Talk:Johannes Brahms/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Proposed merge with Brahms-Institut

I do not believe this institution on its own is notable enough to warrant an article. TKK ^{bark !} 12:59, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

There seems to be no strong feeling either way, and the proposer is free to carry out an uncontested merger after about a week. If no merger is carried out in the next few days I will be removing the tags. William Avery (talk) 21:40, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Oppose. See also Talk:Brahms-Institut. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 14:34, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Agree

OK, I agree now. Thanks for the detailed presentation. Marlindale (talk) 15:35, 12 October 2016 (UTC)h

The "one piece" at issue

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)

Undue emphasis

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.

• You say that Geiringer is "a not very reliable source". Can you point me to a reference for this contention. I always thought that Geiringer and Swafford were the definitive biographies of Brahms.
• You contest that counterpoint was central to Brahms's style, though "he did on occasion write passages in what we might call a contrapuntally dense style...consistent with a tendency for post-Baroque composers to use overtly contrapuntal styles in their church music..." Brahms, as far as I know, did not write any "church music" per se (is the Requiem "church music"?), but includes contrapuntal procedures in many, if not most, of his compositions. To quote Swafford, "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) Other writers, too, consider Brahms to be a master of counterpoint and see contrapuntal techniques as central to his oeuvre. See, for example, "Brahms and Subject/Answer Rhetoric" by Peter Smith (Music Analysis, Vol. 20, No. 2 (Jul., 2001), pp. 193-236), "The Brahms-Joachim Exercises in Counterpoint" by Leonard Ellinwood (Bulletin of the American Musicological Society, No. 11/12/13 (Sep., 1948), pp. 50-51). Moreover, Brahms himself considered counterpoint an essential element in his approach to composition - see, for example, his correspondence with Joachim on exchanging counterpoint exercises.
• "Schumann... occasionally indulged in counterpoint, usually of a simple type, in secular works; he usually got away with it." I found this contention truly astonishing. ""[Schumann's] later [compositions] are engendered by the spirit of the Bachian fugue" writes Gerald Abraham ("Modern Research on Schumann," Proceedings of the Royal Musical Association IS (1948): 74 - 75). The concluding fugue of the piano quintet, for example - where he writes a double fugue using as subjects the themes of the first and last movements, and includes counter-themes taken from motifs of other movements - is considered a masterpiece of fugal writing.
• "Mendelssohn's counterpoint was usually ill-advised." Again, everything I have ever read about Mendelssohn contends the opposite. "There is the clear influence of the music of Bach, most evident in the two fugues. If the G minor Fugue appears as a rather academic double fugue, the considerably more accomplished E flat major Fugue suggests an elegant homage to Bach; it has a direct link with the St. Matthew Passion." (R. Larry Todd, "A Mendelssohn Miscellany", Music & Letters, Vol. 71, No. 1 (Feb., 1990), pp. 52-64). I won't belabor you with other quotes on this.
• "Beethoven stands out as the only contrapuntal master of the age." This statement really threw me. While Beethoven certainly was adept at contrapuntal writing, and in his late compositions (Hammerclavier and Grosse Fuge) takes counterpoint to a new plane, counterpoint is a far less dominant element in his style than it is in that of later Romantic composers - most notably the three you mention (Brahms, Schumann and Mendelssohn). I have also read criticisms of Beethoven's earlier fugal compositions, though I can't remember now where.

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)

• Spouting. Is it a put-down? Let's look at your bullets, helpfully not numbered for later reference.

1. Geiringer ... famous for tabulating instruments in Renaissance paintings, as curator of Haydn's skull, etc. He said of himself: "I have made adequate use of the modest resources with which nature endowed me".

   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.

2. "You contest that counterpoint was central to Brahms's style", you accuse. That is the very opposite of my view. Church music: I didn't want to indulge in semantic boundaries to that extent, but yes, the Requiem would probably count as that, as would the organ chorale preludes of 1896.

   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.

