Talk:Variations and Fugue on a Theme by Handel

Score in the article?

It's nice to see the score in the article, but I wonder if it's overkill. For those who are hungry to get their hands on the score, there is an IMSLP link to a PDF version of the score. If you needed musical examples to illustrate observations or analyses, then I'm all for it, but I doubt its usefulness as things stand. --Blehfu (talk) 04:11, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Surely the score is worth providing for musicians. Pianists who have heard about the work and wonder if it's within their range will want to see it, as well as people who want a quick overview of what Brahms used in terms of technique, others who can "hear" music as they read a score, and so on. Flipping back and forth between the article and a pdf score from IMSLP is not the same as having the music in front of you. I hope to add more discussion and descriptions in an attempt to communicate what makes this work so great. What was left here before, a bare listing of the movement titles (Variation I. Più vivo, Variation II. Animato, Variation III. Dolce, scherzando, etc.) had next to no meaning. You say, "I doubt its usefulness as things stand." Does that mean you might delete all the images? -- deschreiber —Preceding undated comment was added at 14:06, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

As I mentioned already, at the bottom of the page is the following link which provides access to the score, free of charge; considering the breadth of their collection as well as other sites (none the least include NMA which offers the complete works of Mozart), they're very common on classical music articles. So providing the score just so that pianists can see it is a very limited scope indeed, considering that this option is available. In short, I think the use of musical examples would much more effective from a readability standpoint if it were to approach something along the lines of the article on the Goldberg Variations. (disclaimer: I am a pianist) --Blehfu (talk) 16:52, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

PS. Apologies on my sloppy edits last night, thanks for fixing them. More sleep and less wikipedia is in order. --Blehfu (talk) 16:54, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

I had in mind less the article on the Goldberg Variations and more the article on the Diabelli Variations, most of which I wrote last summer and which did not raise the alarms being raised here. -- deschreiber —Preceding undated comment was added at 13:46, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

The article on the Diabelli Variations looks more balanced, visually, as the score examples don't overpower the text. I've retooled the layout; tell me what you think. If you do not plan on adding more prose, it can be tweaked easily to have two pages in a row. --Blehfu (talk) 15:55, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

I like the re-tooling very much. The article on the Diabelli Variations might be improved with such a makeover. I am in the process of adding more text to each variation, as much of it as seems worthwhile. It does take time, though, observations for some variations coming much more easily than others, and time not always being as freely available as I would wish. Deschreiber

After comparing this article with the article on the Diabelli Variations, I wonder if it might be a good idea to replace each image here with a smaller version. What do you think? With the DV I tried to get them as small as possible while keeping them still readable. Here it would certainly improve the balance on the page between text and image. Deschreiber —Preceding undated comment was added at 11:54, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

reporting plagiarism

When I made changes and additions to the article this morning, I wasn't aware that some of what had been posted by others earlier was plagiarized. If I had, I would have noted that a fact upon saving the page. The original source is at http://www.spiritus-temporis.com/variations-and-fugue-on-a-theme-by-handel/. I hope my re-writing has reduced it. A major re-write might be worth doing. -- deschreiber —Preceding undated comment was added at 14:15, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

What you've found there is one of the countless wikipedia copycats that crawl articles and copy them verbatim. It's totally legal, too. --Blehfu (talk) 17:12, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

citations needed?

I'm puzzled by the request for citations for simple, well-known facts such as that Brahms was a serious collector of music manuscripts or that he incorporated older compositional practices into his own music. I can run off, flip through a source here or there and, with some effort, find a passage to reference in a footnote, but aren't these facts of common Brahmsian knowledge not needing a footnote, just as I wouldn't expect to footnote the name of his father, the number of sets of variations he wrote before the Handel Variations or the fact that he disliked "the music of the future"? Would I, for example, need to footnote a "claim" that many of Beethoven's manuscripts verge on illegibility? Deschreiber (talk) 14:05, 31 July 2008 (UTC)deschreiber

