This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 |
I do not believe this institution on its own is notable enough to warrant an article. TKK bark ! 12:59, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
OK, I agree now. Thanks for the detailed presentation. Marlindale ( talk) 15:35, 12 October 2016 (UTC)h
It's Brahms's Op. 9, Variations on a Theme by Robert Schumann. Another version for piano 4 hands is Op. 23. This seems to be a relatively little-known piece not having a WP article about it. So again, I agree one may not want to draw any wide conclusion from it. Marlindale ( talk) 20:36, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
I have removed the reinstatement of a highly dubious claim in the text that counterpoint was central to Brahms's style. The new addition of a quotiation does not address the undue emphasis that I found yesterday—a single reference to what many people would nowadays regard as a not very reliable source:
"Geiriinger writes that in one piece, 'following the example of Bach's Goldberg Variations, Brahms displays all the resources of contrapuntal art'."
One piece ... right. No one doubts that Brahms could write counterpoint, and he did on occasion write passages in what we might call a contrapuntally dense style (even whole, short movements, such as within the organ chorales from his last year; this is consistent with a tendency for post-Baroque composers to use overtly contrapuntal styles in their church music ... the church was comfortable with the old-fashioned, the reference to the weight of the previous, a certain prestige from the past). Mozart did it; so did many others. Schumann (a great influence on Brahms) occasionally indulged in counterpoint, usually of a simple type, in secular works; he usually got away with it. Mendelssohn's counterpoint was usually ill-advised (his so-called fugues can be almost devoid of counterpoint). Beethoven stands out as the only contrapuntal master of the age, for reasons that have not yet been adequately explained by musicologists and music theorists.
To mount a case in a "balanced" summary article that counterpoint was central to Brahms's style is, I believe, inappropriate; and the sourced quote rather casts doubt on the thesis. It should not be included in the article, or we risk misleading readers. Naturally there's a simple kind of "orchestral" counterpoint in almost all instrumental works, born of the need to have so many forces talk to each other in a narrative—but it's stretching things to call this counterpoint per se. Counterpoint is of course quite a different matter from
voice leading; but who would single that out?
Tony
(talk)
04:46, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
@
Tony1:, I am curious on what you are basing your contentions above, as the entire post runs counter to everything I have ever read on this subject, as well as my own listening to these composers' music.
I am sure in your post above you are not merely spouting your own opinions and prejudices. Please point me to some sources to back up what you say. Thanks, Ravpapa ( talk) 14:58, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
Quite so. His signature work on Brahms was published in 1936; he was oriented towards biography rather than analysis, and certainly lacked the modern analytical tools. Perhaps I'm being too harsh, but he's being used as a source for a highly technical claim; my primary point here is that the quote was selected (in good faith) to support a sweeping statement that is misleading for readers.
You quote Stafford: "For Brahms, moving to his maturity would have much to do with counterpoint, the least forgiving of musical disciplines, and its procedures... he would arrive at his maturity a superb musical craftsman, as fine a one as ever lived." (p 156)
Here, I am going to probe the semantic: what did Stafford mean by counterpoint, as distinct from voice leading? What works did he proffer as examples of this gradual emergence of counterpoint in his style? What is the reasoning behind his assertion that counterpoint is "the least forgiving of musical disciplines"? (Surely it's contextually dependent.) What is the causal connection between this claimed contrapuntally centred maturity and being "a superb musical craftsman"? It's a problematic quote in isolation.
Contrapuntal exercises are the bread and butter of music training; having mastered the narrow skill-base that is necessarily the focus of such exercises doesn't mean that counterpoint is central, or natural, to the style of the day. Olivier Messiaen would have done his counterpoint homework as a young student; find me counterpoint in his music.
For this reason, I don't agree with the reinstatement of my original edit. At least, a better example or a few such examples should be given, yes? Also, "Stafford" intending "Swafford" (twice) was unfortunate. Please be more careful, all. Marlindale ( talk) 18:30, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
At present, this is highly unsatisfactory for a level 4 vital article. E.g. The lead is full of waffly statements which are not verified in the text. The text also contains a large amount of unsourced/unreferenced opinions and statements. The sources are a mixed bag, and many used in the notes are not listed as sources. Etc. etc. Once the fuss above has died down/been appropriately resolved, I hope to rewrite it to raise it to the standard of a GA, in participation of course with any other editors who might share this aim.-- Smerus ( talk) 15:27, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
I have removed the reinstatement of a highly dubious claim in the text that counterpoint was central to Brahms's style. The new addition of a quotiation does not address the undue emphasis that I found yesterday—a single reference to what many people would nowadays regard as a not very reliable source:
"Geiriinger writes that in one piece, 'following the example of Bach's Goldberg Variations, Brahms displays all the resources of contrapuntal art'."
One piece ... right. No one doubts that Brahms could write counterpoint, and he did on occasion write passages in what we might call a contrapuntally dense style (even whole, short movements, such as within the organ chorales from his last year; this is consistent with a tendency for post-Baroque composers to use overtly contrapuntal styles in their church music ... the church was comfortable with the old-fashioned, the reference to the weight of the previous, a certain prestige from the past). Mozart did it; so did many others. Schumann (a great influence on Brahms) occasionally indulged in counterpoint, usually of a simple type, in secular works; he usually got away with it. Mendelssohn's counterpoint was usually ill-advised (his so-called fugues can be almost devoid of counterpoint). Beethoven stands out as the only contrapuntal master of the age, for reasons that have not yet been adequately explained by musicologists and music theorists.
To mount a case in a "balanced" summary article that counterpoint was central to Brahms's style is, I believe, inappropriate; and the sourced quote rather casts doubt on the thesis. It should not be included in the article, or we risk misleading readers. Naturally there's a simple kind of "orchestral" counterpoint in almost all instrumental works, born of the need to have so many forces talk to each other in a narrative—but it's stretching things to call this counterpoint per se. Counterpoint is of course quite a different matter from
voice leading; but who would single that out?
Tony
(talk)
04:46, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
@
Tony1:, I am curious on what you are basing your contentions above, as the entire post runs counter to everything I have ever read on this subject, as well as my own listening to these composers' music.
I am sure in your post above you are not merely spouting your own opinions and prejudices. Please point me to some sources to back up what you say. Thanks, Ravpapa ( talk) 14:58, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
Quite so. His signature work on Brahms was published in 1936; he was oriented towards biography rather than analysis, and certainly lacked the modern analytical tools. Perhaps I'm being too harsh, but he's being used as a source for a highly technical claim; my primary point here is that the quote was selected (in good faith) to support a sweeping statement that is misleading for readers.
You quote Stafford: "For Brahms, moving to his maturity would have much to do with counterpoint, the least forgiving of musical disciplines, and its procedures... he would arrive at his maturity a superb musical craftsman, as fine a one as ever lived." (p 156)
Here, I am going to probe the semantic: what did Stafford mean by counterpoint, as distinct from voice leading? What works did he proffer as examples of this gradual emergence of counterpoint in his style? What is the reasoning behind his assertion that counterpoint is "the least forgiving of musical disciplines"? (Surely it's contextually dependent.) What is the causal connection between this claimed contrapuntally centred maturity and being "a superb musical craftsman"? It's a problematic quote in isolation.
Contrapuntal exercises are the bread and butter of music training; having mastered the narrow skill-base that is necessarily the focus of such exercises doesn't mean that counterpoint is central, or natural, to the style of the day. Olivier Messiaen would have done his counterpoint homework as a young student; find me counterpoint in his music.
