Talk:Johannes Brahms/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Attempt at clarification

Can you please discuss about the placement of these two sentences instead of doing an edit war and move it back-and-forth? andy 15:02, 13 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Lir's version makes no sense. Just read his first paragraph. --Wik 15:06, Nov 13, 2003 (UTC)

Picture of Brahms's piano

I'm hoping there won't be any more edit wars about the picture of Brahms's piano (thanks, Camembert, for your patient participation). But since the image has now been removed twice, I'd like to give some justification for it.

Musicologists (and many classical music lovers) care a lot about the instruments that composers wrote for, because it makes a difference to understanding the music. For example, this is why much effort has gone into learning how to build (and perform on) the harpsichords of Bach and Scarlatti's day, as well as the pianos of Mozart and Beethoven's day.

While to my knowledge, almost everybody at the moment seems to be content to play Brahms's piano music on a regular Steinway grand, the fact is that his own piano did not sound like a Steinway, particularly earlier on in his career. It therefore would be reasonable to find out if there are benefits to performing Brahms on a piano of the type he actually wrote the music for. The museum that shows the image is in fact sponsoring efforts of this kind.

It's true that showing a picture of Brahms's piano is merely giving a nod to these considerations. But it's a first step, and it's only a matter of time before we can add to the Wikipedia some comparative sound files of performances of the same works by Brahms on "authentic" vs. modern pianos. This would be of real help, I think, to people interested in the authentic instrument question as it concerns Brahms's music. Cheers, Opus33 00:39, 6 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Needed corrections

The sections dealing with Brahms' early life are faulty, claiming that he grew up in a slum and had to help pay the family bills by playing in brothels... Does anyone have an account other than Swafford? +sj+ 23:47, 2004 Apr 12 (UTC)

I don't think it says he grew up in a slum, does it? If the bit about him playing in brothels is incorrect, then you should probably change it, but it may be worth saying "contrary to some sources, Brahms did not play the piano in brothels...", since it's quite a widely mentioned "fact". --Camembert

I checked the New Grove on this. It looks like Brahms's family wasn't all that well off, though they were not outright impoverished. Brahms did perform child labor (hardly unusual at the time), but the evidence now suggests it was in locations appropriate for a child. New text tries to reflect this. Opus33 04:21, 13 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Thanks Sj for pointing this out, and Opus33 for putting it right :) --Camembert

The Oxford Companion to Music says: "Brahms was born to a respectable family of limited means. His father, Johann Jakob, earned a living as a freelance musician playing the flute, violin, cello, horn, and double bass, as needed. Arriving as a young man in Hamburg from Schleswig-Holstein, Johann Jakob saved enough money within a few years to apply for Hamburg citizenship and soon afterwards moved to a better part of the town. There he married his landlady, Christiana Nissen, a seamstess 17 years his elder, intelligent and steady. Within five years there were three children, the second of whom was Johannes, born in Hamburg's old district of narrow streets, the Gängeviertel. The family remained there for only six more months, moving away before it gained its later unsavoury reputation, but the address of Brahms's birth has led to a long-standing misconception that his early life was lived in poverty." So basically, by this, he was not poor, nor was the Gängeviertel a slum when he lived there (for a grand total of six months, at that) as the main article suggests. The Oxford Companion goes on: "In fact, Brahms spent his formative years away from the Gängeviertel and far from the infamous docks of the Elbe, in a small house on the Dammtorwall, the northern perimeter of Hamburg in the Inner Alster." ...yadda yadda... "Many biographies of Brahms mention poverty and the consequent necessity for him to earn money playing in brothels and unsavory 'Lokals'. Although money was always an issue for the Brahms family, there is no good evidence for these stories, and much to challenge them. Recent searches of historical records disclose the picture of a family at the lower end of the middle class, labouring - succeeding - to make ends meet."

Classical composer?

I took off the Category entry saying that Brahms was a Classical composer. After all, he was born in 1833, a generation after the first (ca. 1810) generation of Romantics. And I've never seen any published writing on music that called Brahms a Classical composer. Rather, he is described as a Romantic composer who venerated the Classical composers and was greatly influenced by them.

Also, these terms are rather conventional (how could they ever be objective?), so we should provide the conventional story. Probably a student who reads the Wikipedia as a source for a term paper (does this happen? Oh Lord...) and said that Brahms was a Classical composer would have points taken off by his teacher. Cheers, Opus33 16:28, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Okay, but the reason why I added the category was because "Classical composers" is meant to refer to any composer who wrote in the traditional forms, AKA classical music. "Classical era composers" is what you were mistaken for. These composers lived and wrote music specifically during this era. This category I transposed all Classical era composers to this from "Classical composers". Any questions? Marcus2 14:38, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Hi Marcus2, In principle your point is valid, but we ought to think from the reader's point of view. The ambiguity of the word "classical" is a pervasive problem in trying to write clearly about classical music, and it's useful to be always on the watch against trouble that could result from the ambiguity. In this particular case, if the reader sees the sequence "Romantic composers, Classical composers", (s)he will be likely to fall into the trap of reading "Classical" in its narrow sense--just as I did.

Now, my understanding is that if you list a subcategory like "Romantic composers", this will cause the entry to be percolated up to the larger category. So if we take away the "Classical composers" category, Brahms wouldn't be lost from the Classical composers list. Somewhere there's even a directive from Categories Central that we shouldn't use the supercategory if we're using a subcategory of it.

So, I propose to wait a bit to see if you have a cow about this, and if not, to revert again. Happy editing, Opus33 20:41, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Chabrol

Ogg, thanks for adding the film reference. Can you specify which of the Four Last Songs? Together they run for about 20 minutes, so I doubt it's all of them... Opus33 17:36, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Sailors; was Brahms gay?

I'm tentatively reverting this passage:

This story may have been fuelled by the fact that Hamburg was a busy seaport with its sailors form all over the world and the need for them to satisfy their need for companionship may have resulted in an influx of prostitutes and the subsequent mushrooming of brothels in the poor quarter of the city. His homosexuality was often hinted at as a result of his decision not to marry with tales of his early childhood playing the piano at the brothels cited as a possible reason but these remained unsubstantiated.

for two reasons.

The first part of it seems to be more about Hamburg than about Brahms. Can't the reader just assume that any large 19th century European city had a red-light district? The long discussion interrupts the narrative of Brahm's childhood quite a bit.

The second part assumes that Brahms was gay, but I don't think this is necessarily the mainstream scholarly opinion. If the article is going to go into the question of whether Brahms was gay (fine with me if anyone wants to do it), it should cite biographies that treat this question with care.

Respectfully, Opus33 16:14, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Nope. He was madly in love with Clara Schumann for a while, and later had several "lesser" infatuations (and even one pre-engagement) with other women. He was a definitely a skirt-chaser, and was constantly in the company of women he considered attractive. He lamented to friends about how he had sacrificed a wife and children for his art. HammerFilmFan (talk) 02:25, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Remenyi, Liszt, ...

Has this already been hashed out? Alan Walker (Liszt:The Weimar Years, ISBN 0801497213) presents a case that the usual account (Brahms sleeping through Liszt playing through the b minor sonata, not suggested by the tone of what's in the article here) is basically accurate and in fact originates with Remenyi. Schissel 00:45, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Hi Schissel, No, I don't think it's been hashed out. If you've got the facts from a good source, by all means put them in.

However, my feeling is that, in its present location, the anecdote interrupts the narrative rather badly. Can we perhaps relocate it somewhere else, e.g. as a anecdote about what Brahms was like as a person? Opus33 02:59, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Of course! The account as given by Walker (pp 229-30 of the 1993 paperback edition of his book) can be summarized about so -- Brahms arrives with Remenyi in Weimar (June 1853,) bringing his recently completed, unpublished e-flat scherzo. Liszt plays this for the assembled company, which surprises Brahms (but not the others, who know Liszt's sight-reading abilities.)

Liszt then takes out his own - also recently-finished - b-minor sonata, a work of which Liszt was known to be particularly fond (finished February 2, 1853 according to the manuscript; this may have been of the first version, the one with the loud ending?- though not otherwise, I think, much different,) begins to play.

"At a particularly expressive moment, Liszt cast a glance at his listeners, only to observe Brahms dozing in his chair." There's more to the tale, of course, and also many back-and-forth footnotes (characteristically for Walker.) It is true according to Walker apparently that Reményi left earlier than Brahms - 'did not wish to be associated with the hostility' -- the beginnings or near beginnings of the War of the Romantics... (*blink* red-linked?)

He sources the story to Edouard Reményi, Musician, Litterateur, and Man: An Appreciation, with Sketches of His Life and Artistic Career by Friends and Contemporaries - compiled by G.D. Kelly and G.P. Upton, published by Chicago, 1966- and past that, to an interview given by the violinist to the New York Herald in January 1879. Until I read that interview I'll be just that bit more uncertain about this account myself, really!

