Talk:Johannes Brahms

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Contents

[edit] Influences on Brahms

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

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


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

[edit] Delete Appearances in Film and Pop Culture and Eponyms

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

I agree. An article about a movie that used a composers piece would make sense to mention the composer, but I don't think it makes equal sense for the composer page to mention every trivial film or performance --Sketchee 22:14, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
I've tried to deal with this. Pop culture is now a separate article, so people who want to read about that stuff can, and the Eponym is reduced to a labeled See Also link to Brahms inlet.

Opus33 16:03, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Wiegenlied - Brahms lullaby

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

[edit] Anti-Wagnerism

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

[edit] Brahms knowing early music of Schoenberg (or Zemlinsky)?

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

According to the wikipedia text in String quartets (Schoenberg) Schoenbergs first string quartet was composed in 1904, when Brahms was already dead. If it was Schoenberg's work, perhaps it wasn't a published work. Otherwise, it must have been Zemlinsky.--Atavi 20:06, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
If I had been more careful, I'd have seen that indeed he composed two early string quartets, one of them in 1897, when Brahms was still alive.--Atavi 20:08, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
Actually (iirc) he wrote it in the fall of 1897 (the quartet in D major), and Brahms died in April. There's a remote chance Brahms saw a draft, but I don't think the two crossed paths. There's still a couple more books I was going to peek into though... Thanks for checking! Antandrus (talk) 20:13, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
Looked it up. Schoenberg wrote his early quartet in "summer-fall" 1897. Brahms died on April 3. I think the article means to say "Zemlinsky" ... I'll go ahead and fix it.  :-) Antandrus (talk) 20:16, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
Bleah, now that sentence reads like a non-sequitur, since knowing Zemlinsky's early music has nothing to do with the breakdown of tonality. Maybe it should go. Antandrus (talk) 20:19, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
Yes, it seems that neither any work of Zemlinsky neither the early quartets of Schoenberg were atonal.--Atavi 01:48, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

[edit] Legacy

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

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

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

[edit] Chromaticism != atonality

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

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

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

[edit] Infobox

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

Why do you insist we have to discuss the removal of every single infobox individually? So if you were to go to Schubert's article and put up an infobox, I would have to discuss it with you before I take it down? There's already been lengthy discussions on WP:Composers, WP:Classical music and WP:Opera where everyone but you wants to see them go. Please show me this list of people who want them, because I'll set them the task of infoboxing EVERY single composer in Category:Composers by nationality. Just stop you point pushing until you have enough supporters such that you can complete the above task. Centy 18:55, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
Andy Mabbett, It's already been discussed and decided that popular musician boxes should not be used on composers' or opera pages. -- Kleinzach 07:00, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
You may have decided that, but there is no consensus. Andy Mabbett
"...where everyone but you wants to see them go." - that simply isn't true. Andy Mabbett 14:54, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Portraits

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

[edit] Influences

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

[edit] Subjects left

The omission of at least two things is immediately noted:

1. Romance life and marital status.

2. Synopsis of literature assessing his work.

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

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

[edit] "G W Marks" pseudonym

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

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

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

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

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

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

[edit] Scores now published on the Internet

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

[edit] Letting you know about Fritz Simrock article

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

[edit] Plagiarism?

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

Yes, it's plagiarism -- but not the way you think. It appears they steal content from us. Look at the Szymanowski page and compare it to ours, to take one other random example. Lots of sites pillage our content -- it's allowed under the GFDL -- but they're supposed to acknowledge it. You can always be sure by looking at their version, and then looking carefully in the history of our articles -- if we stole from them you'd find an obvious copy-paste at some point in our article history. Cheers! Antandrus (talk) 00:53, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
Took me a minute to find it, but here's the edit where Cenedi added that part. If you look carefully through the history you can see how he refined the article gradually; it couldn't possibly be a copy-paste from them. Antandrus (talk) 01:02, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. :) --~~MusicalConnoisseur~~ Got Classical? 04:40, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Vandalism

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

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

Ditto on "bizarre..." I've got no clue, either. Look here; the same question has been raised on the Debussy article, too. We'd best see into protecting this article, if feasible and following the guidelines.--~~MusicalConnoisseur~~ Got Classical? 22:34, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
In my experience here, anything that is likely to be an assigned topic for school homework will be targeted by resentful children. Music appreciation, history, math, and a few other subjects seem to be singularly vulnerable. Watch how vandalism falls off after hours in the U.S. (and then commences from Australian IPs). I just went looking through a bunch of American-history-related articles for vandalism frequency, and found it to be about the same for everything that isn't already semi-protected. Permanent semiprotection may be the future of Wikipedia, I fear, though it is currently officially against policy. Oh well ... Antandrus (talk) 22:47, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
It's not against Moreschi policy. If we're getting a lot of vandalism on this article with no productive edits from IPs I'll happily semi-protect permanently. Moreschi (talk) 22:49, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
I think you guys are right. After a few more reverts, and getting a feeling not many people have this on their watchlist, I semi-protected it for 30 days. Anons, if you'd like to edit please say so here. Thanks, Antandrus (talk) 17:03, 27 April 2008 (UTC)


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

[edit] Some attribution required?

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

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

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

[edit] Link to sheet music site

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

Well it seems he has just linked to the front page of a website without going to a specific profile, which sets off a red alarm for me. How come I can't seem to get through to the individual samples in the back? Blnguyen (bananabucket) 02:19, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
I changed the link so it goes directly to the page with the Brahms scores. --Ravpapa (talk) 05:27, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
That's fine. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 04:57, 16 May 2008 (UTC)