For this reason, I don't agree with the reinstatement of my original edit. At least, a better example or a few such examples should be given, yes? Also, "Stafford" intending "Swafford" (twice) was unfortunate. Please be more careful, all. Marlindale ( talk) 18:30, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
At present, this is highly unsatisfactory for a level 4 vital article. E.g. The lead is full of waffly statements which are not verified in the text. The text also contains a large amount of unsourced/unreferenced opinions and statements. The sources are a mixed bag, and many used in the notes are not listed as sources. Etc. etc. Once the fuss above has died down/been appropriately resolved, I hope to rewrite it to raise it to the standard of a GA, in participation of course with any other editors who might share this aim.-- Smerus ( talk) 15:27, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Should the lead of the article on Johannes Brahms include the statement "He was a master of counterpoint, the complex and highly disciplined art for which Johann Sebastian Bach is famous"?
This sentence was included by Marlindale in the paragraph describing Brahms's compositional style. Tony deleted the sentence, contending that this is "a highly dubious claim in the text that counterpoint was central to Brahms's style" and that "To mount a case in a 'balanced' summary article that counterpoint was central to Brahms's style is, I believe, inappropriate."
I disputed this contention, noting that virtually all the musicologists who have written about Brahms's work have noted his extensive use of counterpoint as an essential element in his style. Ravpapa ( talk) 07:37, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
Here is what the sources say about Brahms's compositional style:
Numerous books have been written discussing Brahms's devotion to contrapuntal procedures, including Expressive Forms in Brahms's Instrumental Music (1994, Peter Smith); The Music of Brahms (Michael Musgrave, 1984); Brahms Beyond Mastery (Robert Pascall, 2013) to mention a few.
I would add that Tony noted during the discussion on the talk page that I "give the impression that you don't listen to the music, but just read what selected authors say about it." In fact, I have studied and played all the chamber works of Brahms except the cello sonatas; I have performed at least a third of them; in many cases I have had the pleasure of playing three or four of the different parts on different occasions. And I can say from my own listening and playing that I am constantly surprised and delighted by the seamless and marvelous way that Brahms integrates contrapuntal techniques throughout his compositions.
So, Tony, I do listen to the music, and my listening confirms what others have said. However, when I write in the Wikipedia, I do not rely on my own listening impressions, but exclusively on the statements of reliable sources. And you should, too. Ravpapa ( talk) 07:37, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
The lead should reflect the content of the article. At present the comments on counterpoint in the article section 'Style' are unreferenced. I suggest therefore that this section is rewritten to include at least some of the extensive sources cited by Ravpapa above. There could then be no reasonable objection to including a sentence about Brahms's use of counterpoint in the lead. -- Smerus ( talk) 08:01, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
The thread above presents an RFC that is not in accordance with WP:RFC. It should be disregarded or relaunched properly, according to the guideline. Tony (talk) 11:14, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
@ Tony1:, Please stop arbitrarily deleting material from the article. Instead, participate in the RFC. If you think I have behaved improperly, there are forums to complain at. Thank you, Ravpapa ( talk) 11:55, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
First, you parachuted in to support an illegitimate and personalised RFC with an argument based on reverse causality: that because there is a substantial paragraph claiming that counterpoint is a big, big part of Brahms's compositional style, the matter should be treated in the lead as well. This is despite the fact that the paragraph in question was inserted by Ravipapi two hours after he started the illegitimate RFC. Care to justify your reasoning? Second, you haven't addressed the questions I've posed in the thread above (specifically, what is it that those earlier 20th-century writers meant by "counterpoint"?). You probably haven't even read the thread, such is your partisan perspective. Third, in your recent hurried placement of numerous "reference required" tags through the article, you pointedly ignored Ravipapi's insertions of what appear to be unreferenced personal opinions in the paragraph added after he launched the illegitimate RFC—insertions that he has since edit-warred to retain. The opinions don't match the quotations they appear to lead into, and would be regarded as peacockery by many editors; I see that you've been at it removing something else with an edit-summary "... remove WP:PEACOCK ..." .
These actions and inactions are why you appear to be a partisan in support of a bully who is obsessed with getting his way—the kind of editor who ramps things up to crush anyone who queries his take on a matter; thus what was originally merely in a footnote has now been expanded and made hugely prominent by (1) insertion into the lead, (2) the creation of a pointy paragraph of which about half comprises his personal, unreferenced opinions, and (3) the launching of a highly personalised RFC.
I see that Ravipapi, on a random selection from his contribs, has been inserting other unreferenced personal opinions into articles—for example, "It is also notoriously difficult to play", to conclude the lead of the article on Beethoven's Grosse Fuge. Really?
It's disgraceful behaviour by Ravipapi, and your support is disreputable. I see also that someone called Marlindale, who stated his/her agreement with my original point, has now fallen into line with the bullies in the fake RFC. I would support a mention of counterpoint (better, "motivic counterpoint", with a reference to one of several more recent scholastic works) in a way that does not mislead readers into thinking that Symphony No. 3, for example, is full of Bachian fugues. Tony (talk) 05:28, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
The article has a section, "Style and Influences", in which there is a sentence "Brahms was a master of counterpoint", followed by incompletely referenced statements. I suggest that Ravpapa's material in "What do the sources say" could be used to fill out that part of the article. Then in the lead, we might only have a brief statement, substantiated by the material in the body. Marlindale ( talk) 16:46, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
Geiringer p. 31 mentions the story and calls it "far from convincing" but says Brahms's indifference to Liszt's music is "certain" and that it gave offense. Marlindale ( talk) 00:43, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
About the invitation to Cambridge University to receive an honorary degree, around 1876, 1877, and again later, some, e.g. Geiringer p. 372, say he would have needed to go to Cambridge to receive the degree. The book The Lives and Times of the Great Composers by Michael Steen, a Google Book, https://books.google.com/books?isbn=1848312679, quotes Brahms as saying "I have absolutely no desire to go to England." Marlindale ( talk) 22:45, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
According to Erb (1905), although Brahms declined Cambridge's invitation, he said he was willing to receive the degree in absentia, and offered as his thesis the first symphony, and the D. Mus. degree was conferred, seemingly 8 March 1877, Erb, p. 63. The first symphony had been first performed in Karlsruhe 4 Nov. 1876. It was performed by the Cambridge University Musical Society orchestra, conducted perhaps by its usual conductor Charles Villiers Stanford, or perhaps by Joachim who had also been invited to receive a D. Mus., and is said to have conducted the English premiere of the Brahms Sym, 1. Gal, p. 52, says the question of an honorary degree at Cambridge for Brahms came up again in 1892, and a letter from Brahms declining is quoted from, which would make little sense if the degree had already been conferred in 1877. Marlindale ( talk) 00:04, 25 December 2016 (UTC)
I found only Erb saying Brahms received the degree (in absentia or at all). It seems that Joachim conducted the English premiere of Brahms's first symphony at Cambridge 8 March 1877. At that concert Joachim's Overture in honor of Kleist, Op. 13, was also performed. Marlindale ( talk) 00:03, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
I just replaced a reference to Erb with one to a sleeve note, on Cambridge U. offering D. Must to both Brahms and Joachim, only Joachim willing to go to Cambridge and so only he accepting. Reference to a book, giving correct information on this topic, might be preferable if available. Marlindale ( talk) 18:16, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
My attempt to link to the sleeve note was unsuccessful so far today. Marlindale ( talk) 19:40, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
As Erb is now not cited in the article, I deleted it as a Source. Marlindale ( talk) 01:34, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
It is mentioned that Brahms spent many of his summers from 1864 to 1876 in Lichtental, Baden-Baden. However, the link to Lichtental leads to Lichtental in Vienna, not to Lichtental in Baden-Baden. The mistake is probably caused by the fact that the correct Lichtental (in Baden-Baden) only has a Wikipedia page in the German language. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.111.224.42 ( talk) 08:55, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
Yes, more citations would be desirable. Links to WP articles on specific Brahms works are not themselves such citations, but they may be helpful. One can check whether those articles themselves have sufficient citations. Marlindale ( talk) 17:37, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
Without explanation, User:Kintetsubuffalo has twice deleted from the photograph in the lead the words "unknown photographer". The photographer is indeed unknown and the statement made there is therefore true. I have invited User:Kintetsubuffalo ( who claims on his/her userpage that "I am a good listener, and I am big enough to concede valid points well-made") to explain him/herself on this talk page. If s/he does have evidence of the name of the photographer, that would of course be gratefully received.-- Smerus ( talk) 18:22, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
Dear Kinetsubuffalo, I am sorry that my error in this small matter is causing you such anxiety. However you need to appreciate that there is some distance from me making an error to me being a liar (a distance which I do not believe myself to have traversed); and also that if one has made one mistake, that does not entitle a person to tell them to 'stop lying', implying that that they have told several lies. In this context, you might take a look at WP:AGF, or indeed at WP:CIVIL. In this light, I cordially request you to remove from this page the comments where you label me as a 'liar', and I shall be glad to remove this comment, and, if you wish, my previous comment. Best, Smerus ( talk) 12:15, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
I have now reported the above exchanges with Kintetsubuffalo to WP:ANI Smerus ( talk) 12:44, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Johannes Brahms. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 18:36, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Johannes Brahms has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
108.239.34.43 ( talk) 15:05, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Johannes Brahms has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
The below in the current Brahms article is one-sided and seriously misleading. For one thing, there's no question that Brahms played in the bars; the question is whether he was abused there. It also implies that all modern scholars dismiss the stories, which is not true.