Need to try to organize that hash of a set of paragiraffes *ow*... Schissel 13:05, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Oh my, look at that red link! Doing anything today?  :-) It would certainly be a great anecdote to add to an article on the War of the Romantics (I'm wondering if it was also called something else? that whole controversy between Brahms, Schumann, Mendelssohn et al. vs Liszt, Wagner, Berlioz with Hanslick as a prominent propagandist I don't recall ever having a universally accepted name--but what a fun and necessary article to write!) Actually I wonder if Brahms was dozing not because he was bored, but because he was exhausted from the horrific journey. I've done that myself ... Antandrus 15:51, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)

To my mind the War of the Romantics was in some way/some part/partially/lots of (necessary!) hedge-words -- a conflict between classicizing tendencies and 'progressive' tendencies. (That we can see the mingling, the Progressive Brahms* and the Classic Liszt, is all the luckier for us?) Walker considers exhaustion, responds that Brahms seemed awake enough when his scherzo was played. (Walker recounts Liszt playing Brahms' scherzo because of described nervousness on Brahms' part rather than exhaustion.) But: of course exhaustion doesn't set in immediately, so... and round-and-round one goes? To paraphrase a bit from the footnotes, Geiringer and others have dismissed Reményi's account while Mason (a Liszt pupil who kept an account of his years there- published in 1901) accepted it.

Both Mason and (Karl) Klindworth maintain that Brahms and Reményi left Weimar the next day; however, they stayed (Walker claims- I am not sure of his source here!) for three weeks, but did then part company from each other. (After which Brahms met Schumann.)

As to Liszt being offended by Brahms' behavior-

Liszt got up and left the room without explanation after playing the sonata (apparently disturbed?)

Brahms was (perhaps among the few? Walker tries to make a case throughout his book for Liszt's separation of genius from personality, and willingness to conduct/perform people he'd since gotten on bad terms with, but I don't think he always provides the best evidence on this; for instance, he does mention orchestral performances of Ferdinand Hiller's music but they don't seem to precede the (worst of?) that break) composers who Liszt, whether in conducting, transcribing, playing - did not touch.

Need to reread e.g. Calum McDonald's Brahms but I think Brahms returned the favor!

* I like Schoenberg's essay on this but don't think it goes nearly far enough. Not anywhere nearly. :) Schissel 16:35, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Hrm!.... It then becomes a forwards-backwards - yes, but he said.. - argument, and apparently one in which Brahms wasn't very interested either. More interesting is the Manifesto that Brahms signed - and may have written/co-written - that leaked in the pages of the Berliner Musik-Zeitung Echo and eventually into the Neue Zeitschrift fur Musik (see pp 349-50 of the same Walker, for instance- document figures prominently in that War of the Romantics which I agree deserves an article) -- being printed after only gaining four signatures of the many requested/canvassed manifesto --

the manifesto, which basically lamented (what its authors saw as) the increasing tendency of the magazine (the very same Neue Zeitschrift fur Musik into which it was leaked, a still-existing music magazine whose concert/music reviewers had some clout for some while- perhaps still?) to favor the music of Liszt's New German School* as against more traditional composition (in ways reminiscent of Liszt's description of Schumann's piano quintet as 'Leipzigerisch' alluded to in Piano Quintet (Schumann) -- this occasion also described in Walker, btw...)

* Matter for a section of an article on the War of the Romantics if not for an article of its own. A number of its members have articles already, of course (e.g. Felix Draeseke, Julius Reubke, Joachim Raff (more debatable than some others, biographically and musically!) Schissel 20:57, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)

A commonly used term was Music of the Future (which, alas, is also red-linked) to describe Liszt and the music he was championing. I wonder what other subtopics under the musical Romantic Era we could dig up, that are also missing articles? Music drama, for one (actually opera itself is woefully underfed). I realize this is all getting off-topic of Brahms, but we never did find ourselves a general Classical Music Café at which to chat about these things. Antandrus 22:10, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)

(And Liszt isn't mentioned in Weimar - <Leslie Nielsen>Yet</Leslie Nielsen>...) And while the Manifesto does relate to Brahms at least vaguely, since he never claimed his signature was forged :) (I don't know how strong the evidence is that he wrote the thing, I guess it wouldn't surprise me, badbadPOVbad!) it would also belong in the other article too. (A.t. Walker Music of the Future was the initial name for Liszt et al- deriving either from Wagner or Caroline v. S-Wittgenstein? maybe someone else?, replaced later by New German School -announced at a meeting of a society (this is another aspect; the Society of Murls as a concept, and the more physical, with actual meetings, society the Tonkunstler-Versammlung (Congress of Musical Artists) whose first meeting in Leipzig featured a speech by Franz Brendel, editor of the Neue Zeitschrift, in which he suggested the new name (June 1859) (pp 511-3, Walker)... as they belatedly realized that, well, if they were writing the music of the Future, that meant everyone else was writing the music of the past, which was not an attitude to win friends and influence people, was it.

The points at issue were not just structural (people who composed in classical structures- internal to movements and external to them; Liszt wrote sonata forms sometimes, but once (that same sonata in b) it was a sonata form whose sections corresponded to the movements of a sonata, as in Schoenberg's first chamber symphony; Brahms' approach different though my own opinion- I think very POV even the parts I can present facts for, alas :) - is that, like Mozart in his own way, what Alfred Einstein called a revolutionary conservative... (actually, I wonder if something about Brahms' treatment of rhythms, etc., some aspects of his mature forms, could be written for this article. Brahms was a favorite of one of my college teachers, indeed my first of four classes with him was a student-initiated seminar on Brahms' chamber music which I remember happily... (I took way too many music courses for a math major.)

(Need to check it, but- referring now to another section of the article- besides Mozart (one of whose choral works, Venite Populi, Brahms had a hand in editing in an a capella version, according again to Alfred Einstein, who attributes Brahms' interest to its use of the double-choir technique (Gabrieli, etc?)) and Haydn Brahms also spoke well of Viotti and had an edition of some sonatas of Domenico Scarlatti, which I mention because it wasn't? common currency among composers of the time.) Schissel 22:53, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Inserting a clarification a half-month later, Brahms prepared an edition, someone (Muller) prepared an a cappella arrangement... Schissel 04:27, Nov 29, 2004 (UTC)

Maybe it is known under another name. But what... "war of the romantics" -- 19 google hits. (19? 19?) Schissel 00:17, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

That's the same reaction I had when I got the same 19. I simply don't remember a "name" for it, equivalent to, say, the "War of the Buffoons." Certainly War of the Romantics would be a great title for its article though; it's short and accurate. Antandrus 00:19, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

And catchy (and I don't even like wars) ;). The title may have to stay until and unless something else is thought of, would be my thought.

(btw, is the site http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com or somesuch a mirror of Wikipedia?)

Other fellows who figure in this of course are Eduard Hanslick and Richard Pohl (speaking of mirrors; a sort of Weimar-based critic) Schissel 00:45, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Oh yes indeed, Richard Pohl was an editor of the Neue Zeitschrift für Musik, writing under the alias of "Hoplit", and was the main opposition to Hanslick and his gang. I could put up a quickie article on him (dinner first, LOL). Oh, btw, yes, freedictionary is a Wikipedia knockoff. They download the entire database ever couple weeks or so. It's permitted by the GFDL license. Antandrus 00:50, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Whoops - I just noticed the small print at the bottom of the relevant articles. Now things begin to make sense. (And if there weren't reason already to make absolutely, positively sure of your sources before, he'd chuckle if it weren't in fact such a serious matter.)

I can start on a War of the Romantics stub but my information is limited (i.e. if I were to say responsible authorities agree that ... I'd be speaking well beyond clue.) Of course, that's what libraries are for, and there are good ones within walking/bus distance. Schissel 01:05, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

For example, now that I see that I don't have my copy of Style and Idea here as I thought I did, it's off to the library for sure and soon, too (since I quote some... random Schoenberg essay (ow.), and I know it's in that volume.) Schissel 03:28, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Cancer

We seem to be going back and forth on the melancholy subject of whether Brahms's fatal cancer was of the liver or of the pancreas. The most recent edit before mine cited the German Wikipedia as its source for it being the pancreas. But the German Wikipedia doesn't say where it's getting its information from. Checking the New Grove, I found that they say liver.

I would say that until someone here takes the time to delve into the musicological or medical journals, we'd be safest saying that scholars disagree, and that's what I have put in for now. Opus33 16:25, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Influences on Brahms

While it's pretty much common knowledge that Brahms' 1st symphony's 4th movement's theme was similar to and influenced by Beethoven's 9th symphony's Ode to Joy theme, I'm not aware of any clear influences by the Hammerklavier sonata on Brahms' work. Of course, everybody was influenced by Beethoven: I refer only clear, specific examples of influence.

Hrm. The opening of the C major piano sonata sounds fairly close to me... Schissel : bowl listen 16:21, Apr 26, 2005 (UTC)

Particularly in how it deals with Brahms's allusions to Beethoven, The first paragraph of the "influences" section is overly simplistic. It needs revision in light of sophisticated work by Bonds, Knapp, Brodbeck and others. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.12.209.135 (talk) 18:38, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Another influence to cite and include is Clara Schumann as his inspiration for the "Alto Rhapsody". SamHahn (talk) 06:28, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Delete Appearances in Film and Pop Culture and Eponyms

These sections seem to me completely trivial and add nothing substantive to the article. Brahms, as other major composers, has been used as incidental music in all kinds of media. The Star Trek connection is particularly flaky, and the Eponyms section lists only one example, though it claims more. I think that until more and better examples are found that these sections should be deleted. — J M Rice 21:54, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

I agree. An article about a movie that used a composers piece would make sense to mention the composer, but I don't think it makes equal sense for the composer page to mention every trivial film or performance --Sketchee 22:14, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

I've tried to deal with this. Pop culture is now a separate article, so people who want to read about that stuff can, and the Eponym is reduced to a labeled See Also link to Brahms inlet.