I have a reflex when it comes to encountering a certain tone of writing. There's another party involved in writing about him or analyzing music. As for the name of Brahms' father, being a serious collector, and the illegibility of Beethoven's manuscript, no reference necessary, but disliking the "music of the future", especially if it is from a direct quotation, I think deserves a citation. I will remove the cn tags, but still feel that citations would be helpful. Wikipedia:When_to_cite Wikipedia:Cite_sources#When_to_cite_sources --Blehfu (talk) 15:23, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

I'll go look up some references (or perhaps supporting facts?), even though I believe Brahms's historical position is almost defined by his opposition to the school of Liszt and Wagner; it is a thread that runs throughout his biographies; however, I will defer to your judgement. I'll also look for the tone that caught your attention. As I wrote, I admit I was aware of some raggedness in the transition at those spots. Deschreiber —Preceding undated comment was added at 17:18, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Structure section/original research

Deschreiber, I would be careful with the way the structure section is written; when dealing with this type of analysis, it can be a fine line between this and original research. --Blehfu (talk) 11:54, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand your concern. In my comments on each variation, I've tried to be as objectively descriptive (verifiable) as possible. I've included less strictly factual descriptions of tone and so forth because a technical description alone is only part of the story, and arguably not the most important part.

Because so much of my effort here does not meet your standards - once or twice a day - (how different from my work on the Diabelli Variations!), I will pause to reconsider whether I want to go on any further. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Deschreiber (talk • contribs) 12:04, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

I said "be careful," not "you're in the wrong." There's maybe a sentence or two that comes close, IMHO, so that's why I wanted to draw your attention to the above link. I apologize if I come across as stuffy; you can just say, "Yes, I'm well aware of 'or'," and I'll go away; if you aren't familiar with it, please do look at it. I by no means want you to stop editing. I am just another editor, so you can take my advice or leave it, as applies to anyone else including myself. --Blehfu (talk) 12:21, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

I'll give you specific examples. Usually, a word or two can be changed.

• "A bravura variation which has been called an etude for the Second Piano Concerto." In a statement like this, there's no way around it: You must specify who has called it such.
• "The Baroque is clearly evident in this gavotte." This can be easily elaborated to something like, "This movement is Baroque in style in its use of gavotte style." Words like "clearly" may assume too much; it's only an issue of tone.
• ..."distinctly modern feeling". I would suggest perhaps "approaching the style of Brahms' contemporaries of the 19th century" or something. In this case, "modern" is very relative.

I do appreciate your edits; I would not have set to change the layout of the entire section if I did not. If you feel as strongly about your edits as I do mine, I will respect that. --Blehfu (talk) 12:43, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Some comments, questions, and corrections

I like what you have going here. I see that you haven't yet discoursed upon the fugue. Good luck with that. Some things I noticed, which I leave to you to discard or include:

Variation 1: Is it true that "staccato touch and syncopated accents" are "distinctly non-baroque"? That sounds disputable.

Variation 3: Could mention that this is a study in appoggiaturas - consequently, this variation has a distinctly lilting but disorienting sound.

Variation 4: Continues the rhythmic experimentation of the last variation. Should mention that the syncopation takes the stress to the last sixteenth of almost every beat. This rhythm shows up all over the place in Brahms. If I recall correctly, the last movement of his 1st piano sonata has a similar charging syncopation.

Variation 5: Definitely not in Db major -- Bb minor, rather.

Variation 6: Still Bb minor. It should be noted that Brahms tries out inverted canon for a couple measures in the second half.

Variation 7: I am not sure that there is "increased use of staccato in the second half." I have never heard anyone give up on the staccatos after the first measure as the score would seem to indicate. The situation is substantially the same as in Variation 4 were Brahms only wrote dots over a few chords at the beginning. Brahms is relying on the good sense of the executant to keep playing staccato. Perhaps his hand was tired or ink was scarce I don't know.