Lurid stories of the impoverished adolescent Brahms playing in bars and brothels have only anecdotal provenance, and modern scholars dismiss them; the Brahms family was relatively prosperous, and Hamburg legislation in any case very strictly forbade music in, or the admittance of minors to, brothels.[11][12]
These are my proposed changes, based on my book Johannes Brahms, which is widely considered the leading current biography. If you need a citation, I suggest "Jan Swafford: Johannes Brahms, passim." So--
Stories of the impoverished adolescent Brahms playing piano and being abused in waterfront bars that doubled as brothels are dismissed by some modern scholars. Others note that the stories originated with Brahms himself, that he spoke of it a number of times during his life including to Clara Schumann, and that it is unlikely he would have perpetuated such a lie about himself. Ktharangle ( talk) 16:41, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
I don't know if I've followed the proper format, but I hope you'll let me know if there's something else I need to do. I think the above is a case of the facts being jimmied by someone with an agenda. I think my revision give space to both sides of the question.
Let me take Professor Swafford's side. I think it's bizarre to characterize something that is supported by evidence from the subject himself (i.e., Brahms probably told people he played in bars and brothels) as being of "only anecdotal provenance." If I read that this was "anecdotal" (and I knew nothing of the subject) I would simply assume that it was just above the level of anonymous gossip and was more than likely untrue. But that would be silly. Like it or not, there is evidence that Brahms recounted this story to people. It may be characterized as hearsay but this isn't a court of law -- it has to count as some evidence that the assertion is true. It can't be simply dismissed as "anecdotal." Pipingbengoshi ( talk) 22:57, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
I'm not sure what you would consider "first hand evidence." Anyone who was there is dead. It's not like there's going to be a sworn affidavit from Brahms (or a brothel-keeper, for that matter). If your issue is that there is too much doubt that Brahms ever said anything like this to Clara, there would appear to be other instances of his telling people the same story (remember, we're talking about playing in bars, not being molested). At any rate, I think my problem is with the contemporary usage of the word "anecdotal" -- if all we had was a named person saying "I heard from a friend of a friend that Brahms played in bars," I would agree that was merely anecdotal. I don't think a statement from the participant himself (even if it constitutes double-hearsay) can be dismissed as an "anecdote." And, not to nerd this out any more than it needs to be, I suspect that this hearsay evidence would be admissible as substantive evidence in a modern (non-criminal) UK court of law -- and in North American courts under the "statement of family history" exception to the hearsay rule. Pipingbengoshi ( talk) 15:16, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
First-hand is this: a written or printed record from someone with whom we know Brahms was friendly or intimate, saying 'Brahms told me that he played in brothels'. Doesn't exist. Smerus ( talk) 16:13, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
Well, I don't have my Swafford-Brahms biography handy, but didn't he say in there that Brahms told Dr. Bilroth the brothel story? And others too, I think (though Bilroth is the only one I'd be able to name). I don't know if Bilroth scribbled it down, but even if he simply told someone else (as with Clara's daughter, etc), I still think that counts as more than anecdotal. I mean even Charles Rosen seems to concede the possibility that Brahms told other people (but unaccountably thinks he was lying about it). I guess -- in sum -- I don't regard the current wording of the paragraph in question as being quite as "balanced" as others do. Pipingbengoshi ( talk) 23:57, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
Actually I take back what I wrote. First-hand evidence is a written or otherwise certified record by a reliable witness saying 'I saw Brahms playing in a brothel'. If Brahms said this to Bilroth - we don't know the circumstances; he could have been teasing him, or fantasizing, or whatever; the only thing we can say is 'Brahms said it to Bilroth'. Not everything that someone says about themselves - even if it's Brahms - is therefore 'true'. The article therefore correctly places these stories in a critical context. You can believe them - as does Swafford - or not, as you please. Smerus ( talk) 06:23, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
I guess this is a dumb thing to argue about to this extent (even Swafford appears to have checked out). But as a historian, you know that a "written or otherwise certified record" from the actual witness to an event will be hard to come by -- and that sometimes we can still come to conclusions (though perhaps not definitive) based on less. In this case, IF (and I know that would be a concession from the anti-brothel party) it could be said conclusively that Brahms told Bilroth this story, I think that would be prima facie evidence that the story is true and it would shift the burden to those who disbelieve Brahms to rebut it. In other words, unless you think Bilroth himself was lying, it would seem that Brahms's own story about himself should count as "first-hand evidence." Thus, there might be reasons to disbelieve Brahms himself -- but that has nothing to do with an assertion (wrong, in my opinion) that the "stories" have mere "anecdotal provenance." Maybe the sentence in question should say something like "there is evidence that Brahms himself told others this story, but some modern scholars dismiss the veracity of these assertions," etc. Pipingbengoshi ( talk) 15:49, 26 July 2018 (UTC)
I counted 51 occurrences of Brahms's on this page, and 4 occurrences of Brahms' without the double S. Matters of consistency aside for the moment, correct English omits the extra S after the apostrophe if the noun (whether a Proper noun or not) ends with an S or an S sound equivalent. The reason is one of underlying pronunciation. See Apostrophe#Singular_nouns_ending_with_an_"s"_or_"z"_sound. If the possessive of a noun that already ends in an S sound before the apostrophe, is in practice pronounced as two separate S sounds, then it is acceptable to spell it that way. "Brahms's" is not pronounced brahmz-iz, except by the uninformed. Therefore it should be spelled without the extra S.
For consistency, this page should be corrected so that all spellings/grammar are the same, but remember preponderance doesn't imply correctness: the 51 Brahms's should be changed to Brahms' to match the other 4. Also, to address another contributor's point of "style", WP:MOS applies to the issue of consistency within a page, but not an issue of established grammar.
Chuckstreet ( talk) 12:32, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
Thanks Chuckstreet for pointing out the discrepancies. I agree with Jerome Kohl, so all appearances now standardized as " Brahms's ". Smerus ( talk) 08:42, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
Several people keep saying the S'S variant, in the case of a proper noun that ends in S like Brahms, is in WP:MOS, but I have pointed out that it is not. Rather, the relevant sections of MOS say it should be S'. For those who say MOS says S'S, please quote the section that says it instead of just saying it's in there. Or maybe just indicate WHERE it is, section and paragraph(s). I want to make sure we're reading the applicable section. I can concede there might be a contradiction within MOS; I've found one before on another matter. I should point out that we're talking about possessive use of apostrophe in proper nouns, and MOS:POSS is the section, which refers to another article section that contains the rules.
