’s Mahler book (page 55): “In the autumn of 1890, though, rumours grew that a fiery aristocrat, Count Geza Zichy, would take over as commissioner early in the New Year. [...] Count Zichy was a fanatical nationalist and anti-Semite who had been a concert pianist, although he had lost an arm, and fancied himself as a composer.[…] Mahler began to look for another job […]” This is pure fake. As shown previously Mahler looked for another job before Beniczky was fired. Furthermore, Carr provides no evidence to support his bias.--Farafince (talk) 19:30, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Comment on the above

This is all very – or fairly – interesting, even to someone like me who finds Mahler a tiresome bore both musically and biographically, but knocking reputable sources such as Grove because one disagrees with their summation of the facts doesn't sit well with Wikipedia's modus operandi, which is to rely on the best available published sources. The repeated objections to the descriptions of Zichy as anti-Semitic are rather beside the point as this matter is not mentioned in our article. Similarly, the sniping at the Carr book in the final bullet point above is neither here nor there as he isn't quoted or mentioned on the relevant point in our article. From a rummage in the Internet Archive and Google Books one can easily find other books that back up the statements in Frankin, Carr and Grove about the political climate, Zichy, and Mahler's manoeuvrings, and I can see no justification for altering the agreed FA text. I hope editors who are sounder on Mahler than I am will comment, and as always I'll happily go with the consensus. Tim riley talk 20:05, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

I think the way you handle this case is correct. Concerning your hope for more accurate information I am not so optimistic: Most of the Mahler biographies - like the overwhelming majority of the biographies on "great" personalities written in the last two centuries - are mere gossip collections. (Alan Walker's Franz Liszt is a very-very rare exception.) And, there are tons of them. Their authors do copy each other and repeat the same belief or superstition prayer-mill-like and try to sell them as facts - mostly with success. In case of Mahler the gossips and the distortions can be tracked back to Ludwig Karpath's really very entertaining book "Begegnung mit dem Genius" (Encounter with the Genius) published in 1934. On the other hand, without his lobbying, his press campaign Mahler would never have got the job in Vienna.--Farafince (talk) 08:33, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

From Géza Zichy's memoirs "Aus meinem Leben", Vol 3 pp 166-167 (Deutsche Verlags-Anstalt Stuttgart, 1920)

German (original)	English (my translation)
"Als ich mein Amt antrat, fand die Oper in ziemlich heruntergekommenem Zustande. Zwar waren einzelne Vorstellungen, die Mahler dirigierte, vorzüglich, aber im ganzen Personale hatte sich die Disziplin bedenklich gelockert. Mahler war ein viel zu bedeutendes Talent mit viel zu genialem Einschlage, um ein halbwegs guter Direktor sein zu können. Sein nervöses, schroffes, öfters sogar unartiges Auftraten hat mitunter das ganze Personal zur Verzweiflung getrieben.[…]	When I took office, the opera was in a rather shabby state. It is true that some of the performances that Mahler conducted were excellent, but the discipline had loosened considerably in the whole of the staff. Mahler was far too important a talent with far too ingenious impact to be a halfway good director. Sometimes, his nervous, gruff, and often naughty behavior drove the entire staff to despair.[…]
Ich befand mich in verzweifelter Lage. Auf der einen Seite wollte ich diese geniale Kraft dem Institut erhalten, auf der anderen vermochte ich das bis zum äußersten aufgeregte Personal nicht zu beruhigen. Immer häufiger traten Renitenzfälle ein. Ich unterstützte Mahler, wenn er im Rechte war, ich konnte und durfte es aber nicht, wenn er Unrecht hatte. Schließlich schien er das Unerquickliche seiner Lage selbst eingesehen zu haben und bat um seine Entlassung, die er mit einer auf meinem Vorschlag hin ihm vom Minister angewiesenen namhaften Summe auch erhielt.	I was in a desperate position. On the one hand I wanted to keep this ingenious power for the institute, on the other hand I was unable to calm the extremely angry staff. Renitencies occurred more and more frequently. I supported Mahler when he was right, but I couldn't and wasn't allowed to when he was wrong. In the end he seemed to have seen the unpleasantness of his situation himself and asked for his release, which he received with a substantial sum assigned to him by the minister at my suggestion."

