Talk:Johannes Brahms

Semi-protected edit request on 7 May 2023

This is a factual correction of an obvious error.

In the Johannes Brahms article his house in Lichtental, Austria is wrongly said to be part of Baden-Baden in Germany. The Wikipedia entry for Lichtental says "Lichtental is a part of the district of Alsergrund, Vienna. It was an independent municipality until 1850." There has probably been a confusion between the cities of Baden in Austria (about 20 miles to the south of Vienna) and Baden-Baden in Germany (hundreds of miles away). However, in any event the German language version of the article on Lichtental does not mention Baden. It is also possible that there has been a confusion between Brahms and Beethoven (who did live in Baden, Austria for a time)

ACTION

The mention and link to Baden-Baden should be removed. It could be replaced with a mention of Baden bei Wien, whose Wikipedia page is: https://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Baden_bei_Wien 90.89.76.18 (talk) 12:12, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

Removed. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:09, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

Age discrepancies

The article says he was born in 1833 and married in 1830 2603:6011:380A:1300:AC04:4601:7F9B:AC92 (talk) 14:14, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

No, it says his parents were married in 1830. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:48, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

Could someone help out?

Even after fixing many of the phrases and made them sound less argumentative, there's more that needs to be rephrased (especially under the Reception section), as well as citations (especially in the introduction and Music section). I can't do all this by myself, so could somebody lend out a helping hand? Thanks. Wikieditor662 (talk) 00:15, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

It's best to post such a query on the talkpage of a Wikiproject, so go to the one on Composers (see link at the top of this page), and also the one on Classical Music. That way you get a lot more eyes than simply those people watching this article. Softlavender (talk) 00:38, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

Hi, what is your objection to "dense in texture"? This is something of a commonplace about Brahms, right? I could see phrasing it more carefully according to one's concerns (one could qualify it, e.g., often, preferentially, contrapuntally, motivically ...), but I was surprised to see it simply stricken. MONTENSEM (talk) 05:15, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

While his music may be "dense in texture" in general, I think it's a vague adjective, and possibly opinionated.

If you wish to have his music described, I'd suggest quoting an expert. If you want, you can reword it (while still using the citation), and perhaps add examples too (and have the examples also cited). Wikieditor662 (talk) 14:28, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

I'll see what I can do over the next month or so. What follows here are some notes for myself as much as a reply ....

I would say "dense texture" is general, not vague, by which means it is able to do a lot of work in the lead concisely summarizing what is already present in the texture and other subsections.

And also what is not:

- Brahms's durchbrochene Arbeit (Swafford, Brahms, 382);

- the increasing motivic saturation;

- some of the cloudiness, ambiguity, or muddiness that Brahms is known for, particularly with the low bass melodies, e.g., in the piano music, "a number of performance practice scholars writing on Brahms's piano music have commented on the prominence of low-lying melodic lines, thickly-written accompaniments, and often dense saturation of the lower register" (Augustus Arnone);

- in the orchestral music, how it is intricate like chamber music (I think Dahlhaus talks about this also: Brahms was not writing in a declamatory or rhetorical operatic idiom ... this is also the basis on which Wagner and Bekker criticize Brahms ... and it's what Schoenberg et al. invert into a virtue) ...

any quick Google search for e.g. < "thick textures" Brahms > will doubtless summon many hits ...

More later, hopefully! Happy editing. MONTENSEM (talk) 16:37, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

for future work, Feisst's Schoenberg's New World useful cit for the arr. of op. 25 MONTENSEM (talk) 16:40, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

re: texture, what is not there, the hemiolas (some is present in the article on hemiolas) MONTENSEM (talk) 16:55, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

I greatly appreciate all the effort you're putting into this. I strongly suggest adding a source for any new information you add. Best of luck! Wikieditor662 (talk) 19:37, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

When you say it's "possibly opinionated", how do you mean? Are you concerned about the connotation of the wording? MONTENSEM (talk) 01:36, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

Re: "perhaps under the weight of high praise", is this not supported by P2 of The Schumanns and Leipzig? MONTENSEM (talk) 05:18, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

If the book that was cited is reliable and specifically stated that his high praise is potentially what led to him being self critical, then yes you can readd it and I apologize Wikieditor662 (talk) 14:32, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

No worries. It's not content I added, but there it was already, and I have also heard it many times (it's something of a Brahms truism, and the reasons given are manifold, e.g., Schumann, Wagner, polemics, shadow of Beethoven, the latter of which is something that I think most now emphasize...); so I'll take a deeper look at it sometime soon. (Not that I'm not particularly suspicious of it.)

My goal with edits so far has simply to begin work improving the article by filling in some summary gaps in the lead and elsewhere, trimming it slightly, and reorganizing/better organizing it for digestibility/standardization of format ...