I've already pointed out that this relevant section says S' is correct. I haven't placed the entire quote here because it's long, several paragraphs. I've pointed out the exact section, indicated the reference links and the subsequent section headings. All you have to do is read it and you'll see.
BTW, there's no indication that the rule is somehow more American vs British, nor any indication that it is considered unreliable, so I discount that claim. Read it yourself. The pronunciation rule does NOT favor one form of English over another; i.e. it is not a matter of WP MOS Nationalistic Style rules. I do note it's an issue of wide disagreement in the general public and with scholars (which surprises me actually); the rule section indicates this quite well, but the ultimate indication is that it should be S'.
If anyone is going to quote passages here, please don't post them out of context. The way the text reads, it states it should be one way, then lists exceptions. Some of the S' rules are in the exceptions. Also, note we're talking about proper nouns, particularly people's names. The rules cite examples of that specifically (like Charles Dickens' writings).
As for other non-WP sources, I thought the complaint was that S'S was mandated by WP MOS, regardless of external sources differing. I was originally relying on external considerations and not MOS; I seem to have reversed my source position, oh well. But for the people who are sourcing many different authorities, keep in mind that preponderance does not make correctness. Just because "everyone" spells something or pronounces something a certain way, or uses a word in a particular way, doesn't automatically mean that way is correct. Mistakes get perpetuated.
I still say S'S in the case of Brahms is bad English, or at least incorrect spelling, but I have now backed that up with WP:MOS, which I'm glad to find. Again, the relevant section is here Apostrophe#Singular_nouns_ending_with_an_"s"_or_"z"_sound and read the entire section, not just the first couple paragraphs.
Chuckstreet ( talk) 02:08, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
Honestly I find it ridiculously silly to even think of caring what other sources use for the name, given this isn't a matter of 'his name specifically' but rather of the usage of the format in /general/. Unless specific sources specifically write Brahms's or Brahms' but aren't consistent with other nouns, then they are irrelevant...because as noted this is a common disjunct of punctuation rules and Brhams is in no way somehow special that his name would be consistent one way or the other. (FWIW I'm of the s's camp in general since that's how I learned and s' just looks completely wrong to me). But hey this is Wikipedia where lots of people do a lot of weird non-sensicle things. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ ( talk) 05:27, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
MOS:POSS is explicit as per the above. Chuckstreet's latest reversion changed three instances to Brahms' and left the rest as Brahms's, reintroducing the discrepancies he first complained of. I have now re-reverted. Smerus ( talk) 09:20, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
••• Arbitrary break •••
Just a couple of passing comments though I don't really want to get too involved, either in piling on or in a huge research project (tempting though the latter is). It seems to me that really quite a lot of examples use Brahms's
. On a quick check these include:
Brahms’s Geistliches Wiegenliedor
He [Hugues Imbert, since you ask] was, with Edouard Schuré, one of the few Parisian advocates of Brahms’s musicor something along those lines;
I have not yet found any examples among my books that use Brahms'
and I assure you that I would honestly report any that I saw. But on this quick runthrough I am not seeing it, so I do feel that Brahms's
has plenty of support – perhaps even an as-yet unproven landslide of it – from some reputable sources, so it cannot simply be dismissed as a nice easy Wikipedia error like Middlesborough FC
or concensus
which simply needs zapping because one way is just right and the other way is just wrong.
Looking now at the pronunciation and how that, it is claimed, must be used to guide the punctuation. Well, firstly, no, I am not convinced that it always must.
Uncle Jimmy might have said, Awkward blighter, Johnny Brain. Never quite got to grips with the cove
and I do not feel qualified to say how stuff always gets, in some noise-free and predictable transmission, from the written word into the mouth and vice versa. But I do think that there is evidence out there – maybe plenty of it, but sadly I don't have the funding for that research project – that pronouncing it Brahms's
is at least normal and average in some contexts. Here are a quick couple which I found, but did not cherry-pick:
Brahms'sand so does Tom Service around 09:30;
Brahms'son the page but the other is probably there somewhere, because 100% consistency has not yet been achieved <emojitron insert: amusing whimsical smiley face character with sheepish shrug>.
Obviously this is hardly a comprehensive survey but I do think it is enough to at least diminish the value of the claim that it is just wrong to say it like that – here are apparently reputable sources using the second S and they seem to sound fine, at least to my uninformed
ear.
While I am on the subject of pronunciation, I'd just like to mention this: "Brahms's" is not pronounced brahmz-iz, except by the uninformed
which seemed to me to read like an attempt to poison the well or tilt the playing field (or please choose your own simile, preferably a better one) before the rest of us even got there. It means that if I accept it I just have to say, well, yes, I am of course uninformed
, but ..." which is a tricky place from which to start. It's not really a definitive statement of anything other than one person's opinion, is not backed up by anything external, and would perhaps have been better omitted. It seems to me that it is as if I started a conversation with As all well-informed, beautiful and sensitive people know, playing Baroque trumpet music on anything other than a Baroque or quasi-Baroque [yeah, or like whatevs] trumpet is the act of a boorish, ignorant, drooling barbarian, probably from
Middlesbrough
and then followed it up with Now Let's Talk About
Maurice André!
You will probably be very relieved to know that I am now planning to stfu as I understand the young people so charmingly put it. My vote, which I know we are not doing, would be for Brahms's
. Thanks and best wishes to all
DBaK (
talk)
11:59, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
•••Should we follow the rules?•••
Gerda Arendt has suggested changing many of the 55 occurrences on this page of Brahms's and Brahms' to "his", which would remove them from consideration regarding the present controversial thread. These changes might include the ones that Smerus attempted to change against consensus here. Ordinarily, WP rules don't allow changes to be made while it is a controversial subject being discussed on a talk page and before consensus has been reached. However, I am in favor of Gerda making the changes to "his", so I'm making it official and calling for consensus on that. Anyone disagree and think she shouldn't make those changes? Chuckstreet ( talk) 19:16, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
Also, there are some curly apostrophes on this page which violate MOS, that need to be changed to straight ones. Same with some curly quotes (open and close). Some of the curly apostrophes occur in Brahms’s and Brahms’, so that's why I'm mentioning it here instead of just going ahead and making what would ordinarily be minor (i.e. uncontroversial) changes. I say we make this change now; anyone disagree? Chuckstreet ( talk) 19:31, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
What exactly here is 'official'? And where does Gerda suggest changing every occurrence of the possessive to 'his'? I for one am against this. Smerus ( talk) 20:47, 5 October 2019 (UTC)
Several terms in the lead can be classified as peacockery:
His music is firmly rooted in the structures and compositional techniques of the classical masters.
The diligent, highly constructed nature of Brahms's works was a starting point and an inspiration for a generation of composers.
The diligent, highly constructed nature of Brahms's works was a starting point and an inspiration for a generation of composers.