@Tim riley: for your info... Farafince (talk) 12:27, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

This is interesting, and congratulations are in order for your diligent research, but I don't see anything in the above that would require any alteration of the text as it stands. I'd greatly like to know what other editors think: there must be many Mahlerians who watch this page. What think you? Tim riley talk 18:43, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

@Tim riley:I am afraid your plan does not work. I was eager to see the result of the “referendum” but - according to the pageviews statistic - only we two have accessed this discussion page. Where are the “many Mahlerians who watch this page”? (My experience is that people don’t consult discussion pages except they are directed to do so.) I think it is time to take the problem seriously. In the average 1200 viewers access the article daily. They should be provided with reliable information. I have already explained through contemporary news articles, official documents, financial reports, appointments, Mahler's own letters, Zichy's memoirs, why the statements I have objected to are false and biased. (The main problem, by the way, is that the timing of events is totally distorted in the biographers' account.) But I would be happy to see your proof that they are correct after all (to say that Franklin and / or Grove say so or “from a rummage in the Internet Archive and Google Books one can easily find other books that back up the statements”, leads nowhere):

“The 1891–2 season in Budapest opened against a background of mounting tension which led Mahler to begin negotiations with the director of the Hamburg Stadttheater, with a view to obtaining a post there. The decision proved timely. On 22 January 1891 Beniczky was replaced as Intendant by the nationalist Magyar aristocrat Count Géza Zichy. His agenda, supported by the conservative press and the new political climate, was clear: to remove from Mahler all executive power over artistic decisions. Zichy, a one-armed pianist with pretensions as a poet and composer, imposed his own artistic views with a determination that was coloured by anti-Semitic prejudice.” (This is paragraph 9 in the Budapest section of the Mahler article in Grove. You have quoted it in your intro but without the first two sentences.)--Farafince (talk) 17:12, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

If you can establish a consensus for a change, fine. Otherwise the text should stay in the agreed FA form. For my own part I have seen nothing in your lengthy submissions that seems to me to necessitate a change. Tim riley talk 17:15, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

Change to seemingly incorrect line

I've removed the 3rd symphony from the line "exceptions included his Second Symphony, Third Symphony, and the triumphant premiere of his Eighth Symphony in 1910.". I was unaware that the 3rd was so exceptionally well received and did a little digging. It appears to be supported no where in the article and indeed the FA nominator himself removed it from the lead ([3]). Please feel free to revert and discuss further if I'm missing anything. Aza24 (talk) 04:17, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

Your change seems to me spot-on, and manifestly the main editor of the article, our much missed Brian Boulton, would have agreed with you too, having made the same change himself. Typical pithy Boulton edit summary: "Sym 3 premiere was not a triumph!" Tim riley talk 13:50, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

May the reference "Snowball, p. 246" be "Snowman, p. 246"?

-Kcx36 (talk) 15:36, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

Pretty sure you are right. I fixed it. Thanks - Antandrus (talk) 15:52, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

Inviting other editors to discuss

Please consider commenting here on this discussion of a reverted edit of mine by Nikkimaria. Walton22 (talk) 22:17, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

I believe you better make your point here, not relying on new people read an already long discussion. Describe what you want to add, and why, with the sources, and then let's discuss. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:35, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

Apologies for that and thanks for the advice re better protocol. Will do as you advise later. Walton22 (talk) 22:54, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

Hello all: Gustav_Mahler#Relative_neglect,_1911–50 para 1 discusses British critics' adverse responses to Mahler's music during the period, and some examples are given. The British encyclopaedia The World of Music, as published in 1954, in its article on Mahler, decried the alleged "paucity of his ideas".. A couple of editors disagree with me adding this example. The volume is a 2000+ page encyclopaedia so was afforded large resources to be published in its time. Adding this quote marks out the range of views prevalent at the time, and shows the extent of the huge discrepancy cf. the later view of Mahler's work. Each quote is a singular view no doubt, this one no more or less, but taken together illustrate an overall view of Mahler's music which could be summarised as "poor" that had due weight at the time. If consensus could be reached I would like to reinstate this edit Walton22 (talk) 01:14, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