Opus33 16:03, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

Wiegenlied - Brahms lullaby

Hello, I am not an expert in this subject but there seems to be an obvious omission from this page. There does not seem to be a mention of the famous Brahms lullaby? Have I misunderstood that Brahms is indeed the author?

No, you have not, but perhaps it is a good thing that minor contribution of his is not overemphasized as it is often the case when it comes to Brahms' music. Experience maker (talk) 14:10, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

It really his most famous work. Now, maybe it shouldn't be... but the fact is that, indeed, it really IS his most famous work and it is ridiculous not to mention it here. Gingermint (talk) 02:45, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Of course. Peremptory judgments such as "minor work" just reflect an opinion; the huge popularity of this "minor work" is a good deal more objective. NaySay (talk) 14:32, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Please see WP:BIG. Toccata quarta (talk) 15:03, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Anti-Wagnerism

Can anyone comment on whether "Anti-Wagnerite/Anti-Wagnerism" was an actual term used by any of the movement's purported members? If it was not, then should it be suggested that the category name be changed to something like "Brahmsians" or "Brahmsites"? Or perhaps even more historically accurate, should both categories be changed to say "The Leipzig School" and "The Weimar School"? It seems that either of these sets of category names would be a more fair and apt classification since Brahms didn't simply oppose the likes of Wagner's music, he also made musical prescriptions of his own. Either way, getting rid of the "Anti" qualification leads to a more constructive than destructive impression. --3-13-06

Brahms knowing early music of Schoenberg (or Zemlinsky)?

Did Brahms actually look at early quartets of Schoenberg, or was it Zemlinsky's music he saw? According to the Grove article on Schoenberg, Brahms had become familiar with the early compositions of Zemlinsky. I haven't been able to find any reference to him having seen an early quartet of Schoenberg. (Yet. I'm still looking. I'd never heard anything about this before.) Antandrus (talk) 19:38, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

According to the wikipedia text in String quartets (Schoenberg) Schoenbergs first string quartet was composed in 1904, when Brahms was already dead. If it was Schoenberg's work, perhaps it wasn't a published work. Otherwise, it must have been Zemlinsky.--Atavi 20:06, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

If I had been more careful, I'd have seen that indeed he composed two early string quartets, one of them in 1897, when Brahms was still alive.--Atavi 20:08, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Actually (iirc) he wrote it in the fall of 1897 (the quartet in D major), and Brahms died in April. There's a remote chance Brahms saw a draft, but I don't think the two crossed paths. There's still a couple more books I was going to peek into though... Thanks for checking! Antandrus (talk) 20:13, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Looked it up. Schoenberg wrote his early quartet in "summer-fall" 1897. Brahms died on April 3. I think the article means to say "Zemlinsky" ... I'll go ahead and fix it.  :-) Antandrus (talk) 20:16, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Bleah, now that sentence reads like a non-sequitur, since knowing Zemlinsky's early music has nothing to do with the breakdown of tonality. Maybe it should go. Antandrus (talk) 20:19, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it seems that neither any work of Zemlinsky neither the early quartets of Schoenberg were atonal.--Atavi 01:48, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Whoops, I found this edit made by an anonymous user and reverted it. I didn't know there was a talk page discussion, sorry. - Rainwarrior 20:35, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

The discussion started about a minute after you reverted it.  ;-) I saw the anonymous edit too, and was just starting to fish through the Grove to see if it was valid. Cheers! Antandrus (talk) 20:41, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

The source for Brahms seeing an early Schoenberg Quartet - specifically the D major of 1897 - is Hanns Eisler, Materialen zu einer Dialektik der Musik (Leipzig, 1973), p.206. The passage has been translated by Malcolm MacDonald in his Brahms book. Eisler was Schoenberg’s pupil – for a while, one of his favourites – from 1919 to 1923; he was also close to Zemlinsky in the mid-1920s. He can only have heard the story direct from one of them (perhaps more likely from Zemlinsky). As it stands the account poses problems: it's generally assumed that Schoenberg composed the D major Quartet in summer 1897, yet Zemlinsky cannot have shown it to Brahms later than March. Perhaps the answer lies in the fact that, as Schoenberg told Egon Wellesz, he first presented the score to Zemlinsky for criticism when only the first two movements had been written and he had just started the third. So likely Brahms saw only this portion.Cenedi 09:34, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

I've added a link to the String quartets (Schoenberg) page, and have added some material about the D major quartet. If any of you know any more about that quartet (or any of them), please go and add your knowledge to the page! - Rainwarrior 06:14, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Legacy

I think Brahms' legacy probably amounts to more than his music's use in film and popular culture, and one "honour". --RobertG ♬ talk 09:25, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

If the legacy section isn't developed more maybe it should be removed. Some music in a movie isn't really worth being called a legacy IMO. --DarthUltima 06:27, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Schoenberg's admiration for Brahms had a lot more to do with his motivic technique than it did "odd, angular rhythmic themes," whatever that might mean. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.12.209.135 (talk) 18:45, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Chromaticism != atonality

It is (perhaps) significant that Brahms himself had considered giving up composition at a time when all notions of tonality were being stretched to their limit and that further expansion would seemingly only result in the rules of tonality being broken altogether.

Unless there is some documentary evidence, this seems to have been "noticed" retrospectively. It is only significant in light of what happened much later. Sure enough, later in the paragraph we read: "He offered substantial encouragement to Schoenberg's teacher Alexander Zemlinsky." Zemlinsky never wrote in an atonal/twelve-tone idiom, but the connection to Schoenberg seems sufficient to provide the sought-after link to atonality.

Brahms's interaction with more radical composers (especially Wagner) and with younger composers (like Zemlinsky) is interesting and important, and I agree it should be in the article. Whether the music of 1890 gestured towards atonality, though, is up for debate, and that debate probably doesn't belong in the Brahms article. Kidnapped 10:37, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Infobox

I see that the infobox ha been removed, again, There has been no discussion, let alone consensus, here, about removing it; and the consensus claimed for Wikiproject Composers does not exists, as I demonstrated recently by posting a list of those saying otherwise; and by the on-going discussion there. Andy Mabbett 18:43, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Why do you insist we have to discuss the removal of every single infobox individually? So if you were to go to Schubert's article and put up an infobox, I would have to discuss it with you before I take it down? There's already been lengthy discussions on WP:Composers, WP:Classical music and WP:Opera where everyone but you wants to see them go. Please show me this list of people who want them, because I'll set them the task of infoboxing EVERY single composer in Category:Composers by nationality. Just stop you point pushing until you have enough supporters such that you can complete the above task. Centy 18:55, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Andy Mabbett, It's already been discussed and decided that popular musician boxes should not be used on composers' or opera pages. -- Kleinzach 07:00, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

You may have decided that, but there is no consensus. Andy Mabbett

"...where everyone but you wants to see them go." - that simply isn't true. Andy Mabbett 14:54, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Portraits

The illustrations of Brahms in the present article are all from rather late in his life, and tend to convey a 'Papa Brahms' impression. But the article in New Oxford Companion to Music has what appears to be a photo (Daguerreotype?) c 1866, when he was 33 and arguably about to enter his most productive period. (The image at the front of the Dover score of the Requiem appears to be derived from this.) Any one know a web copy, or the likely copyright position? Linuxlad 14:56, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Influences

Edited a paragraph in the influences section --- I have never read anywhere the criticism that Brahms felt that Wagner's music "lacked counterpoint"; that paragraph seems to have been plagiarised without thought and verification from a minor programme note to some symphonic concert; indeed, as far as I know, in all biographies and sources we have recorded Brahms' practically unalloyed awe and enthusiasm for Wagner's music, if not necessarily concording with the directions and aims of Wagner's programme. Wagner wasn't so charitable going the other way; I have corrected the paragraph in question. -- Aug 7, 2007.

Subjects left

The omission of at least two things is immediately noted:

1. Romance life and marital status.

2. Synopsis of literature assessing his work.

These at least sound like curious subjects to me, don't you think? So... is anyone in the mood to contribute on those subjects in the article? -- Fancytales 14:31, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

• I think there's a lot more that can be said about Brahms and Clara Schumann. By most accounts he was head over heels in love with her, and she eventually with him. I know there is a paucity of evidence,mostly because of the two of them destroying their letters to each other, but can we really say that their relationship was "probably platonic"?--Bwthemoose/Talk 17:47, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

No, we can't "really" say that and we shouldn't. It remains a quasi-interesting mystery what the heck was going on with those two. Gingermint (talk) 05:36, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

I did a lot of revision in 2014, adding a lot more about Clara. A great many letters actually were not destroyed (published, 2 vols.) Marlindale (talk) 02:39, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

"G W Marks" pseudonym

By chance I’ve come across a composition here called Souvenir de la Russie, a piece for piano 4-hands. The website presents it as a work by Brahms. The front page of the music is inscribed "par G.W. Marks, Op.151" and underneath in brackets, written by hand, is "Pseudonym for J. Brahms". I wondered about this and went off to do some googling.

This says “Brahms's first compositions were written under the pseudonym of G W Marks.”

This gives it the reference “Anh 4/6” but calls the piece “spurious”. That suggests it appears in an appendix of some edition of Brahms’s collected works as a piece possibly but not definitely written by him.