A consensus has formed that terms that may be WP:POV may be stated as fact anyway if there is consensus among multiple WP:RS that they are. From AnUnnamedUser (open talk page) 22:01, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
To ascribe the surname such a far-fetched meaning as the plant broom, not only a good linguistic source is needed (as with all etymologies; Jan Swafford is no linguist), but that source would also need to present extraordinary evidence. The usual interpretation of north German names like this is as patronymics – in this case translatable as 'Abrahamson' or 'Abrahams'. 151.177.57.24 ( talk) 13:11, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 |
I do not believe this institution on its own is notable enough to warrant an article. TKK bark ! 12:59, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
OK, I agree now. Thanks for the detailed presentation. Marlindale ( talk) 15:35, 12 October 2016 (UTC)h
It's Brahms's Op. 9, Variations on a Theme by Robert Schumann. Another version for piano 4 hands is Op. 23. This seems to be a relatively little-known piece not having a WP article about it. So again, I agree one may not want to draw any wide conclusion from it. Marlindale ( talk) 20:36, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
I have removed the reinstatement of a highly dubious claim in the text that counterpoint was central to Brahms's style. The new addition of a quotiation does not address the undue emphasis that I found yesterday—a single reference to what many people would nowadays regard as a not very reliable source:
"Geiriinger writes that in one piece, 'following the example of Bach's Goldberg Variations, Brahms displays all the resources of contrapuntal art'."
One piece ... right. No one doubts that Brahms could write counterpoint, and he did on occasion write passages in what we might call a contrapuntally dense style (even whole, short movements, such as within the organ chorales from his last year; this is consistent with a tendency for post-Baroque composers to use overtly contrapuntal styles in their church music ... the church was comfortable with the old-fashioned, the reference to the weight of the previous, a certain prestige from the past). Mozart did it; so did many others. Schumann (a great influence on Brahms) occasionally indulged in counterpoint, usually of a simple type, in secular works; he usually got away with it. Mendelssohn's counterpoint was usually ill-advised (his so-called fugues can be almost devoid of counterpoint). Beethoven stands out as the only contrapuntal master of the age, for reasons that have not yet been adequately explained by musicologists and music theorists.
To mount a case in a "balanced" summary article that counterpoint was central to Brahms's style is, I believe, inappropriate; and the sourced quote rather casts doubt on the thesis. It should not be included in the article, or we risk misleading readers. Naturally there's a simple kind of "orchestral" counterpoint in almost all instrumental works, born of the need to have so many forces talk to each other in a narrative—but it's stretching things to call this counterpoint per se. Counterpoint is of course quite a different matter from
voice leading; but who would single that out?
Tony
(talk)
04:46, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
@
Tony1:, I am curious on what you are basing your contentions above, as the entire post runs counter to everything I have ever read on this subject, as well as my own listening to these composers' music.
I am sure in your post above you are not merely spouting your own opinions and prejudices. Please point me to some sources to back up what you say. Thanks, Ravpapa ( talk) 14:58, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
Quite so. His signature work on Brahms was published in 1936; he was oriented towards biography rather than analysis, and certainly lacked the modern analytical tools. Perhaps I'm being too harsh, but he's being used as a source for a highly technical claim; my primary point here is that the quote was selected (in good faith) to support a sweeping statement that is misleading for readers.
You quote Stafford: "For Brahms, moving to his maturity would have much to do with counterpoint, the least forgiving of musical disciplines, and its procedures... he would arrive at his maturity a superb musical craftsman, as fine a one as ever lived." (p 156)
Here, I am going to probe the semantic: what did Stafford mean by counterpoint, as distinct from voice leading? What works did he proffer as examples of this gradual emergence of counterpoint in his style? What is the reasoning behind his assertion that counterpoint is "the least forgiving of musical disciplines"? (Surely it's contextually dependent.) What is the causal connection between this claimed contrapuntally centred maturity and being "a superb musical craftsman"? It's a problematic quote in isolation.
Contrapuntal exercises are the bread and butter of music training; having mastered the narrow skill-base that is necessarily the focus of such exercises doesn't mean that counterpoint is central, or natural, to the style of the day. Olivier Messiaen would have done his counterpoint homework as a young student; find me counterpoint in his music.
For this reason, I don't agree with the reinstatement of my original edit. At least, a better example or a few such examples should be given, yes? Also, "Stafford" intending "Swafford" (twice) was unfortunate. Please be more careful, all. Marlindale ( talk) 18:30, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
At present, this is highly unsatisfactory for a level 4 vital article. E.g. The lead is full of waffly statements which are not verified in the text. The text also contains a large amount of unsourced/unreferenced opinions and statements. The sources are a mixed bag, and many used in the notes are not listed as sources. Etc. etc. Once the fuss above has died down/been appropriately resolved, I hope to rewrite it to raise it to the standard of a GA, in participation of course with any other editors who might share this aim.-- Smerus ( talk) 15:27, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
I have removed the reinstatement of a highly dubious claim in the text that counterpoint was central to Brahms's style. The new addition of a quotiation does not address the undue emphasis that I found yesterday—a single reference to what many people would nowadays regard as a not very reliable source:
"Geiriinger writes that in one piece, 'following the example of Bach's Goldberg Variations, Brahms displays all the resources of contrapuntal art'."
One piece ... right. No one doubts that Brahms could write counterpoint, and he did on occasion write passages in what we might call a contrapuntally dense style (even whole, short movements, such as within the organ chorales from his last year; this is consistent with a tendency for post-Baroque composers to use overtly contrapuntal styles in their church music ... the church was comfortable with the old-fashioned, the reference to the weight of the previous, a certain prestige from the past). Mozart did it; so did many others. Schumann (a great influence on Brahms) occasionally indulged in counterpoint, usually of a simple type, in secular works; he usually got away with it. Mendelssohn's counterpoint was usually ill-advised (his so-called fugues can be almost devoid of counterpoint). Beethoven stands out as the only contrapuntal master of the age, for reasons that have not yet been adequately explained by musicologists and music theorists.
To mount a case in a "balanced" summary article that counterpoint was central to Brahms's style is, I believe, inappropriate; and the sourced quote rather casts doubt on the thesis. It should not be included in the article, or we risk misleading readers. Naturally there's a simple kind of "orchestral" counterpoint in almost all instrumental works, born of the need to have so many forces talk to each other in a narrative—but it's stretching things to call this counterpoint per se. Counterpoint is of course quite a different matter from
voice leading; but who would single that out?
Tony
(talk)
04:46, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
@
Tony1:, I am curious on what you are basing your contentions above, as the entire post runs counter to everything I have ever read on this subject, as well as my own listening to these composers' music.
I am sure in your post above you are not merely spouting your own opinions and prejudices. Please point me to some sources to back up what you say. Thanks, Ravpapa ( talk) 14:58, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
Quite so. His signature work on Brahms was published in 1936; he was oriented towards biography rather than analysis, and certainly lacked the modern analytical tools. Perhaps I'm being too harsh, but he's being used as a source for a highly technical claim; my primary point here is that the quote was selected (in good faith) to support a sweeping statement that is misleading for readers.
You quote Stafford: "For Brahms, moving to his maturity would have much to do with counterpoint, the least forgiving of musical disciplines, and its procedures... he would arrive at his maturity a superb musical craftsman, as fine a one as ever lived." (p 156)
Here, I am going to probe the semantic: what did Stafford mean by counterpoint, as distinct from voice leading? What works did he proffer as examples of this gradual emergence of counterpoint in his style? What is the reasoning behind his assertion that counterpoint is "the least forgiving of musical disciplines"? (Surely it's contextually dependent.) What is the causal connection between this claimed contrapuntally centred maturity and being "a superb musical craftsman"? It's a problematic quote in isolation.
Contrapuntal exercises are the bread and butter of music training; having mastered the narrow skill-base that is necessarily the focus of such exercises doesn't mean that counterpoint is central, or natural, to the style of the day. Olivier Messiaen would have done his counterpoint homework as a young student; find me counterpoint in his music.