3. " 'Schumann... occasionally indulged in counterpoint, usually of a simple type, in secular works; he usually got away with it.' I found this contention truly astonishing." (Please note that ellipsis points are spaced before and after.) So you don't agree that he usually got away with it? The section you refer to in the piano quintet is exactly what I had in mind when I wrote that statement. It's wonderful, and he did indeed get away with it. But Bachian? How? The low cap on contrapuntal density is not Bachian. Please explain. Another quote from 1948? Anglophone musicology was oriented towards biography at that stage, and the motive-obsessed example of Tovey was the most analytical it ever became. I'd be careful in quoting them chapter and verse out of context.
4. Mendelssohn: You write: "Again, everything I have ever read about Mendelssohn contends the opposite", which rather gives the impression that you don't listen to the music, but just read what selected authors say about it. What is this "direct link" with the Matthew Passion? Is it technical? If Music and Letters is on JSTOR, I'll take a look.
5. "counterpoint is a far less dominant element in [Beethoven's] style than it is in that of later Romantic composers – most notably the three you mention (Brahms, Schumann and Mendelssohn)". What gave you that idea? Tony (talk) 05:49, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

@Tony1: - Thank you for clarifying your opinions here. Unfortunately, I find nothing in your response that suggests that other scholars share your opinions. The only documentary evidence you offer is a quote from Geiringer, which proves his modesty but says nothing of his competence. Everything else you say about him is wrong - his biography of Brahms was published in 1947, not 1936, and, while he was indeed the curator of Haydn's skull, it is certainly not what he is most known for - he did it because he held the highest musicological position in Austria at the time, the curator of the archives at the Gesellschaft der Musikfreunde. (Also, it's Swafford, not Stafford - a biography you certainly should read.)

But we are discussing Brahms, not Geiringer. And in light of the overwhelming agreement among scholars that counterpoint is a central element in Brahms's compositional style, and you yourself confirm it ("That is the very opposite of my view"), I am reinstating Marlindale's edit. Should you offer documentation to confirm your interesting opinions, even if unsupported by sources, I will be glad to discuss it further. Ravpapa (talk) 17:24, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

No, I will not allow this article to mislead readers. YOU haven't answered my several questions. Tony (talk) 02:00, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Conclusion(s) from that

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)

Shortcomings

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)

Undue emphasis

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.

• You say that Geiringer is "a not very reliable source". Can you point me to a reference for this contention. I always thought that Geiringer and Swafford were the definitive biographies of Brahms.
• You contest that counterpoint was central to Brahms's style, though "he did on occasion write passages in what we might call a contrapuntally dense style...consistent with a tendency for post-Baroque composers to use overtly contrapuntal styles in their church music..." Brahms, as far as I know, did not write any "church music" per se (is the Requiem "church music"?), but includes contrapuntal procedures in many, if not most, of his compositions. To quote Swafford, "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) Other writers, too, consider Brahms to be a master of counterpoint and see contrapuntal techniques as central to his oeuvre. See, for example, "Brahms and Subject/Answer Rhetoric" by Peter Smith (Music Analysis, Vol. 20, No. 2 (Jul., 2001), pp. 193-236), "The Brahms-Joachim Exercises in Counterpoint" by Leonard Ellinwood (Bulletin of the American Musicological Society, No. 11/12/13 (Sep., 1948), pp. 50-51). Moreover, Brahms himself considered counterpoint an essential element in his approach to composition - see, for example, his correspondence with Joachim on exchanging counterpoint exercises.
• "Schumann... occasionally indulged in counterpoint, usually of a simple type, in secular works; he usually got away with it." I found this contention truly astonishing. ""[Schumann's] later [compositions] are engendered by the spirit of the Bachian fugue" writes Gerald Abraham ("Modern Research on Schumann," Proceedings of the Royal Musical Association IS (1948): 74 - 75). The concluding fugue of the piano quintet, for example - where he writes a double fugue using as subjects the themes of the first and last movements, and includes counter-themes taken from motifs of other movements - is considered a masterpiece of fugal writing.
• "Mendelssohn's counterpoint was usually ill-advised." Again, everything I have ever read about Mendelssohn contends the opposite. "There is the clear influence of the music of Bach, most evident in the two fugues. If the G minor Fugue appears as a rather academic double fugue, the considerably more accomplished E flat major Fugue suggests an elegant homage to Bach; it has a direct link with the St. Matthew Passion." (R. Larry Todd, "A Mendelssohn Miscellany", Music & Letters, Vol. 71, No. 1 (Feb., 1990), pp. 52-64). I won't belabor you with other quotes on this.
• "Beethoven stands out as the only contrapuntal master of the age." This statement really threw me. While Beethoven certainly was adept at contrapuntal writing, and in his late compositions (Hammerclavier and Grosse Fuge) takes counterpoint to a new plane, counterpoint is a far less dominant element in his style than it is in that of later Romantic composers - most notably the three you mention (Brahms, Schumann and Mendelssohn). I have also read criticisms of Beethoven's earlier fugal compositions, though I can't remember now where.