What leads you to believe the views of this particular source are significant, other than the length of the work? What leads you to believe including this quote would be due weight? Nikkimaria (talk) 03:26, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

It is a extremely substantial published encyclopaedia (still in circulation second-hand) that featured an iteration of a historical view of Mahler's music that was widely canvassed at that time, and which is indeed the focus of that section of the WP article, in particular as it manifested in Great Britain. It is the most strident anti-Mahler view of that time I have seen published, so suggest it is due weight to show the full range of published opinion then being promulgated, drawing out even more starkly the contrast to the later (contemporary) adulatory view of the music in order to demonstrate how very markedly (well, diametrically!) critical opinions change. I think it is incredible it was published and should be documented for posterity. Unfortunately this electronic version runs out too soon. Walton22 (talk) 05:05, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

I don't think we ought to cite the views expressed in The World of Music, which was one of those "Try free for eight days" buy-on-hire-purchase publications à la Reader's Digest et al:

The volumes are handsomely bound in imitation Lizard Skin with real Gold lettering and Blue burnished tops. The first of its kind in the world, this popular and entertaining International Encyclopedia has been skilfully compiled for the millions of Viewers and Listeners for whom no comprehensive and instructive handbook has ever been published. This is a readable, interesting guide to the world of music—both classical and popular. These are books which every music lover will be proud to own!

The editor seems to have been primarily known as a writer on botany (tree bark in particular), no authors are credited for the various articles, and the publication was not reviewed in any of the 74 music journals accessible through JSTOR. It is true that the Mahler boom had not started when the encylopaedia was published – by an amazing coincidence it began precisely as Mahler's music came out of copyright – and there were many in the 1920s to the 1950s who dismissed his music, but if we feel the need for further examples we should quote eminent critics who expressed such views rather than this anonymous and far from authoritative work. (I happen to agree with it – I think Mahler was a rotten symphonist – but that's neither here nor there nor anywhere else. I only wish the main author of the article, Brian Boulton, was still here to tell me what rubbish I'm talking.)

Having said all that, let me add that I greatly appreciate the friendly, non-confrontational approach adopted above by Walton22. − Tim riley talk 09:19, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

Thank you Tim riley for your most interesting and warm reply, and for explaining in full the not-so-illustrious provenance of the encyclopaedia, which I was gifted. There is another wild quote in its Mahler article, a grotesque ad hominem:

“lacking any understanding of human beings, [Mahler] made enemies wherever he went”.

Doubtless he was flawed, but who lacks “any” understanding of human beings? Re “enemies”, no mitigation appears regarding the virulent antisemitism of late 19th century/early 20th century Vienna. Far from having to make his own enemies, he surely would have found them ready-made for him, and in abundance.

I adore the symphonies of Mahler, as I do the two of William Walton, after whom I crafted my Wikipedia handle.

It seems the quote is not going on Wikipedia, though I am still tempted to aver it has curiosity value... Walton22 (talk) 09:34, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

Maybe I'm a bit late, but anyway: the reception of Mahler's oeuvre is well-covered in secondary sources. We're in the lucky position of not having to establish due or undue weight of primary sources that praise or belittle Mahler's work; although Tim riley makes a good case in point that the The World of Music entry isn't necessarily a voice that we have to mention here. ONly if a secondary source (like Cooke etc.) finds the critique in The World of Music significant, we could follow suite. –Austronesier (talk) 20:03, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for adding to my understanding here, Austronesier Walton22 (talk) 20:11, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

References

Veganism and vegetarianism?

This talk page was previously listed under WP:WikiProject Veganism and Vegetarianism. I'm really not sure why that's the case as the article never brings up anything remotely related to these topics. Anyways, I've gone ahead and removed the banner. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 18:51, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

@TechnoSquirrel69, it's probably because he was a vegetarian when younger, see [4]. Although, I see it as rather inconsequential whether the project tag is included here or not. – Aza24 (talk) 19:00, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

@Aza24: Thanks for the link! Though it is a mildly interesting tidbit, I'm still unconvinced this article is really of interest to the WikiProject, and agree with you that it might not matter either way. I'll leave it as is unless a WikiProject member would like to revert me. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 19:06, 4 May 2023 (UTC)