One could probably argue that motifs are "deeply Romantic" as in the original phrasing I struck from the lead, but I think this requires some deep retrieve from Dahlhaus et al. in the article and maybe isn't very helpful without that as it applies to more folks than Brahms ... but it does get at the overall musical context ... MONTENSEM (talk) 16:46, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

not that I'm particularly suspicious of it* MONTENSEM (talk) 16:59, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

more to do:

- re: "deeply Romantic", retrieve from Dahlhaus on themes increasingly like motives rather than phrases/periods, might intersect with content on texture (irregular phrasing, density/intricacy/thickness)

- early works, more on influence of Schubert and as distinct from later works MONTENSEM (talk) 17:18, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

Mont, thanks for your contribution. Unfortunately, many of them veer into Original Research, some without citations and some with UNDUE or SYNTH use of sources. Relative to his contemporaries, I do not see the mainstream assessing that JB's music is overall particularly dense or intricate. SPECIFICO talk 18:16, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

You are adding the condition "relative to his contemporaries". The question was, "what is [the] objection to 'dense in texture'"? Note that there is currently an entire pre-existing section on how Brahms's textures are contrapuntal and another on the Second Viennese School's appreciation of his motivic saturation (I would personally qualify this, especially in the mature and late works). To summarize this content concisely by describing his music as "dense in texture" should not be controversial. Moreover, better reflected the content of the body than what preceded it: "Embedded within those structures are deeply Romantic motifs" (see this edit: https://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Johannes_Brahms&diff=prev&oldid=1233660581). In fact, Brahms is often cited for his dense or thick textures, and it is a more general and concise way of describing his music that encompasses both the contrapuntal features and the motivic saturation without veering into the subject of "deeply Romantic motifs" (which is not supported by the current body content and would require some content, say, from Dahlhaus and some historical retrieve to establish).

I would ask you to assume good faith and to use citation-needed tags, not to accuse me of original research. Whenever you have asked for citations, I have provided them. MONTENSEM (talk) 21:51, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

For the record, one Jeff McQuilkin in something as basic, introductory, and mainstream as The Daily Book of Classical Music: 365 Readings that Teach, Inspire, & Entertain notes Brahms's "rich textures" and "controlled Romanticism". These are not outlandish claims. They are often worded much more technically or floridly. MONTENSEM (talk) 00:35, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

To do list

- Add citations to the introduction

- Add citations under the "Music" section

- Write the text under "Reflection" more objective

- Potentially make other corrections needed

Good to do list everyone? Wikieditor662 (talk) 14:54, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

I saw that the articles for Berlioz and Debussy don't have citations in the introductions either and they're featured, so many citations aren't needed in the intro. Wikieditor662 (talk) 14:58, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

Yes, as a rule, I don't think intro citations are preferred, as the lead should summarize content from the body. Technically there is a warning against tertiary sources, but then the composers project Wikipedia page recommends Grove/Oxford Music Online ... and to be sure, a lot of what is there is no different from a secondary source and is by leading scholars of secondary sources ... MONTENSEM (talk) 16:51, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

The actual policy regarding citations in the lead is MOS:LEADCITE, but often uncited assertions creep into the lead without being supported by the article body so just watch out for that. Ligaturama (talk) 16:54, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

On this note, need to cite cello works for Hausmann (sonata 2 and double concerto) and possibly for CS (?which) in the body ... MONTENSEM (talk) 17:13, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

Op. 25

Hi @SPECIFICO. Please elaborate on your concerns with this edit: https://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Johannes_Brahms&diff=prev&oldid=1235563853. Are you simply asking for the relevance? If so, why not simply tag it? Thank you. MONTENSEM (talk) 23:45, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

You also simply deleted my hidden note to do more work: Schoenberg gave his own reasons why he orchestrated Op. 25 in particular. It's well known that Schoenberg et al. were interested in Brahms's music and why. The article already has some content on this! And Floros discusses it some on pp. 205–207: it involves the music's construction! To concisely establish explicit relevance for describing the music in these terms (albeit in still more technical terms beyond Constantin Floros's "motives" and "dissonance"), would you prefer: "Using Schoenbergian analytical techniques, Dalhaus showed that the first subject group of this quartet's exposition is built from the continuous variation of two motifs (the opening D-Bb-F#-G figure and the descending second of bar 11) developed via inversion, augmentation, and diminution, among other techniques, into concise thematic material" (citing Frisch and Dahlhaus)? MONTENSEM (talk) 00:31, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

The article currently already read (long before I came to it after seeing it from working on Schoenberg's Op. 1, if I remember correctly), "He [Schoenberg] highlighted Brahms's fondness for motivic saturation and irregularities of rhythm and phrase, terming Brahms's compositional principles 'developing variation'". MONTENSEM (talk) 00:43, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