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)

• Spouting. Is it a put-down? Let's look at your bullets, helpfully not numbered for later reference.

1. Geiringer ... famous for tabulating instruments in Renaissance paintings, as curator of Haydn's skull, etc. He said of himself: "I have made adequate use of the modest resources with which nature endowed me".

   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.

2. "You contest that counterpoint was central to Brahms's style", you accuse. That is the very opposite of my view. Church music: I didn't want to indulge in semantic boundaries to that extent, but yes, the Requiem would probably count as that, as would the organ chorale preludes of 1896.

   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.

3. " 'Schumann... occasionally indulged in counterpoint, usually of a simple type, in secular works; he usually got away with it.' I found this contention truly astonishing." (Please note that ellipsis points are spaced before and after.) So you don't agree that he usually got away with it? The section you refer to in the piano quintet is exactly what I had in mind when I wrote that statement. It's wonderful, and he did indeed get away with it. But Bachian? How? The low cap on contrapuntal density is not Bachian. Please explain. Another quote from 1948? Anglophone musicology was oriented towards biography at that stage, and the motive-obsessed example of Tovey was the most analytical it ever became. I'd be careful in quoting them chapter and verse out of context.
4. Mendelssohn: You write: "Again, everything I have ever read about Mendelssohn contends the opposite", which rather gives the impression that you don't listen to the music, but just read what selected authors say about it. What is this "direct link" with the Matthew Passion? Is it technical? If Music and Letters is on JSTOR, I'll take a look.
5. "counterpoint is a far less dominant element in [Beethoven's] style than it is in that of later Romantic composers – most notably the three you mention (Brahms, Schumann and Mendelssohn)". What gave you that idea? Tony (talk) 05:49, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

@Tony1: - Thank you for clarifying your opinions here. Unfortunately, I find nothing in your response that suggests that other scholars share your opinions. The only documentary evidence you offer is a quote from Geiringer, which proves his modesty but says nothing of his competence. Everything else you say about him is wrong - his biography of Brahms was published in 1947, not 1936, and, while he was indeed the curator of Haydn's skull, it is certainly not what he is most known for - he did it because he held the highest musicological position in Austria at the time, the curator of the archives at the Gesellschaft der Musikfreunde. (Also, it's Swafford, not Stafford - a biography you certainly should read.)

But we are discussing Brahms, not Geiringer. And in light of the overwhelming agreement among scholars that counterpoint is a central element in Brahms's compositional style, and you yourself confirm it ("That is the very opposite of my view"), I am reinstating Marlindale's edit. Should you offer documentation to confirm your interesting opinions, even if unsupported by sources, I will be glad to discuss it further. Ravpapa (talk) 17:24, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

No, I will not allow this article to mislead readers. YOU haven't answered my several questions. Tony (talk) 02:00, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Conclusion(s) from that

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)

Shortcomings

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)

RFC: Should the lead of the article on Johannes Brahms include counterpoint as a key element in his compositional style?

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.

---

The Issue

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)

What the sources say

Here is what the sources say about Brahms's compositional style:

• Karl Geiringer, author of Brahms: His Life and Work, considered one of the definitive biographies of Brahms: "For Brahms, ... the most complicated forms of counterpoint were a natural means of expressing his emotions. As Palestrina or Bach succeeded in giving spiritual significance to their technique, so Brahms could turn a canon in motu contrario or a canon per augmentationem into a pure piece of lyrical poetry." (Brahms: His Life and Work, Da Capo Press; 3 edition (August 22, 1984) p 296. Geiringer analyzes dozens of works in his book; in almost every case, he notes the extensive use of counterpoint in the work.

• Jan Swafford, author of Johannes Brahms, considered today to be the definitive biography of the composer: "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)

• Donald Tovey, one of the leading musicologists of the 20th century: "[Brahms's] style was from the outset almost evenly balanced between the most dramatic sonata-form and the highest polyphony." ("Brahms" in Cobbett's Cyclopedic Survey of Chamber Music (1935), p 159.) (It is clear from the context of this statement that Tovey is not talking about Medieval or Renaissance polyphony, nor of Classical and Romantic voice leading, but of Baroque counterpoint).