This says "As a young struggling musician, Brahms made some 4-hand arrangements of other composers' works, some of which were published under the common pseudonym "G.W. Marks" by August Cranz; one such publication has definitely been identified as being by Brahms, the Souvenir de la Russie, Brahms Werkverzeichnis Anhang IV no. 6." I wonder what was meant by "the common pseudonym G W Marks".

This gives some detailed background, from a person who edited the publication in 1971 and researched its history. He concludes it is most likely the work of Brahms, but the evidence is circumstantial. It also refers to 2 other works (Opp. 158 and 160) which may also be pseudonymous works by Brahms. It also says Brahms played at a concert in 1851 under the name “Karl Würth”, so apparently he was not averse to using pseudonyms.

The Souvenir has been recorded many times, usually as a work of Brahms. What can we say about these pieces in our article? -- JackofOz 01:57, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Scores now published on the Internet

From http://www.brahms-institut.de/web/bihl_presse/info/071101_digitaler_notenschrank.html:
On 1 November 2007, the Musikhochschule Lübeck opened a Digital Score Cabinet with more that 10,000 pages of digitised first edition prints of Brahms' works. See: http://www.brahms-institut.de/web/bihl_notenschrank/ausgaben/noten_start.html.
Michael Bednarek 13:43, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Letting you know about Fritz Simrock article

Just thought you who work on this article might like to know that the article about Fritz Simrock has been created again, this time with content that actually pertains to the topic. Jindřichův Smith 22:36, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Plagiarism?

During a Google search on Brahms (I was writing a report), I came across a page on www.pianosociety.com. The "Life" section of this article strikes an uncanny resemblance to the one on this page (look especially at the section about the conflict with the "New German School"). It looks very much like plagiarism. What should we do? --~~MusicalConnoisseur~~ Got Classical? 00:40, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it's plagiarism -- but not the way you think. It appears they steal content from us. Look at the Szymanowski page and compare it to ours, to take one other random example. Lots of sites pillage our content -- it's allowed under the GFDL -- but they're supposed to acknowledge it. You can always be sure by looking at their version, and then looking carefully in the history of our articles -- if we stole from them you'd find an obvious copy-paste at some point in our article history. Cheers! Antandrus (talk) 00:53, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Took me a minute to find it, but here's the edit where Cenedi added that part. If you look carefully through the history you can see how he refined the article gradually; it couldn't possibly be a copy-paste from them. Antandrus (talk) 01:02, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. :) --~~MusicalConnoisseur~~ Got Classical? 04:40, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism

Does anyone have any idea why this article is subject to such frequent attacks of vandalism? I have worked on articles that are politically sensitive, of greater common interest, and none of them has been subject to so many attacks.

Bizarre. --Ravpapa (talk) 10:30, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Ditto on "bizarre..." I've got no clue, either. Look here; the same question has been raised on the Debussy article, too. We'd best see into protecting this article, if feasible and following the guidelines.--~~MusicalConnoisseur~~ Got Classical? 22:34, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

In my experience here, anything that is likely to be an assigned topic for school homework will be targeted by resentful children. Music appreciation, history, math, and a few other subjects seem to be singularly vulnerable. Watch how vandalism falls off after hours in the U.S. (and then commences from Australian IPs). I just went looking through a bunch of American-history-related articles for vandalism frequency, and found it to be about the same for everything that isn't already semi-protected. Permanent semiprotection may be the future of Wikipedia, I fear, though it is currently officially against policy. Oh well ... Antandrus (talk) 22:47, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

It's not against Moreschi policy. If we're getting a lot of vandalism on this article with no productive edits from IPs I'll happily semi-protect permanently. Moreschi (talk) 22:49, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

I think you guys are right. After a few more reverts, and getting a feeling not many people have this on their watchlist, I semi-protected it for 30 days. Anons, if you'd like to edit please say so here. Thanks, Antandrus (talk) 17:03, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

The right thing to do. Thank you. --Ravpapa (talk) 04:31, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Another reason is because, to some, the Schumann/Brahmsians vs. the Wagnerian-Liszt-Berlioz debate rages on (silly, but true.)HammerFilmFan (talk) 02:07, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Some attribution required?

The section on Style has an awful lot of commentary which seems pretty editorial. "His symphonies helped revive a virtually moribund genre." Is there really general agreement to this statement? "it is incorrect to characterize Brahms as a reactionary." Kind of suggests that someone does characterize him this way.

It seems some attribution to this whole section would be in order. --Ravpapa (talk) 06:26, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I agreed with you, and additionally concluded that any reliable attribution for some of the material was unlikely to be forthcoming. --RobertG ♬ talk 09:33, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Link to sheet music site

@User:Blnguyen: Why did you remove the link to Free Piano Scores added by Roparucci? It looks like a legit site to me. --Ravpapa (talk) 06:03, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Well it seems he has just linked to the front page of a website without going to a specific profile, which sets off a red alarm for me. How come I can't seem to get through to the individual samples in the back? Blnguyen (bananabucket) 02:19, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I changed the link so it goes directly to the page with the Brahms scores. --Ravpapa (talk) 05:27, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

That's fine. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 04:57, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Ballet composer?

Is this a pertinent category? Ballets have been choreographed to various works by Brahms, but he wrote no music specifically for the ballet. The Hungarian Dances and Waltzes can be danced to, but they weren't intended for it. Cenedi (talk) 14:35, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

• it is not pertinent: for the reasons you state. J. Van Meter (talk) 15:04, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

ballet music

Brahms did not write any ballet music as far as I know, but his music has been used for ballets, in particuler Brahms/Handel. — Robert Greer (talk) 17:17, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Brahms was not a ballet composer by any stretch. Tchaikovsky was. Delibes was. Prokofiev was. Stravinsky was. But Brahms? That's seriously misleading. Please, no "ballet composer" category: we're giving people the wrong idea. You might as well say he's a "video game" composer because they use the Academic Festival Overture in a shooter game somewhere. He did not write for ballet. Thanks, Antandrus (talk) 17:22, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

sorry - i removed the ballet cat from the article w/o realizing that others have been going back and forth with it today. clearly, i don't believe it is an appropriate category in this instance, but i wasn't trying to be sneaky.

the category is ballet composers. that's not 'anyone whose music has ever been used in a ballet'. if the latter were the case, even the beach boys would have to go on the list. J. Van Meter (talk) 17:48, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

The tortuous trail

I recently read something in a newspaper that caused me to ask a question here. That led me to ask another question here. One of the responses alerted me to this, where I read the following about Brahms:

"When he retired, he even destroyed manuscripts of his fifth and sixth symphonies".

Can this be true? I could believe he was working on a 5th symphony when he died (although I’ve never actually heard such a claim), but would he have been working on 2 symphonies simultaneously? Further, did he ever “retire”? I thought he just went on composing till he couldn’t any more, then died. -- JackofOz (talk) 07:56, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

I read somewhere that he mentioned a symphony in a minor to someone, perhaps Dvorak, the 1890s... perhaps it was the destruction of a symphony in a minor. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.130.198.147 (talk) 05:45, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Composer project review

I've reviewed this article as part of the Composers project review of its B-class articles. This is a fine article, possibly meriting an A rating; my full review is on the comments page. Questions and comments can be left here or on my talk page. (The hardest-to-fix issue with it is the relative lack of inline citations.) Magic♪piano 03:16, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

s's

I don't want to get into an edit war about punctuation marks, but according to the Chicago Style Manual, proper nouns in the possessive ending in sibilants take 's (see section 6.23 of the manual). Thus, Mysloop's edits, changing Brahms' to Brahms's is correct.

I wanted to raise this on the talk page before doing a revert. --Ravpapa (talk) 05:51, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

I've seen it both ways in Wikipedia. Personally I prefer the Chicago way, probably because it's the way I learned. It's not a BE/AE thing, is it? Antandrus (talk) 05:54, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, that's an issue I hadn't considered. Anyway, Mysloop did some other changes, as well, that are unassailable (changing n-dashes to m-dashes, removing extra spaces after periods). So if Aussie feels very strongly about this, he should make the changes to s' manually. --Ravpapa (talk) 06:09, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

I have great respect for style manuals generally, and CSM in particular, but in matters such as this, I believe we need to be guided in our spelling by what we would actually say out loud. Do we say "Brahmzəz <whatever>" or simply "Brahmz <whatever>"? I'd say "the Brahms Violin Concerto" (cf. the Beethoven VC), but "Brahms's Violin Concerto" (cf. Beethoven's VC). I've never seen any reason not to add the -əz to the end in speaking when making the possessive, so -'s should therefore appear in writing. True, we do hear people talking about "Brahms' Lullaby", but many of them might be assuming it was written by a person named Brahm, and if asked to write it, they'd write "Brahm's Lullaby". -- JackofOz (talk) 06:05, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

The next thread header is a fine example of this. -- JackofOz (talk) 02:33, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Traditionally, if a word ends in s, you add an apostrophe ; if it has no s, you add 's. ( Under this rule : one apostrophe, one s ; no bigamist apostrophes. ) That's the simple, traditional way. Under the old, simple ( and still correct ) rules, x's = correct ; s' = correct ( x being any non-s letter ). Doesn't everyone say Brahms' Lullaby, et c ? I've never heard any other pronunciation. ( But this is a style matter. )  :) 76.209.52.46 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 19:47, 10 October 2009 (GMT).