For this reason, I don't agree with the reinstatement of my original edit. At least, a better example or a few such examples should be given, yes? Also, "Stafford" intending "Swafford" (twice) was unfortunate. Please be more careful, all. Marlindale ( talk) 18:30, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
At present, this is highly unsatisfactory for a level 4 vital article. E.g. The lead is full of waffly statements which are not verified in the text. The text also contains a large amount of unsourced/unreferenced opinions and statements. The sources are a mixed bag, and many used in the notes are not listed as sources. Etc. etc. Once the fuss above has died down/been appropriately resolved, I hope to rewrite it to raise it to the standard of a GA, in participation of course with any other editors who might share this aim.-- Smerus ( talk) 15:27, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Should the lead of the article on Johannes Brahms include the statement "He was a master of counterpoint, the complex and highly disciplined art for which Johann Sebastian Bach is famous"?
This sentence was included by Marlindale in the paragraph describing Brahms's compositional style. Tony deleted the sentence, contending that this is "a highly dubious claim in the text that counterpoint was central to Brahms's style" and that "To mount a case in a 'balanced' summary article that counterpoint was central to Brahms's style is, I believe, inappropriate."
I disputed this contention, noting that virtually all the musicologists who have written about Brahms's work have noted his extensive use of counterpoint as an essential element in his style. Ravpapa ( talk) 07:37, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
Here is what the sources say about Brahms's compositional style:
Numerous books have been written discussing Brahms's devotion to contrapuntal procedures, including Expressive Forms in Brahms's Instrumental Music (1994, Peter Smith); The Music of Brahms (Michael Musgrave, 1984); Brahms Beyond Mastery (Robert Pascall, 2013) to mention a few.
I would add that Tony noted during the discussion on the talk page that I "give the impression that you don't listen to the music, but just read what selected authors say about it." In fact, I have studied and played all the chamber works of Brahms except the cello sonatas; I have performed at least a third of them; in many cases I have had the pleasure of playing three or four of the different parts on different occasions. And I can say from my own listening and playing that I am constantly surprised and delighted by the seamless and marvelous way that Brahms integrates contrapuntal techniques throughout his compositions.
So, Tony, I do listen to the music, and my listening confirms what others have said. However, when I write in the Wikipedia, I do not rely on my own listening impressions, but exclusively on the statements of reliable sources. And you should, too. Ravpapa ( talk) 07:37, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
The lead should reflect the content of the article. At present the comments on counterpoint in the article section 'Style' are unreferenced. I suggest therefore that this section is rewritten to include at least some of the extensive sources cited by Ravpapa above. There could then be no reasonable objection to including a sentence about Brahms's use of counterpoint in the lead. -- Smerus ( talk) 08:01, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
The thread above presents an RFC that is not in accordance with WP:RFC. It should be disregarded or relaunched properly, according to the guideline. Tony (talk) 11:14, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
@ Tony1:, Please stop arbitrarily deleting material from the article. Instead, participate in the RFC. If you think I have behaved improperly, there are forums to complain at. Thank you, Ravpapa ( talk) 11:55, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
First, you parachuted in to support an illegitimate and personalised RFC with an argument based on reverse causality: that because there is a substantial paragraph claiming that counterpoint is a big, big part of Brahms's compositional style, the matter should be treated in the lead as well. This is despite the fact that the paragraph in question was inserted by Ravipapi two hours after he started the illegitimate RFC. Care to justify your reasoning? Second, you haven't addressed the questions I've posed in the thread above (specifically, what is it that those earlier 20th-century writers meant by "counterpoint"?). You probably haven't even read the thread, such is your partisan perspective. Third, in your recent hurried placement of numerous "reference required" tags through the article, you pointedly ignored Ravipapi's insertions of what appear to be unreferenced personal opinions in the paragraph added after he launched the illegitimate RFC—insertions that he has since edit-warred to retain. The opinions don't match the quotations they appear to lead into, and would be regarded as peacockery by many editors; I see that you've been at it removing something else with an edit-summary "... remove WP:PEACOCK ..." .
These actions and inactions are why you appear to be a partisan in support of a bully who is obsessed with getting his way—the kind of editor who ramps things up to crush anyone who queries his take on a matter; thus what was originally merely in a footnote has now been expanded and made hugely prominent by (1) insertion into the lead, (2) the creation of a pointy paragraph of which about half comprises his personal, unreferenced opinions, and (3) the launching of a highly personalised RFC.
I see that Ravipapi, on a random selection from his contribs, has been inserting other unreferenced personal opinions into articles—for example, "It is also notoriously difficult to play", to conclude the lead of the article on Beethoven's Grosse Fuge. Really?
It's disgraceful behaviour by Ravipapi, and your support is disreputable. I see also that someone called Marlindale, who stated his/her agreement with my original point, has now fallen into line with the bullies in the fake RFC. I would support a mention of counterpoint (better, "motivic counterpoint", with a reference to one of several more recent scholastic works) in a way that does not mislead readers into thinking that Symphony No. 3, for example, is full of Bachian fugues. Tony (talk) 05:28, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
The article has a section, "Style and Influences", in which there is a sentence "Brahms was a master of counterpoint", followed by incompletely referenced statements. I suggest that Ravpapa's material in "What do the sources say" could be used to fill out that part of the article. Then in the lead, we might only have a brief statement, substantiated by the material in the body. Marlindale ( talk) 16:46, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
Geiringer p. 31 mentions the story and calls it "far from convincing" but says Brahms's indifference to Liszt's music is "certain" and that it gave offense. Marlindale ( talk) 00:43, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
About the invitation to Cambridge University to receive an honorary degree, around 1876, 1877, and again later, some, e.g. Geiringer p. 372, say he would have needed to go to Cambridge to receive the degree. The book The Lives and Times of the Great Composers by Michael Steen, a Google Book, https://books.google.com/books?isbn=1848312679, quotes Brahms as saying "I have absolutely no desire to go to England." Marlindale ( talk) 22:45, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
According to Erb (1905), although Brahms declined Cambridge's invitation, he said he was willing to receive the degree in absentia, and offered as his thesis the first symphony, and the D. Mus. degree was conferred, seemingly 8 March 1877, Erb, p. 63. The first symphony had been first performed in Karlsruhe 4 Nov. 1876. It was performed by the Cambridge University Musical Society orchestra, conducted perhaps by its usual conductor Charles Villiers Stanford, or perhaps by Joachim who had also been invited to receive a D. Mus., and is said to have conducted the English premiere of the Brahms Sym, 1. Gal, p. 52, says the question of an honorary degree at Cambridge for Brahms came up again in 1892, and a letter from Brahms declining is quoted from, which would make little sense if the degree had already been conferred in 1877. Marlindale ( talk) 00:04, 25 December 2016 (UTC)
I found only Erb saying Brahms received the degree (in absentia or at all). It seems that Joachim conducted the English premiere of Brahms's first symphony at Cambridge 8 March 1877. At that concert Joachim's Overture in honor of Kleist, Op. 13, was also performed. Marlindale ( talk) 00:03, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
I just replaced a reference to Erb with one to a sleeve note, on Cambridge U. offering D. Must to both Brahms and Joachim, only Joachim willing to go to Cambridge and so only he accepting. Reference to a book, giving correct information on this topic, might be preferable if available. Marlindale ( talk) 18:16, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
My attempt to link to the sleeve note was unsuccessful so far today. Marlindale ( talk) 19:40, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
As Erb is now not cited in the article, I deleted it as a Source. Marlindale ( talk) 01:34, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
It is mentioned that Brahms spent many of his summers from 1864 to 1876 in Lichtental, Baden-Baden. However, the link to Lichtental leads to Lichtental in Vienna, not to Lichtental in Baden-Baden. The mistake is probably caused by the fact that the correct Lichtental (in Baden-Baden) only has a Wikipedia page in the German language. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.111.224.42 ( talk) 08:55, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
Yes, more citations would be desirable. Links to WP articles on specific Brahms works are not themselves such citations, but they may be helpful. One can check whether those articles themselves have sufficient citations. Marlindale ( talk) 17:37, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
Without explanation, User:Kintetsubuffalo has twice deleted from the photograph in the lead the words "unknown photographer". The photographer is indeed unknown and the statement made there is therefore true. I have invited User:Kintetsubuffalo ( who claims on his/her userpage that "I am a good listener, and I am big enough to concede valid points well-made") to explain him/herself on this talk page. If s/he does have evidence of the name of the photographer, that would of course be gratefully received.-- Smerus ( talk) 18:22, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
Dear Kinetsubuffalo, I am sorry that my error in this small matter is causing you such anxiety. However you need to appreciate that there is some distance from me making an error to me being a liar (a distance which I do not believe myself to have traversed); and also that if one has made one mistake, that does not entitle a person to tell them to 'stop lying', implying that that they have told several lies. In this context, you might take a look at WP:AGF, or indeed at WP:CIVIL. In this light, I cordially request you to remove from this page the comments where you label me as a 'liar', and I shall be glad to remove this comment, and, if you wish, my previous comment. Best, Smerus ( talk) 12:15, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
I have now reported the above exchanges with Kintetsubuffalo to WP:ANI Smerus ( talk) 12:44, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Johannes Brahms. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 18:36, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Johannes Brahms has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
108.239.34.43 ( talk) 15:05, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Johannes Brahms has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
The below in the current Brahms article is one-sided and seriously misleading. For one thing, there's no question that Brahms played in the bars; the question is whether he was abused there. It also implies that all modern scholars dismiss the stories, which is not true.