• Eduard Hanslick, friend and confidante of Brahms, and one of the most influential music critics of the 19th century: Brahms's style is characterized by "individually spiritual and supersensual expression, the beautiful breadth of his melodies, the daring and originality of his modulations, and his sense of polyphonic structure..." (Eduard Hanslick, On the Beautiful in Music, quoted in Robert W Hall, "Hanslick and Musical Expressiveness", The Journal of Aesthetic Education, Vol 29, No 3, p. 90) (Again, the context makes clear that Hanslick is referring to the Baroque art of counterpoint, and not to other forms of polyphony).

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)

Threaded discussion

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)

Thank you, Smerus. That was the next thing I was planning to do. I should have done it first. Now it is done, I hope the paragraph will remain intact until the RFC is complete. Ravpapa (talk) 11:58, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Votes and comments

I agree with Ravpapa and Smerus. Marlindale (talk) 17:17, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

This so-called "RFC" is illegitimate. See WP:RFC, which requires that RFCs be set up in a brief and neutral way. Tony (talk) 04:44, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

• Do not include - Or at least not as stated. The mention of Bach seems to be WP:OFFTOPIC and not proper to a summation of a Brahms page, or content suitable for the page. In addition, counterpoint at all seems not really needing to be at lead level. This seems something the article conveyed that he did well but not as the key thing to his works or what he's best known for. While his use of counterpoint may be noted as masterful ... it looks like 'just' skilled usage one of many aspects he was using, not that he made innovation or repopularized/advanced the concept, nor is a work of his mentioned as a particularly noted in discussions of counterpoint. His works best known (Brahms' Lullaby, Brahms requiem, and other compositions) are not mentioning counterpoint. When I look for it specifically, what I see at Geistliches Lied [1][2] portrays it as skillfully there, among other items. Markbassett (talk) 15:24, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

Markbassett, I'm not quite sure what you exactly intend by mentioning the Lullaby and Requiem. The article on the latter, for example, mentions that "the third and sixth movements have fugues at their climax". If that's not counterpoint, what is? And if the Lullaby exhibits no counterpoint, so what? No editor has claimed that all of Brahms's works are pervaded by counterpoint. Further, what 'we' look for or see, or what things 'look like' to us, as editors, isn't relevant for WP- that's just WP:OR. In the present case, an editor has found and cited reliable sources which suggest that counterpoint was important to Brahms's style. In general, if it can be demonstrated that composer A was influenced by composer B, then mention of composer B in this context is not WP:OFFTOPIC. If you think this is contentious you should bring to the argument reputable sources which contradict or dispute the sources cited. --Smerus (talk) 16:06, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

• Do not include, at least not as written. Should definitely not mention Bach, and should not say "the complex and highly disciplined art", which is editorializing. Since the references above mention that Brahms' use of counterpoint was mainly in his maturity, mention of counterpoint in the lede should specify that if it is mentioned at all. Although many of his great mature works have wonderful counterpoint, I'm not sure that Brahms is any more notable for his counterpoint than any number of major late-18th, 19th, 20th, and 21st century composers. I would also be careful of cherry-picking sources [3], [4], and I would compare with other contrapuntal composers before placing undue emphasis on it: [5]. Softlavender (talk) 09:53, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above 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.

Illegitimate RFC

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)

Please stop your aggressive campaign. You know very well that you were inserting your own personal comments into the article. Yes, you are behaving improperly. And you should read WP:RFC before attempting further aggression. Tony (talk) 12:22, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

And now, looking at your contributions list, I've picked one article you've been creatively tinkering with: Beethoven's Grosse Fuge. There I've added reference-required tags on many personal opinions that Ravpapi has recently added—extraordinary license taken by someone who is bellowing in the discussion above that I'm guilty of OR (I haven't added anything to this article, by the way). It looks as though I'll have to sort out what you've been doing to music articles more widely. I also note that you, or your supportive friend Smerus, have just today added your own unreferenced editorialising to this article—pushing further your pet theory that Brahms is overwhelmingly a contrapuntal composer, a theory that takes out of all context what some writers have said. These insertions, according to Smerus, just above, would reverse-justify your contention in the RFC. Please note that RFCs need to be brief and neutral. This one is way out of line, and not legitimate. Tony (talk) 13:16, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