In spelling, there are many traditions, depending on where you were taught, when you were taught, by whom you were taught, how well you were taught, ..... As you say, it's a matter of style, not correctness one way or the other. I'm just as happy when I see an article full of Brahms' as I am to find one full of Brahms's. But I'm very unhappy when I see both forms used in the same article. -- JackofOz (talk) 20:18, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

It was brought to my attention when I was writing a scholarly paper that proper names that end in S need to still have the 's. I know, it sounds ridiculous, especially if you get a last name like Ross (i.e. Ross's) but apparently, this is the correct way to do it. The person who raised the point cited Turabian (Chicago style). I don't have my book on hand at the moment, but if anyone wants to look at the most recent edition, I'm sure you'll find the answer there. (And yes, this goes contrary to what my elementary English teachers told me as well.) — Devin.chaloux (chat) 04:04, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Brahm's childhood

I don't buy Kurt Hoffman's so-called refutation at the notion that Brahms played in the brothels of Hamburg's red-light district. Swafford's biography is extensive. It also includes an eye-witness account of someone who had seen Brahms in the company of hookers and going to the piano where he played, though Brahms was an adult by then. Brahms' childhood is revealed through his letters and statements (outbursts) to others. If Hoffman is correct, that would imply that Brahms lied through his teeth. In fact, Brahms was not only honest, he was brutally honest. Brahms's claims about his childhood are good enough for me.HammerFilmFan (talk) 19:29, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Hoffman's best argument is that these brothels would not employ children. Certainly, it is unlikely that giving beer to a thirteen year old ('two thaler and all you can drink') will appear in the books. Clearly, the (adult) Father was paid while the young Johannes did all the work. The father had lived near the docks and thus the red-light district for as much as 6 months and knew it well. I don't know about the mother's involvement though. Hoffman cannot deny that the young Brahms was put to work at 13 or 14 to bring money to the family. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 171.71.55.181 (talk) 21:20, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

I have done some more checking. German law is and was complex even in the 19th century. The age requirement mentioned by Hoffman was something specific concerning the employment of women i.e. prostitutes in these brothels. That makes sense. When it came to services involving musical entertainment, the same rule would have applied to these brothels as well as those working-class restaurants mentioned in the article by Robert Kameczura. We thus have a contradiction if the same age requirement rule applies to the young Brahms whether he played in the port brothels or the restaurants in his neighborhood. Clearly, in all cases, Brahms' father, Jakob, pocketed the money. The father tried all kinds of schemes to get money without success and Brahms' musical studies costed money. Brahm's musical ability was the one constant that could draw money for the family. It seems certain Jakob was involved. The mother is a different story. If Brahms' did indeed become pale and sick, she likely became aware of it (after the fact). We don't know what happened between the parents but we do know they divorced.

External Links and Value vs. Spam

Please do not add inappropriate external links to Wikipedia... Thank you. ThemFromSpace 15:41, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

I find it interesting that you arbitrarily remove external links while others remain. If in fact you believe the links to be spam then I would like to know how and why. I am not affiliated with Classical Connect. They are an excellent resource to listen to the composers in question. Each and every link was unique in that they went directly to the composer in question so that one might listen to artists' renditions of the composers music.

And yet, other sites have links on every composer page which offer nothing of value and the same link is plastered to every page in question, therefore should be considered as spam. For example MusOpen.com (http://siteexplorer.search.yahoo.com/search?p=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.musopen.com&bwm=i&bwmo=d&bwmf=s)among others.

So I ask you again, how are the links that I created, which are all unique URLs, of value and provide a free service and pertain to the topic at hand considered spam? It seems all arbitrary and without guidance to me.

Classical Connect is a great site for FREE listening. As such I believe it should be included as a resource. They are not requiring anything but an account sign up to listen to full-length performances of classical music. They are not a pay service, there is no hidden fee. They are a business, yes and as such need to make profit and revenue, but they are not doing it by charging users to listen to the music. Additionally, there are both composers and musicians active on the site meaning that you could connect directly to a contemporary composer ergo CC is one step between someone and that composer... So I ask you again, how is the link spam and who makes these determinations so that I can get the links veted? I am simply trying to contribute, but you seem to not desire all forms of contribution... Chrisrick 13 August 2009

5th and 6th symphonies?

From Lost work: When he retired, he even destroyed manuscripts of his fifth and sixth symphonies. There's no citation. I can believe that he made some sketches for his next symphony after the 4th was finished, but I've never heard that he was planning two more symphonies and was working on them concurrently. Can this be confirmed, or removed? -- JackofOz (talk) 21:42, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Surely you know about Schoenberg's arrangement of the G minor quartet. The sixth symphony is most likely pure wishful thinking. James470 (talk) 00:48, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Not sure of the relevance of the Schoenberg reference. What did the quartet have to do with any of Brahms's symphonies? -- JackofOz (talk) 02:30, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

That it's been called Brahms' fifth symphony. James470 (talk) 03:27, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, I never knew that. But then we're talking about Brahms destroying the manuscript of Schoenberg's arrangement of Brahms's G minor quartet, a chronological impossibility since the arangement wasn't made until 1937. -- JackofOz (talk) 20:06, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Infobox (again)

I thought we didn't do this for composers? Should we state in the article's lead that his religious beliefs were "unclear", that he died of cancer, and his parents' names? If so, put it in the lead. If not, why put it in an infobox which is just as much a part of the lead? If it's already in the lead, why state it again in an infobox? --RobertG ♬ talk 06:12, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Recommended reference

My library contains over thirty books (including the 4 volume Kalbeck biography) pertaining to Johannes Brahms. The Hans Gal (see main page, further reading) I can strongly recommend as one of the most scholarly yet readable accounts of the composer written to date.

In this year (2009), when we celebrate the 200th anniversary of the death of Franz Joseph Haydn, it is worth quoting from a letter written by Brahms to Joachim dated 2 September 1896. (Joachim had invited Brahms to join him, together with the other members of his quartet, in order to perform the f minor Piano Quintet, Opus 34.) Brahms replied: Under absolutely no circumstances! Even if you were four lovely, loveable loves instead of being serious and dignified gentlemen. I am here for only twenty-four hours and leave for Karlsbad today. So forgive me if, in the meantime, I just send my heartfelt thanks, look forward to next December, and beg for a Haydn quartet in your programme.

It was not to be. Within a little over six months of this letter having been written, Brahms was dead. Wilberfalse (talk) 20:15, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

My comment "Sources: Gal" added today agrees in recommending the Gal biography. Marlindale (talk) 04:44, 5 January 2014 (UTC) Marlindale (talk) 17:53, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Second Symphony

Long before I had read anything about the Second Symphony I have to admit to finding the work far from pastoral, sunny or any of the many similar adjectives used in connection with this, Brahms’s longest symphony. Of impeccable structure (first movement) yes, melancholic (second movement) yes, and for the rest? Well, the remark that Brahms (unlike Beethoven) could never exult is surely contradicted by the finale of the Second? I thoroughly commend Reinhold Brinkmann’s searching account of this work.

Wilberfalse (talk) 20:55, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Compared to Brahms' (Brahms's?) other symphonies, the Second certainly comes across sunny. Likewise, Vagn Holmboe's Trumpet Concerto is sunny compared to most of his other music, but definitely not compared to Haydn's. James470 (talk) 06:02, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

(in intro, 3rd §) Reference to Elgar

Describing Elgar as a "conservative" composer is a quite disputable assessment (even if this had been the dominant opinion for some time). He is often obsessed by typical early 20th century preoccupations (the angst following WWI, and the decline of the British Empire), and this can be seen in some of his works (the Second Symphony, the Cello Concerto, etc...). See for instance J.P.E. Harper-Scott, Edward Elgar, Modernist (Cambridge University Press). Should we therefore edit the sentence "[Brahms] contribution and craftsmanship have been admired by subsequent figures as diverse as the progressive Arnold Schoenberg and the conservative Edward Elgar" into "[Brahms] contribution and craftsmanship have been admired by subsequent figures as diverse as the expressionist Arnold Schoenberg and the late romanticist Edward Elgar" ? 77.207.110.229 (talk) 23:00, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

I think it is not terribly disputable. His harmony and structural ideas are not very exciting and most of his music is downright stodgy. I can't think of a reason for not considering him conservative. Gingermint (talk) 02:49, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

More Research and Less Gushing

Of course it is nice that there are Brahms fans, but this article is slightly overboard in its praise. Also, it would be nice to have less opinion and more citations. A lot less opinion would even be better! Gingermint (talk) 02:43, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

I agree. And I'm a tremendous fan of Brahms. NaySay (talk) 14:28, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Premiere of Brahms piano concerto No.2

The arcticle implies that Brahms performed the world premiere with the Meiningen Court Orchestra in 1881. I've found evidence that the premiere was in Pest, and then later that month, he performed it with the Meiningen Court Orchestra. Brahms, at the time, lived near the court orchestra and had many dealings with it, including them rehearsing his works as 'guinepigs.' It is possible that the blurb (tho as it's from naxos, it's unlikely) is incorrect, or that the article could be re-worded to make it clearer. http://www.naxos.com/mainsite/blurbs_reviews.asp?item_code=8.550506&catNum=550506&filetype=About%20this%20Recording&language=English Thewar364 (talk) 08:51, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

I wouldn't say the article "implies" that, but I agree someone could read it that way. There's no doubt the premiere was in Pest, so I've made that clear. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 12:24, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Split the list.