Variation 8: More remarkable than the monotonous accompaniment is the way Brahms takes the two voices of the right hand and flips them. Look and you'll see. Also, the anapestic rhythm is taken from the previous variation. You might want to mention at some point how the many variations fall into little groups. 5 and 6, 7 and 8, and 23 through 25 are the most obvious.

Variation 9: Highly chromatic. I always found Brahms' pedal markings here intriguing. (I am not suggesting that my subjective reaction is important enough to include in your article!) If followed literally, they makes some pretty ugly sounds. In fact... I'm not sure that those pedal markings are Brahms' or some intrepid, inventive editor's. If they are not original, they were probably designed to help the performer create the illusion that s/he is holding the long notes that bracket the range, top and bottom.

Variation 13: I think it was Malcolm MacDonald who said the ornamentation in this variation sounded at once Baroque and "Hungarian." Rolled chords in the LH are reminiscent of a guitar strummed.

Variation 16: Also a canon.

Variation 17: For the sake of consistency, if you are going to mention the short crescendos and decrescendos here you should do so everywhere. They certainly are not distinctive of this variation. It strikes me that Brahms indulged in only a very few prolonged, arching crescendos in this piece (e.g. variations 23 through 25 and the build up to the denouement in the fugue). The rest of the time, the dynamics are terraced in "Baroque" fashion. Can you find any mf or mp markings?

Variation 19: A siciliana, in fact.

That's all I have to say. Keep up the good work! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wisemanofgotham (talk • contribs) 05:03, 7 August 2008 (UTC) --Wisemanofgotham (talk) 05:07, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Excellent! Thank you. I will certainly incorporate your comments in the article. With your obvious interest and technical background, you should consider editing the article yourself. I am an amateur (although a great lover of the Handel Variations) and stepped in simply because the original article was virtually empty. You're right about the fugue - I'm at a loss for words at the moment. I have some books on order from the library that might give me something, but you are more than welcome to help out. Again, thanks for your contributions so far. 99.254.216.187 (talk) 14:03, 9 August 2008 (UTC) dschreiber

Some questions I hope may be of interest. Variations 23 and 24: Brahms shifts from 4/4 to 12/8 in these two variations, and that has a lot to do with the rising tension that leads into the final 25th, which returns to 4/4 time. Do you think he does this because he has in mind variations 3 and 4 of Handel's Aria con variazioni? There too you have a shift from 4/4 to 12/8, and then a return to 4/4 in the fifth and final variation. The shift in meters has a lot to do with the rising tension that finally explodes in Variation 25.

Another point that makes me wonder if Brahms' variations are not just on a theme by Handel, but on Handel's variations as well. Much is made of the importance Brahms saw in basic chords in the composition of his work; so, notice in Handel's variation 2 how he brings these chords to the treble/right hand? He's playing out for us the much-admired chordal basis of the theme.

My last inquiry is to the experts (I'm an amateur but like others have loved Op. 24 for as long as I can remember). Do you think that in performance it might be interesting to play first Handel's Aria con variazioni, and then Op. 24? In some ways Brhams seems to me to have composed variations and fugue on Handel's theme and variations, not just the theme alone. So would it make performing sense to play Handel, and then play Brahms (starting of course with the theme again)?Mutatsetatum (talk) 13:34, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Good questions. Keep in mind that we're just editors here, though. What we're looking for is references that answer these questions, not to try and answer these questions ourselves. (looks like there's plenty of stuff written out there though, we'll just have to try and hunt it down). Thanks. DavidRF (talk) 17:07, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

New sections

I didn't change any text, just sorted it a bit, sorted into some sections. Tovey and Swafford quotes look good in the header. --Blehfu (talk) 04:42, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Removal of paragraph

I removed a paragraph relating to one of George Henschel's anecdotes about Brahms, per this edit summary. Judging by George Henschel's text, it happened a full 15 years after Brahms composed the Variations and Fugue on a Theme by Handel. It's probably illustrative, but doesn't fit chronologically. Graham87 05:44, 5 February 2010 (UTC)