I noted the discussion of this article at WP:Classical music. My editing of the article so far has been in fact basically copy-editing, deleting or requesting citations for doubtful or irrelevant material. I have not edited anything referring to counterpoint. The editing I have undertaken specifically requests sourcing; such edits do not themselves require sourcing. By the way, Tony1, editing is not the same as WP:EDITORIALISING - I am sure you meant the former when mentioning me - because, as I am sure you are aware, and as someone who by his own account "like[s] the teamwork aspect of working on Wikipedian text", it is appropriate for editors who disagree with others to WP:AGF and to conduct discussions without ad hominem comments. The sources cited by Ravpapa regarding counterpoint seem to me relevant and appropriate. I notice nothing in the article or in the sources cited by Ravpapa which indicate, or even suggest, that Brahms was "overwhelmingly a contrapuntal composer" as Tony1 says they do. If Tony1 can provide sources of similar quality refuting Brahms's attachment to counterpoint, they would of course also be valid and should be included in the article and cited. Best, --Smerus (talk) 16:24, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Why do you feel the need to tell me that "editing is not the same as editorialising"? Why are there now personal opionions lauding Brahms's countrapuntal mastery (I've marked them as , inserted to make a political point concerning this illegitimate RFC. Finding refutations is not the issue: it's undue emphasis and the use of claims in sources out of context and without discussing what they intended to mean by counterpoint. But your aggressive friend Ravapupi doesn't seen the need to answer the questions I posed in the thread above. It's disgusting behaviour. Tony (talk) 00:06, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

Tony, I don't understand why you call User:Ravpapa my friend (especially as, quite rightly, you seem hot on others offering opinions which are not sourced) - but let me advise you that if you are attempting to wind me up you won't succeed. Try to understand that in editing Wikipedia, not everyone who disagrees with you is an enemy, not every agreement is given only by friends. For what it is worth I think you were quite right to flag some of Ravpapa's editing for sourcing - if these opinions cannot be sourced they should be deleted - and if Ravpapa cannot source them they would best be deleted by himself imo. Also, in the name of editorial amity, I would further advise that it is worth making the effort to spell editors' names correctly, even when you disagree with them. Best, --Smerus (talk) 12:57, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

Response to Smerus

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 user's name is RAVPAPA. Ravpapa. That's 7 letters (count them). There are zero i's in his/her name, but 3 a's. How hard is it to observe the basic decency of spelling a fellow user's name correctly? Particularly after having your attention drawn to this. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 09:28, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

Ah, I see I've been misspelling it, and missed the point in Smerus's post above after I saw finger-pointing language like "let me advise you that", and "Try to understand", and an accusation (false) that I'm attempting to wind him/her up. That ends up in skim-reading, I'm afraid. You yourself might have practised more civility rather than adding your own bit to the bossiness on this page. Tony (talk) 11:00, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

Oktaven und Quinten

I'm a little surprised that the article does not mention Brahms's manuscript which has come to be known as Oktaven und Quinten. It's his collection of instances of faulty voice-leading that he found in others' music. First published with extensive commentary by Heinrich Schenker in 1932 and then translated and expanded upon by Paul Mast (Music Forum 5 (1980), p. 1-196), it's one of the strongest arguments that counterpoint and contrapuntal issues were essential to Brahms's his compositional technique as well as his perception of music in general. - kosboot (talk) 17:54, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Existence of this MS is interesting, it would be fine with me if it were mentioned somewhere in the article, but it doesn't in itself provide evidence of the prevalence of counterpoint in Brahms's music.Marlindale (talk) 17:15, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

I guess I'm having a bad time trying to explain myself. My mention of Oktaven und Quinten was entirely intended to refute Tony and Tony1's removal of "counterpoint" from the article lead. I mentioned it NOT so much for the manuscript itself but because of the substantial and reputable musicological articles and thinking (that counterpoint was essential to Brahms's understanding of music) that have been generated by it. - kosboot (talk) 20:54, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