I split the List of compositions by Johannes Brahms page because it was loo long: List of compositions by Johannes Brahms by opus number, List of compositions by Johannes Brahms by genre. I'll go ahead and replace the links in the main page. - Gus ^{(T, C)} 2011-10-26 22:25Z

huge amount of white space at "Music of Brahms"

Someone needs to fix, please - thx. Milkunderwood (talk) 09:53, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

I strongly dislike these playlists on composers' pages, drawn from the random collection we have at Commons, but, using three browsers (IE8, Firefox, Chrome), I don't see any white space in the article. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 12:04, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Hi Michael- Here's the strange thing. I have two computers here, and although nearly all the time their displays are pretty much identical, sometimes they are not. Right now I'm on an HP running XP Pro, with a 15" flatscreen monitor; and as you say, on this computer there is no white space. But on my Dell running XP Home, with an identical monitor, which I was using last night, I still now see immediately below the "Music of Brahms" section a long list of media files on the right, and nothing but white space on the remainder of the screen until "Works" starts down below all of the media files. I've noticed a roughly similar situation in the very long list of references at the bottom of Arthur Rubinstein discography. On my Dell, I see an extremely long list of refs in a single column -- but on my HP I see two columns, side by side, with #s 1-45 on the left, and 46-89 on the right. Our readers might be using any kind of computer and display. I haven't the faintest idea what causes these differences, but I feel sure that others besides myself will be finding that white space at Brahms. Does this explanation help? Oh - my HP is running Chrome, and the Dell is running IE, I think 7. Milkunderwood (talk) 19:36, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm using Firefox and don't notice any white space. AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 19:43, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

And thanks, Michael, for getting rid of the extraneous stuff at the top of the TOC I had added. Milkunderwood (talk) 19:47, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Squirrel, I see where you moved the photo, and also now I'm not getting the white space on either computer - did you fix this also? Milkunderwood (talk) 19:55, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

If anyone would care to look, I'm a little curious whether they find one single column, or two side-by-side columns, of refs at the bottom of Arthur Rubinstein discography. This mystifies me. Milkunderwood (talk) 20:05, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

That's a known issue: Internet Explorer will not show columns, Firefox and Chrome will. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 06:04, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

It was definitely AdventurousSquirrel who fixed the white space problem by moving the photo of the grave up out of the "Music of Brahms" section title line. On my HP with Chrome there hasn't been any white space since I first looked at the page; on the Dell with IE8 (not 7), with the photo out of the title line the white space is gone, but if I "View history" from back before the photo move, all the text is again pushed down to below the media files. So that's the answer, to keep stuff from breaking title lines. And thank you Michael, for your explanation of the reflist columns. Milkunderwood (talk) 10:49, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Nice. I thought that would help. AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 17:52, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Semi-protection?

I just took a look at this article's history and found out that, in the last 500 edits, over 100 edits (if I counted correctly) have been reverted, since they constituted vandalism. Perhaps it's time for this article to get semi-protected? --Toccata quarta (talk) 21:46, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

'Wondrous Cool' by the dwsChorale or the Sound of the Apocalypse

I don't know how Wikipedia works exactly, or therefore who to address, but whoever you are in charge of this page: I am no especial Brahms lover but I can only assume either you haven't listened to this particular version and just added it as being the first that came up on youtube or google (which it unfortunately is), or you have a loathing of the composer. If the latter then fair enough, this piece is perfect. If the former, then I'll explain why it sounds so ghastly. The DWS 'chorale' is one man, David Solomons (a well-meaning lover of music and great individual no doubt), singing each part himself separately in a supremely ugly nasal voice and then mashing them together electronically to create an inhuman discord that no normal choir could produce. Today in the paper there was a story about a Kazakh athlete who was grossly offended on the rostrum at games in Kuwait because some idiot had taken the first version of the Kazakh national anthem that they found on the internet, which happened to be by Borat. I am very much hoping that the presenting on a pedestal of this disaster as an interesting, fine and representative work of Brahms to millions of people who don't necessarily know any better is similarly an accident. Even if you are by some chance D. Solomons himself, I beg you in the name of humanity keep it off Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.100.209.71 (talk) 21:38, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Picking this up late, the recordings by DwsChorale are now removed everywhere. They are, as you say, not of sufficient quality. There is a good reason for this but there's no point going through it here. Guy (Help!) 21:25, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Neoclassicism?

It might simply be that my class is incorrect, but I'm being taught that Brahms was a Neoclassical composer, who sought to return to the restraint of the Classical Era while keeping the updated tonality of Romanticism. Is there any truth to this? I can't find any reference of it on Wikipedia, I only see him being called a Romantic here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.113.44.235 (talk) 18:16, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

"Neo-classicism" refers strictly to 20th Century and later composers who wrote in the classical style (within their modern bent, of course.) Brahms does not fit into this category. As stated, he was a conservative Romantic - while using Classical-period forms, the stressing of passionate-emotion in his music is far removed from Mozart and Haydn.HammerFilmFan (talk) 02:33, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

He sort of was, but not quite. He was what is called a conservative romantic; he wanted to create new and more expressive music but retained the forms of the classical period. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.22.0.55 (talk) 17:42, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

And you oughta refer to rule one at the top of the page. 173.22.0.55 (talk) 19:22, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Infobox (3)

Again, an infobox has been added. Since its last incarnation, I don't believe that consesus has changed. It contains various howlers, like flags, wrong date order, non-notable family. I'm going to remove it. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 12:43, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

In the light of the pending arbcom case let me clarify: not added by me or another party. We know better that even proposing such a thing is not welcome. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:16, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Sources: Gal

There is of course a lot written about Brahms. The 8-volume biography by Kalbeck mentioned in the article has never been translated. There is a lot of published correspondence, also probably not translated. Also relevant are memoirs of one or more daughters of the Schumanns, one book of which I believe has been translated. The biography by Gal, now mentioned under Further Reading, I propose should be used for a few references. It is based on a lot of more primary sources and quotes from them, yet it is concise. Gal was co-editor with Mandyczewski of the Breitkopf and Haertel edition of Brahms's complete works. As the copy I have of the translation was published by Knopf in 1971 (the article now gives Weidenfeld and Nicholson, 1963) I would propose to use the Knopf version so that the page numbers I give would match up. "Johannes Brahms: His Work and Personality," by Hans Gal (Translated by Joseph Stein). Knopf, 1971. Marlindale (talk) 18:28, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Brahms and Clara Schumann

Some corrections are needed in the discussion. 1. According to Gal p. 9, it was in 1854, on Robert's confinement, not in 1856 on his death, that Brahms "hurried to Dusseldorf". One can see this just for internal consistency of the article itself, as in 1856, Brahms moved on to "Detmold and Hamburg" (his home city) as described in the next section.

2. About destruction of letters between the two: Brahms in 1887, according to Gal, proposed that he and Clara return all letters between each other for the purpose of destroying them. On Oct. 16, according to Clara's diary as quoted by Gal, p. 89, Brahms visited and returned to Clara all letters she had written to him. He requested that she give him back the letters he had written her, but she was reluctant about the whole matter and persuaded him to let her keep at least a few of those letters. Actually it seems to me that she must have kept more than a few. Gal documents a lot of events in Brahms's career by his self-reports in letters to Clara. Moreover, her daughter Marie interrupted her in the process of destroying the letters returned to her and persuaded her to keep the remaining ones.

There are volumes of published letters between Clara and Brahms. Here are some references, of course in German:

Brahms, Briefwechsel mit [exchange of letters with] Clara Schumann, Leipzig, B. Litzmann, 1927.

Clara Schumann, Johannes Brahms: Briefe aus den Jahren [Letters from the years] 1853--1896, a Google Book. Berthold Litzmann, publisher; [I have a note G. Olms, 1970] [1853 was the year Brahms first met the Schumanns; 1896 the year Clara died]

A second volume, "Band 2" in German, "Briefe aus den Jahren 1872--1896" also published by Litzmann had 1 copy available on German Amazon Jan. 3, 2014. The first volume was out of stock. Anyhow unless one has read the existing letters it is risky to say much about them. The clause "their destruction of their letters to each other may point to something beyond a desire for privacy" is hedged, but still based on a partly false premise, and the given footnote to R. A. Leonard, "The Stream of Music," is not to a specialist and I propose to omit it.

3. Mutual gratitude: In his article that launched Brahms into fame, Robert Schumann wrote "we" I suppose not in an editorial sense, but referring to himself and Clara. Gal (p. 91) writes that Brahms highly valued Clara's advice as a composer. and that as soon as he had finished a composition, he would send it to her for criticism. Later in his career, Brahms advised Clara on her compositions. On the other hand Clara and her children very much appreciated the help Brahms offered to the family in the difficult period of Robert's confinement.

4. A complex relationship: it seems that Brahms himself had conflicting feelings. According to Gal p. 90, there was a letter from Brahms to Joachim in July 1859, omitted for unknown reasons from the 1908 publication by A. Moser of Brahms-Joachim correspondence, but made known by Arthur Holde in "The Musical Quarterly" (New York: July 1959), Brahms wrote that he often had to "forcibly restrain" himself from putting his arms around Clara.

This was 6 years after Brahms first met the Schumanns, after the period 1854--1856 spent in close company, and 3 years after Robert Schumann's death.