Lurid stories of the impoverished adolescent Brahms playing in bars and brothels have only anecdotal provenance, and modern scholars dismiss them; the Brahms family was relatively prosperous, and Hamburg legislation in any case very strictly forbade music in, or the admittance of minors to, brothels.[11][12]
These are my proposed changes, based on my book Johannes Brahms, which is widely considered the leading current biography. If you need a citation, I suggest "Jan Swafford: Johannes Brahms, passim." So--
Stories of the impoverished adolescent Brahms playing piano and being abused in waterfront bars that doubled as brothels are dismissed by some modern scholars. Others note that the stories originated with Brahms himself, that he spoke of it a number of times during his life including to Clara Schumann, and that it is unlikely he would have perpetuated such a lie about himself. Ktharangle ( talk) 16:41, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
I don't know if I've followed the proper format, but I hope you'll let me know if there's something else I need to do. I think the above is a case of the facts being jimmied by someone with an agenda. I think my revision give space to both sides of the question.
Let me take Professor Swafford's side. I think it's bizarre to characterize something that is supported by evidence from the subject himself (i.e., Brahms probably told people he played in bars and brothels) as being of "only anecdotal provenance." If I read that this was "anecdotal" (and I knew nothing of the subject) I would simply assume that it was just above the level of anonymous gossip and was more than likely untrue. But that would be silly. Like it or not, there is evidence that Brahms recounted this story to people. It may be characterized as hearsay but this isn't a court of law -- it has to count as some evidence that the assertion is true. It can't be simply dismissed as "anecdotal." Pipingbengoshi ( talk) 22:57, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
I'm not sure what you would consider "first hand evidence." Anyone who was there is dead. It's not like there's going to be a sworn affidavit from Brahms (or a brothel-keeper, for that matter). If your issue is that there is too much doubt that Brahms ever said anything like this to Clara, there would appear to be other instances of his telling people the same story (remember, we're talking about playing in bars, not being molested). At any rate, I think my problem is with the contemporary usage of the word "anecdotal" -- if all we had was a named person saying "I heard from a friend of a friend that Brahms played in bars," I would agree that was merely anecdotal. I don't think a statement from the participant himself (even if it constitutes double-hearsay) can be dismissed as an "anecdote." And, not to nerd this out any more than it needs to be, I suspect that this hearsay evidence would be admissible as substantive evidence in a modern (non-criminal) UK court of law -- and in North American courts under the "statement of family history" exception to the hearsay rule. Pipingbengoshi ( talk) 15:16, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
First-hand is this: a written or printed record from someone with whom we know Brahms was friendly or intimate, saying 'Brahms told me that he played in brothels'. Doesn't exist. Smerus ( talk) 16:13, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
Well, I don't have my Swafford-Brahms biography handy, but didn't he say in there that Brahms told Dr. Bilroth the brothel story? And others too, I think (though Bilroth is the only one I'd be able to name). I don't know if Bilroth scribbled it down, but even if he simply told someone else (as with Clara's daughter, etc), I still think that counts as more than anecdotal. I mean even Charles Rosen seems to concede the possibility that Brahms told other people (but unaccountably thinks he was lying about it). I guess -- in sum -- I don't regard the current wording of the paragraph in question as being quite as "balanced" as others do. Pipingbengoshi ( talk) 23:57, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
Actually I take back what I wrote. First-hand evidence is a written or otherwise certified record by a reliable witness saying 'I saw Brahms playing in a brothel'. If Brahms said this to Bilroth - we don't know the circumstances; he could have been teasing him, or fantasizing, or whatever; the only thing we can say is 'Brahms said it to Bilroth'. Not everything that someone says about themselves - even if it's Brahms - is therefore 'true'. The article therefore correctly places these stories in a critical context. You can believe them - as does Swafford - or not, as you please. Smerus ( talk) 06:23, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
I guess this is a dumb thing to argue about to this extent (even Swafford appears to have checked out). But as a historian, you know that a "written or otherwise certified record" from the actual witness to an event will be hard to come by -- and that sometimes we can still come to conclusions (though perhaps not definitive) based on less. In this case, IF (and I know that would be a concession from the anti-brothel party) it could be said conclusively that Brahms told Bilroth this story, I think that would be prima facie evidence that the story is true and it would shift the burden to those who disbelieve Brahms to rebut it. In other words, unless you think Bilroth himself was lying, it would seem that Brahms's own story about himself should count as "first-hand evidence." Thus, there might be reasons to disbelieve Brahms himself -- but that has nothing to do with an assertion (wrong, in my opinion) that the "stories" have mere "anecdotal provenance." Maybe the sentence in question should say something like "there is evidence that Brahms himself told others this story, but some modern scholars dismiss the veracity of these assertions," etc. Pipingbengoshi ( talk) 15:49, 26 July 2018 (UTC)
I counted 51 occurrences of Brahms's on this page, and 4 occurrences of Brahms' without the double S. Matters of consistency aside for the moment, correct English omits the extra S after the apostrophe if the noun (whether a Proper noun or not) ends with an S or an S sound equivalent. The reason is one of underlying pronunciation. See Apostrophe#Singular_nouns_ending_with_an_"s"_or_"z"_sound. If the possessive of a noun that already ends in an S sound before the apostrophe, is in practice pronounced as two separate S sounds, then it is acceptable to spell it that way. "Brahms's" is not pronounced brahmz-iz, except by the uninformed. Therefore it should be spelled without the extra S.
For consistency, this page should be corrected so that all spellings/grammar are the same, but remember preponderance doesn't imply correctness: the 51 Brahms's should be changed to Brahms' to match the other 4. Also, to address another contributor's point of "style", WP:MOS applies to the issue of consistency within a page, but not an issue of established grammar.
Chuckstreet ( talk) 12:32, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
Thanks Chuckstreet for pointing out the discrepancies. I agree with Jerome Kohl, so all appearances now standardized as " Brahms's ". Smerus ( talk) 08:42, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
Several people keep saying the S'S variant, in the case of a proper noun that ends in S like Brahms, is in WP:MOS, but I have pointed out that it is not. Rather, the relevant sections of MOS say it should be S'. For those who say MOS says S'S, please quote the section that says it instead of just saying it's in there. Or maybe just indicate WHERE it is, section and paragraph(s). I want to make sure we're reading the applicable section. I can concede there might be a contradiction within MOS; I've found one before on another matter. I should point out that we're talking about possessive use of apostrophe in proper nouns, and MOS:POSS is the section, which refers to another article section that contains the rules.