This stuff is basic and well known. It's in program notes here. https://www.laphil.com/musicdb/pieces/2801/piano-quartet-in-g-minor-op-25 MONTENSEM (talk) 01:03, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

I'm also bewildered that you're seeking something more than relevance by casting this as an argument (i.e., demanding that the content somehow logically follow as in an argument). I did not make an argument but merely included a paraphrase of Floros's description of Brahms's Op. 25 in a relevant section on Schoenberg's orchestration of it, citing Floros. It may be the case that I should or that many have made an explicit argument, but since Floros did not, neither did I. Why demand one? Relevance is sufficient. MONTENSEM (talk) 03:24, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

I will add, someone above requested "perhaps add examples too (and have the examples also cited)." This is a worthy example for inclusion! MONTENSEM (talk) 03:32, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

My reason was simple and fully stated in my edit summary. The content may be fine elsewhere in the article. Also remember the article page is not a location for "note to self. Please use article talk or user talk for your to-do list. SPECIFICO talk 17:39, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

Where else would be more appropriate and why?

Your reason presumed there was an argument being made, as I have already said. MONTENSEM (talk) 17:47, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

@SPECIFICO, if you are concerned about relevance, a clause can be added from Dahlhaus and Frisch labeling this as an example of Brahms's developing variation. Or even from Musgrave, one could label this as an example of Brahms's immediately developing his material. There are many ways to work this into the text, or to frame it, if you will. None of these involve some sort of implicit argument per se, and it's already sort of in the text: "Brahms develops and transposes [varies] ...". I am not a mind reader. If you object to the text on the basis of there being an implicit argument (or synthesis), however badly (thus labeling it a non sequitur), then in good faith you should be explicit about your concerns the better for us to address them together to improve the encyclopedia with concrete musical examples but without or a disclaimer against whatever concerns you. MONTENSEM (talk) 11:57, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

Moreover, all of these musicologists, Floros, Dahlhaus, Frisch, and Musgrave write about this music in some relation or relations to Schoenberg (or Dahlhaus after him): Brahms's influence on Schoenberg (or if you wish to take more care at the expense of common idiom, Schoenberg's response to Brahms), Schoenberg's interest in the piece, or Schoenberg's lens on Brahms (which Nicole Grimes argues has antecedents in Brahms's contemporaries).

My goal is to expand and to strengthen this section of the article with material on Schoenberg, Reger, and Zemlinsky. (It is no coincidence that so many Brahms scholars are also Schoenberg scholars.) There may even be material on Loeffler or Beach; I'm less familiar with them. But I will need you to work with me, not simply against me, in this endeavor. It is not OK simply to label something as SYNTH, as you have done time and again to me, without elaborating on your concerns: what implication concerns you? Then your concerns can be properly addressed without simply striking relevant material. MONTENSEM (talk) 12:09, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

Well the "accident" is that fans. followers, and scholars of the Austro-Germanic tradition are unduly and singularly interested in such associations. The ONUS is on you and nobody else to

gain uspport for this content and this juxtaposition on this article page rather than, e.g. on Schonberg's page. But for him, other influences and for dating are certainly as important as Brahms, who was not ex machine the inventor of motivic and thematic development. SPECIFICO talk 17:04, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

First you explained striking the content as "non sequitur" or "SYNTH" (i.e., original research). You never identified the implicit thesis that concerned you. Now you're treating the content as an irrelevant juxtaposition.

The content is a description of developing variation and dissonance treatment in Brahms's music, specifically Op. 25, in the context of Schoenberg’s interest in Brahms and orchestration of Op. 25. Its relevance is clear. It is a juxtaposition that Floros himself makes for its contextual value as an illustrative musical example.

I ask you to restore it. MONTENSEM (talk) 16:06, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

@SPECIFICO, in response to your unsigned comment below: Then why don't we remove the details on Klemperer and Balanchine (or move them to the Op. 25 page, perhaps also there add that Stravinsky suggested Schoenberg's Brahms orchestration to Balanchine) and reinstate the description of Brahms's music, which is surely no "coatrack" and relevant to his reception?

(As far as misreading you, your edit summary was "This is either a non sequitur or intended SYNTH", and with "coatrack" and "due weight" you are indeed challenging relevance.) MONTENSEM (talk) 07:32, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

You've misrepresented my concern and apparently misunderstood it. We can't COATRACK this bit UNDUEly on this page, for the reasons I gave. Consider: If Jimmy Carter has been inspired by and pursued the teachings of Jesus, do we find Jimmy-jc on our Jesus-jc article page?