Brahms expressed strongly loving feelings in letters to Clara. Marlindale (talk) 18:28, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

5. Wikipedia on Clara Schumann. I don't propose to use this as a reference as it could change, but some excerpts from it seem relevant and I quote them here to be handy: under `later career', second para., `Clara Schumann often took charge of the finances and general household affairs. Part of her responsibility included making money, which she did by giving concerts.'

Here `often' might apply before 1856 when Robert died and Brahms left the household, and probably became `always" from 1856. Later under `Character': `Clara Schumann was the main breadwinner for her family through giving concerts and teaching ... she refused to accept charity when a group of musicians offered to put on a benefit concert for her.' ... `Her son Ferdinand died at the age of 43 and she was required to raise his children' after her own were all grown up.

Gal, pp. 92--93 says that (in a year not stated): Brahms disapproved of Clara's tiring concert schedule, but she replied that she was anxious in providing for seven children, only two of whom had grown up at the time, and that in the next winter, the five would be at home. She also asked understanding for providing for her own future (which turned out to be long).

From all this, it seems to me that in the article on Brahms, the statement that in the two years he spent in the Schumanns' house he "found himself virtually head of the household' implausible, and I propose to say instead that he shared household responsibilities with Clara.

Marlindale (talk) 00:56, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Many but not all proposed changes have now been made in the article. Here, minor fixes made.Marlindale (talk) 23:05, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Another very minor fix.Marlindale (talk) 23:12, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Clara S's opinion on the First Symphony

In the "Works" section there are some statements about this lacking references. Someone has inserted "when?" and three times, "citation needed". That was in May 2013. The word "noted" seems not appropriate for an esthetic opinion. Maybe if this is not repaired by the end of May 2014, it should be deleted? I would not know where to look for references. I tried looking at the Brahms-Clara correspondence in the relevant period and didn't find it there. In the book by Eugenie Schumann on her parents and Brahms I also didn't find it.Marlindale (talk) 23:24, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Those tages were, correctly, added by User:Softlavender in this edit on 17 May 2013. I believe those paragraphs used to be part for some years of the section "Personality". There's much in that vicinity that needs citations or can be removed right away. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 04:23, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

===For Clara to criticize the 1st symphony, on which Brahms had worked hardest over many years, a reference seems to me very much needed. Without one I would put it in the category of hearsay. So I'm going to delete that part now.Marlindale (talk) 22:45, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Don't mix-up "critique" with "condemn" - throughout his life Brahms gave his in-progress or finished works to Joachim and Clara for their views. Sources show that he often incorporated their suggestions.HammerFilmFan (talk) 02:39, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Ragtime

I heard a story on the radio years ago that a niece of Brahms visited New Orleans and brought back, at his request, sheet music of ragtime tunes, which he was teaching himself on violin when he was bed-ridden. Anyone know of any corroborating material? BubbleDine (talk) 16:28, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

First of all, did Brahms have any niece that we know of? The story seems strange. How much did Brahms play the violin, for that matter? Marlindale (talk) 02:24, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Brahms's siblings; unable to find offspring

Brahms had an older sister Elisabeth (Elise) Wilhelmine Brahms, 1831-1892, who in 1871 when she was 40 is said to have married Johann Christian Georg Grund, then age 60, a widower and watchmaker. From Rootsweb, starting with Johannes and then looking at descendancy of his father, no offspring of Elise were found.

Brahms also had a younger brother Friedrich (Fritz), 1835-1886, a composer. WikiTree has for him "children unknown."

In the websites I looked at, I also found no further siblings of Brahms.

So it seems no nieces (or nephews) of Brahms are known. Also, late in his life, saying he had no dependents, he offered most of his estate to Dvořák. Marlindale (talk) 20:18, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Translation of "Esel"

As far as I know the translation "Ass" may be still in use in British English, in American English I think not so much. It's part of a compound-word obscenity and so may be jarring. I think the translation "simpleton" conveys the meaning well, so I plan to revert to that. Marlindale (talk) 15:59, 26 May 2015 (UTC) Marlindale (talk) 16:06, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

I suggest you restore "Jeder Esel", for people able to think themselves if simpleton is a good translation. (I doubt it but don't know something better.) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:18, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

ps: "donkey" was suggested here but same: not really good, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:20, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

ps: a source for "ass" --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:24, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Gerda provided 2 reputable sources: 1 for "donkey" (Beethovenfest), 1 for "ass" (Gunther Schuller). Unless a better source for "simpleton" can be provided, I suggest to return to the previous text, "ass", or if that, despite the primary meaning given at wikt:ass, offends US sensitivities too much, "donkey". -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 02:57, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

I'd prefer "ass" as more idiomatic and pithy; it's certainly closer to the original in effect (right Gerda?) Antandrus (talk) 03:01, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

An unabridged dictionary gives a few definitions of "ass". One is "vulgar" meaning buttocks. I believe this is the common meaning in American colloquial English and want to avoid it. It is not a translation of Esel. Another meaning has to do with various species of the genus Equus, such as donkey, I doubt that there is an English word that combines the two meanings of German Esel, literal (animal) and figurative (stupid person). I will be happy if we avoid "ass" but am not wedded to "simpleton". What about "oaf"? And I don't mind at all if people want to mention the German "Jeder Esel" that is being translated. I don't think that donkeys have a particular reputation for stupidity in the USA. I'm humbled by the editors I respect who have joined in this discussion Marlindale (talk) 03:35, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

We can't ask Brahms. I may not know enough about "ass", my impression is that it is used in more than one meaning, and the vulgarity part was not intended by Brahms, therefore I would prefer donkey. - In the carnival of the animals we have a similar analogy: "Personnages à longues oreilles" (Personages with Long Ears) meaning critics who make donkey sounds. Simpleton and ass miss the long ears. "Wer Ohren hat zu hören, der höre". Explain in a footnote, I suggest. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 05:14, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

"ass" used to be a close translation, even in American colloquial English, as it referred to a dim-witted person incapable of being reasoned with. Marlindale is correct, in that the vulgar term is what most commonly springs to mind nowdays, so "donkey" is probably better, but it doesn't quite have the right mildly insulting connotations. <sigh - another loss thanks to the prevailing culture of crassness>. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 13:40, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

I very much like the idea of a footnote, so that we can use one word in the text and another (plus the original Esel) in the note. I looked up "Esel" in a Cassell's German (to English) dictionary. For animal there were two translations, ass and donkey. Between these two, our opinion now seems to favor donkey. Translations pejorative about people were "jackass" and "dunce". There are WP articles about a TV series (2000-2002) and a movie (2002) called Jackass in which people are shown doing "wild, dangerous, self-injuring stunts." I prefer that we use "dunce." In fact I would use it in the text, with Esel and donkey in a footnote, but I await your further input. Marlindale (talk) 19:22, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

I don't understand why editors trawl dictionaries and come up with their own translations when we have two translations of this particular quote from reputable sources. I suggest to restore the original version using "he replied that any ass – jeder Esel – could see that", a version that existed here since 18 April 2007. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 02:12, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

There are others potentially to be heard from. It seems we will not have a 100 percent consensus. To answer the last contribution, dictionaries can not only suggest possible alternate definitions, but they can give reasons why some should not be used, as I thought they had. I will wait until I can tell whether there is a sufficient majority in favor of what I suggested before editing the article. Even if I do, after I do, people may see objections and we can talk about details. By the way "dunce" is maybe a synonym of "simpleton"? Marlindale (talk) 03:50, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

I cited an old (1915) German-English dictionary which has the advantage of being not so long after Brahms's time, and so might be accurate for his usage. It seems also that the meanings of "donkey" and "dunce" may not have changed materially up to now. Whereas, the meaning of "ass" in colloquial American English has drastically changed, so it is no longer suitable. Marlindale (talk) 16:10, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

Depends on context, and it is entirely suitable. The correct quote should use "ass" as that has been taught and repeated in biographies many times over for many decades. Don't make this more complicated than it is.HammerFilmFan (talk) 02:53, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Indeed. Note how Alex Ross uses "ass" in this article for The New Yorker (1-Jan-2016). -- Michael Bednarek (talk)

There is no doubt that "ass" was used in the usual, traditional translation. The New Yorker article simply quoted that. And I don't claim that Alex Ross should have used any other translation. But the fact that a translation has been used many times over the years does not necessarily mean it should now be used in WP by us. My point that "ass" has become vulgar in colloquial American English might be arguable but I did find the vulgar meaning "buttocks" in a dictionary. Not only is it a possible meaning, but one contributor to the discussion (with a numerical-rectangular username) agrees with me that the "vulgar term is what commonly springs to mind nowadays" in American usage. User:Gerda Arendt opined that the "vulgarity part" was "not intended by Brahms", so she suggested "donkey". but that is only one of the possible meanings of Esel. So there is a footnote mentioning the German and giving two translations "donkey" and "dunce." I don't recall anywhere else seeing "dunce" used, so it isn't an issue of how frequently it was used, close to zero. But it was my effort at a solution, and I don't see a good reason to change it. Marlindale (talk) 23:08, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

that a translation has been used many times over the years is exactly the reason why it ought to be used in Wikipedia. If I learned anything since 2006, it's that the opinion of editors what words supposedly mean constitutes WP:OR and is frowned upon; WP:RS &c. is fundamental for articles here. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 03:26, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

I found definitions and characterizations in dictionaries (English-English and German-English). so they are not just my opinion. In the earlier discussion in May, User:Michael Bednarek wrote that he preferred "ass" but if that "offends American sensibilities too much" he would accept "donkey" as translation of "Esel".Then why not accept "dunce," another meaning given in the German-English dictionary, and seemingly closer to Brahms's intended meaning? Is one willing now to override "American sensibilities'? Marlindale (talk) 17:36, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

In regard to WP:OR and WP:RS, I suppose references are not necessarily given on Talk pages but it may help to do so, and I will give one. The Random House Dictionary of the English Language, Random House, New York, 1966,...,1983, gives two separate clusters of definitions for "ass". The first is

"1. A long-eared, slow,... mammal, Equus sinus,

2. Any wild species of the genus Equus,

3. A stupied, foolish,or stubborn person."

The second cluster is: 'Vulgar:

1. the buttocks 2. the rectum 3. 'Slang': sexual intercourse."