I've already pointed out that this relevant section says S' is correct. I haven't placed the entire quote here because it's long, several paragraphs. I've pointed out the exact section, indicated the reference links and the subsequent section headings. All you have to do is read it and you'll see.
BTW, there's no indication that the rule is somehow more American vs British, nor any indication that it is considered unreliable, so I discount that claim. Read it yourself. The pronunciation rule does NOT favor one form of English over another; i.e. it is not a matter of WP MOS Nationalistic Style rules. I do note it's an issue of wide disagreement in the general public and with scholars (which surprises me actually); the rule section indicates this quite well, but the ultimate indication is that it should be S'.
If anyone is going to quote passages here, please don't post them out of context. The way the text reads, it states it should be one way, then lists exceptions. Some of the S' rules are in the exceptions. Also, note we're talking about proper nouns, particularly people's names. The rules cite examples of that specifically (like Charles Dickens' writings).
As for other non-WP sources, I thought the complaint was that S'S was mandated by WP MOS, regardless of external sources differing. I was originally relying on external considerations and not MOS; I seem to have reversed my source position, oh well. But for the people who are sourcing many different authorities, keep in mind that preponderance does not make correctness. Just because "everyone" spells something or pronounces something a certain way, or uses a word in a particular way, doesn't automatically mean that way is correct. Mistakes get perpetuated.
I still say S'S in the case of Brahms is bad English, or at least incorrect spelling, but I have now backed that up with WP:MOS, which I'm glad to find. Again, the relevant section is here Apostrophe#Singular_nouns_ending_with_an_"s"_or_"z"_sound and read the entire section, not just the first couple paragraphs.
Chuckstreet ( talk) 02:08, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
Honestly I find it ridiculously silly to even think of caring what other sources use for the name, given this isn't a matter of 'his name specifically' but rather of the usage of the format in /general/. Unless specific sources specifically write Brahms's or Brahms' but aren't consistent with other nouns, then they are irrelevant...because as noted this is a common disjunct of punctuation rules and Brhams is in no way somehow special that his name would be consistent one way or the other. (FWIW I'm of the s's camp in general since that's how I learned and s' just looks completely wrong to me). But hey this is Wikipedia where lots of people do a lot of weird non-sensicle things. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ ( talk) 05:27, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
MOS:POSS is explicit as per the above. Chuckstreet's latest reversion changed three instances to Brahms' and left the rest as Brahms's, reintroducing the discrepancies he first complained of. I have now re-reverted. Smerus ( talk) 09:20, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
••• Arbitrary break •••
Just a couple of passing comments though I don't really want to get too involved, either in piling on or in a huge research project (tempting though the latter is). It seems to me that really quite a lot of examples use Brahms's
. On a quick check these include:
Brahms’s Geistliches Wiegenliedor
He [Hugues Imbert, since you ask] was, with Edouard Schuré, one of the few Parisian advocates of Brahms’s musicor something along those lines;
I have not yet found any examples among my books that use Brahms'
and I assure you that I would honestly report any that I saw. But on this quick runthrough I am not seeing it, so I do feel that Brahms's
has plenty of support – perhaps even an as-yet unproven landslide of it – from some reputable sources, so it cannot simply be dismissed as a nice easy Wikipedia error like Middlesborough FC
or concensus
which simply needs zapping because one way is just right and the other way is just wrong.
Looking now at the pronunciation and how that, it is claimed, must be used to guide the punctuation. Well, firstly, no, I am not convinced that it always must.
Uncle Jimmy might have said, Awkward blighter, Johnny Brain. Never quite got to grips with the cove
and I do not feel qualified to say how stuff always gets, in some noise-free and predictable transmission, from the written word into the mouth and vice versa. But I do think that there is evidence out there – maybe plenty of it, but sadly I don't have the funding for that research project – that pronouncing it Brahms's
is at least normal and average in some contexts. Here are a quick couple which I found, but did not cherry-pick:
Brahms'sand so does Tom Service around 09:30;
Brahms'son the page but the other is probably there somewhere, because 100% consistency has not yet been achieved <emojitron insert: amusing whimsical smiley face character with sheepish shrug>.
Obviously this is hardly a comprehensive survey but I do think it is enough to at least diminish the value of the claim that it is just wrong to say it like that – here are apparently reputable sources using the second S and they seem to sound fine, at least to my uninformed
ear.
While I am on the subject of pronunciation, I'd just like to mention this: "Brahms's" is not pronounced brahmz-iz, except by the uninformed
which seemed to me to read like an attempt to poison the well or tilt the playing field (or please choose your own simile, preferably a better one) before the rest of us even got there. It means that if I accept it I just have to say, well, yes, I am of course uninformed
, but ..." which is a tricky place from which to start. It's not really a definitive statement of anything other than one person's opinion, is not backed up by anything external, and would perhaps have been better omitted. It seems to me that it is as if I started a conversation with As all well-informed, beautiful and sensitive people know, playing Baroque trumpet music on anything other than a Baroque or quasi-Baroque [yeah, or like whatevs] trumpet is the act of a boorish, ignorant, drooling barbarian, probably from
Middlesbrough
and then followed it up with Now Let's Talk About
Maurice André!
You will probably be very relieved to know that I am now planning to stfu as I understand the young people so charmingly put it. My vote, which I know we are not doing, would be for Brahms's
. Thanks and best wishes to all
DBaK (
talk)
11:59, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
•••Should we follow the rules?•••
Gerda Arendt has suggested changing many of the 55 occurrences on this page of Brahms's and Brahms' to "his", which would remove them from consideration regarding the present controversial thread. These changes might include the ones that Smerus attempted to change against consensus here. Ordinarily, WP rules don't allow changes to be made while it is a controversial subject being discussed on a talk page and before consensus has been reached. However, I am in favor of Gerda making the changes to "his", so I'm making it official and calling for consensus on that. Anyone disagree and think she shouldn't make those changes? Chuckstreet ( talk) 19:16, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
Also, there are some curly apostrophes on this page which violate MOS, that need to be changed to straight ones. Same with some curly quotes (open and close). Some of the curly apostrophes occur in Brahms’s and Brahms’, so that's why I'm mentioning it here instead of just going ahead and making what would ordinarily be minor (i.e. uncontroversial) changes. I say we make this change now; anyone disagree? Chuckstreet ( talk) 19:31, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
What exactly here is 'official'? And where does Gerda suggest changing every occurrence of the possessive to 'his'? I for one am against this. Smerus ( talk) 20:47, 5 October 2019 (UTC)
Several terms in the lead can be classified as peacockery:
His music is firmly rooted in the structures and compositional techniques of the classical masters.
The diligent, highly constructed nature of Brahms's works was a starting point and an inspiration for a generation of composers.
The diligent, highly constructed nature of Brahms's works was a starting point and an inspiration for a generation of composers.
A consensus has formed that terms that may be WP:POV may be stated as fact anyway if there is consensus among multiple WP:RS that they are. From AnUnnamedUser (open talk page) 22:01, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
To ascribe the surname such a far-fetched meaning as the plant broom, not only a good linguistic source is needed (as with all etymologies; Jan Swafford is no linguist), but that source would also need to present extraordinary evidence. The usual interpretation of north German names like this is as patronymics – in this case translatable as 'Abrahamson' or 'Abrahams'. 151.177.57.24 ( talk) 13:11, 25 April 2020 (UTC)