This cluster is said to be variant(s) of ARSE.

So definition (1,3) is the traditional one used in translating Brahms's "Esel", but the second cluster might be called to the minds of some American readers. Marlindale (talk) 22:05, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

"Ass" is in common use in American English to mean a stupid, silly person. "Ass, n. A public singer with a good voice but no ear." (Ambrose Bierce) I don't quite understand the objection. It's a stronger word than "dunce", more dismissive, more in keeping with the original, not in any way obscene, and most importantly, the one used most often in reliable source translations. Antandrus (talk) 22:31, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

Response to User:Marlindale regarding my stance in May: Yes, in light of further evidence I changed my mind. This quote is widely used in the translation originally used in this article ("ass"), and it should be restored. It's extraordinary how the single contribution by 173.184.228.108 has created this mess. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 22:50, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

It seems that the above posts by respected User:Antandrus and User:Michael Bednarek happened within one hour after my previous one, too soon to respond to it. Why is the "vulgar" cluster of three meanings of "ass" (in an American dictionary) not a problem? Marlindale (talk) 01:06, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Because this specific quote has been used widely in respectable sources and because we don't all our readers to be of the mental capacity of Beavis & Butthead. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 03:05, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Wiktionary says under wikt:ass "Etymology 2" "Used chiefly in Norh America' (NB), from 'arse', (vulgar, slang) buttocks, or sex. Just a note. User:Michael Bednarek, The second clause in your post is unclear to me: we don't (want? expect?) all our readers to be of the mental capacity of (to have the attitudes of?) ...... Marlindale (talk) 05:15, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

1) Wiktionary is a reliable source against a widely used translation of a quote by Johannes Brahms? 2) "expect" was missing. [3). Be careful not to alter other editors' contributions.] -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 17:08, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

One, I apologize very much for putting a typo into another user's post. (Around that same time, I managed to lose the M in Marlindale. I guess I was inattentive).

For `Esel translated as `ass' in the usual translation. It is, I claim, a matter of opinion, not fact, whether because of differences over time or between continents, advancing vulgar meanings of `ass', it should be replaced by another word such as "simpleton" (actually inserted at one stage) or "dunce" as I did.

I had shown the existence of vulgar meanings of "ass" by reference to an American dictionary and showed that these meanings are found mainly in North America via Wiktionary. User:Michael Bednarek had introduced Wiktionary into the discussion and for the same word, wikt.ass, so should I not be allowed to mention "Etymology 2" of the same definition? Anyhow this does not settle the matter of opinion and certainly doesn't change what the original quote was. To see that frequencies of meanings also have changed with time, consider that there are a lot fewer donkeys around since mechanization of agriculture. The associated meaning "stupid person" is also, it's my impression, getting less common in American usage, so the vulgar meanings are getting more frequent, again this is my impression, but confirmed by User 78:26 above. Marlindale (talk) 04:34, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Lead image

New (15 June)	Old

I don't think the new lead image is an improvement over the previous one; it should be reverted. There may be a spot further down in the artice for the new one.-- Michael Bednarek (talk) 03:03, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Agree -- clearer face, for one thing. It's also fine with me to put the other image in somewhere other than the lead. Antandrus (talk) 03:27, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Johannes Brahms/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

Comment(s)

Press [show] to view →

;Composers Project Assessment of Johannes Brahms: 2009-01-2 This is an assessment of article Johannes Brahms by a member of the Composers project, according to its assessment criteria. This review was done by Magicpiano. If an article is well-cited, the reviewer is assuming that the article reflects reasonably current scholarship, and deficiencies in the historical record that are documented in a particular area will be appropriately scored. If insufficient inline citations are present, the reviewer will assume that deficiencies in that area may be cured, and that area may be scored down. Adherence to overall Wikipedia standards (WP:MOS, WP:WIAGA, WP:WIAFA) are the reviewer's opinion, and are not a substitute for the Wikipedia's processes for awarding Good Article or Featured Article status. Origins/family background/studies Does the article reflect what is known about the composer's background and childhood? If s/he received musical training as a child, who from, is the experience and nature of the early teachers' influences described? good Early career Does the article indicate when s/he started composing, discuss early style, success/failure? Are other pedagogic and personal influences from this time on his/her music discussed? good Mature career Does the article discuss his/her adult life and composition history? Are other pedagogic and personal influences from this time on his/her music discussed? good List(s) of works Are lists of the composer's works in WP, linked from this article? If there are special catalogs (e.g. Köchel for Mozart, Hoboken for Haydn), are they used? If the composer has written more than 20-30 works, any exhaustive listing should be placed in a separate article. good Critical appreciation Does the article discuss his/her style, reception by critics and the public (both during his/her life, and over time)? good Illustrations and sound clips Does the article contain images of its subject, birthplace, gravesite or other memorials, important residences, manuscript pages, museums, etc? Does it contain samples of the composer's work (as composer and/or performer, if appropriate)? (Note that since many 20th-century works are copyrighted, it may not be possible to acquire more than brief fair use samples of those works, but efforts should be made to do so.) If an article is of high enough quality, do its images and media comply with image use policy and non-free content policy? (Adherence to these is needed for Good Article or Featured Article consideration, and is apparently a common reason for nominations being quick-failed.) good, but could use more images References, sources and bibliography Does the article contain a suitable number of references? Does it contain sufficient inline citations? (For an article to pass Good Article nomination, every paragraph possibly excepting those in the lead, and every direct quotation, should have at least one footnote.) If appropriate, does it include Further Reading or Bibliography beyond the cited references? Article has references; few inline citations. Structure and compliance with WP MOS Does the article comply with Wikipedia style and layout guidelines, especially WP:MOS, WP:LEAD, WP:LAYOUT, and possibly WP:SIZE? (Article length is not generally significant, although Featured Articles Candidates may be questioned for excessive length.) lead is too short Things that may be necessary to pass a Good Article review Article requires more inline citations (WP:CITE) Article lead needs work (WP:LEAD) Article needs (more) images and/or other media (MOS:IMAGE) Summary This is a fine biography of an important musical figure. His life, works, and influence are all covered quite well. I have a few observations, which are mainly WP:MOS-related. The principal item is that the article has few inline citations -- an article of this stature ought to be well-cited. (This is undoubtedly a significant undertaking for this article.) The section of the article after the biography has but one image; my rule of thumb is that every screen of text should have at least one. The current standards for the article lead indicate this article's lead is too short; it should be four paragraphs, summarizing the article's key content. These defects will prevent the article from passing a GA or FA review; I think the article may merit an A rating, as its content appears to be fairly complete. Magic♪piano 03:12, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Last edited at 11:50, 31 October 2011 (UTC). Substituted at 20:03, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Intermezzi Op. 117

Some sources, including Piano Society, say Brahms called these "lullabies to my sorrows," as quoted in a Hyperion sleeve note, but another source, the G. Henle Verlag page on this set, quotes Brahms as saying "It should then say, lullaby of an unhappy mother or of a disconsolate bachelor". There is a problem that we don't seem to have German originals of either. I'm thinking of "sometimes called lullabies" to be less committal, and giving the Piano Society reference as it seems the least commercial, "Free Classical Recordings," of the three sites mentioned? Marlindale (talk) 17:33, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Merge sources and references

Sources and references need to be merged — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheLocalGeek (talk • contribs) 02:46, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

All the Sources look as they should (whole books); all the references now look as they should also (a reference to the entire Oxford Companion has been revised to mention that it's the short article on the Academic Festival Overture in that book, and a Swafford reference is added at that point.. Marlindale (talk) 17:02, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

German emigrants to Austria

It was recently proposed that Brahms be put in that category. It has a subcategory "German emigrants to the Austrian Empire", containing 11 individuals. A separate list of 5 names are called "German emigrants to Austria-Hungary". There are a couple of other names, one of whom is called "Austrian-born British". The article Austrian Empire says it refers to "Habsburg lands" and after 1867, "Austria-Hungary". But it seems in some WP articles it is still called "Austria" for some decades after 1867.

It seems to me better not to get into the possible complications. If Brahms were to be put into such a category then I think Beethoven has an equal claim, as both he and Brahms, and maybe several other notable composers and musicians, were born in what is now Germany and moved to Vienna. Marlindale (talk) 22:02, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

Arrival at Schumanns', fall 1853

This is minor. Apparently he came to their door 30 September but they were at the moment not at home. He came back he next day and met them, so 1 October as I put in. Marlindale (talk) 16:02, 28 June 2016 (UTC)