I think you are getting to the heart of the matter here. Brahms saw himself the upholder of a tradition, and consciously developed a style that built on its rules. The reason why this traditional technical rectitude is notable is that it brought him into conflict with such contemporaries as Liszt, who he thought used mere 'fistfuls' of notes, rather than proper 'contrapuntal' voice leading. This aesthetic conflict was probably the motive behind compiling Oktaven und Quinten. For Brahms it was one of the ideological causes in the "War of the Romantics", which is popularly cast as a dispute about chromaticism and program music. See for instance Laudon, R. (1992). The Debate about Consecutive Fifths: A Context for Brahms's Manuscript 'Oktaven und Quinten' Music & Letters, 73(1), 48-61. William Avery (talk) 22:16, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

What is "counterpoint", then, and "proper 'countrapuntal' voice leading", since these apear to be central to your proposition? Tony (talk) 00:20, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

Arrangement of material on counterpoint

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)

But ignore the compositional traits that make Brahms distinctive. Tony (talk) 00:21, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

Did Brahms "doze off" while Liszt performed?

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)

I think this story is highly dubious - unless I can find first-hand evidence I will remove it when revising the article.--Smerus (talk) 13:48, 24 October 2016 (UTC).

Brahms unwilling to go to England

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)

conflict of sources?

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)

Lichtental, Germany, not Lichtental, Austria

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)

Citations needed on works

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)

Photograph

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)

Unless it happens to be a portrait by one of the small number of noteworthy 19th century photographers, I think it's common to omit credit or lack of credit from old photos. Not sure why this would become a bone of contention. SPECIFICO talk 18:28, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

Me neither. That's why I'm in favour of leaving well enough alone.Smerus (talk) 18:41, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

The manual of style advises against credits for their own sake. See WP:CREDITS. If there were a notable mystery surrounding the creator's identity, which was referred to in the text, it would be permissible to say it was by an unknown photographer. As it is, we just have a studio portrait / cabinet photo, only remarkable for its subject. William Avery (talk) 18:44, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

Smerus is a liar, I gave explanation based on policy. He/she/it needs to have a good read at Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Captions#Credits . You should indeed "leave well enough alone"--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 04:34, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

How extremely unpleasant. Good to know Kintetsbufflo is "big enough" to deal with disagreements in such a civilized way. In return I offer him/her this guidance. Smerus (talk) 07:41, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Or, you could just stop lying...--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 10:34, 2 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)

What I appreciate is that there is some distance between "error in this small matter" [6], doubling-down on it [7], tripling-down on it vide "Without explanation", still awaiting your "valid points well-made" if you have any, and then quadrupling-down on it [8]. Two other editors told you that you were wrong policy-wise, you had plenty of time to retract. That's not "one mistake," that's four. I have no "anxiety" except about your behavior. I've seen Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Talk:Johannes_Brahms.23Photograph, which was "Closed as not an article content issue". Mistake #5. Quit while you're behind. I walked away from this yesterday. You should too.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 11:26, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

I have now reported the above exchanges with Kintetsubuffalo to WP:ANI Smerus (talk) 12:44, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

• The photograph is by C. Brasch and is from 1889. (One-third of the Triplex Portrait [9].) That said, we don't normally credit photos in captions unless the photographer insists upon it. The info is on the file. Softlavender (talk) 13:40, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Good find. I noticed the attribution on the file's page, but didn't find it particularly convincing, and it wasn't actually germane to the point under discussion. William Avery (talk) 19:13, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for this identification, Softlavender. The info on the file was just a name and date without citation, so I was uncertain whether these were the details of the photographer or a of a book from which the uploader took the photo. Smerus (talk) 09:40, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080518054948/http://www-ccrma.stanford.edu/~brg/brahms2.html to http://www-ccrma.stanford.edu/~brg/brahms2.html

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: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:36, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 March 2018 chumpsssssssssss hehe

108.239.34.43 (talk) 15:05, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Sakura Cartelet^Talk 15:35, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 July 2018

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.

There's a problem in citing Swafford, in that he himself has admitted in a letter to the New York Review of Books that his view is at odds with "mainstream academic opinion". William Avery (talk) 17:22, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

I'm a bit mystified. Swafford is already cited; and so is a different opinion. Both are acceptable authorities but neither can 'cancel' the other. So the article presently shows both sides of the story. Ktharangle/Swafford wants to downplay one and promote the other. If the only evidence is that Brahms told this story to Clara, then it is indeed anecdotal and it is WP:OR to claim that it must on that account be true, as Mr. Swafford does in the letter cited by William Avery above. (He might, e.g., on the basis of Swafford's letter, have made up the story as an excuse as to why he could not form relationships with women). As I wrote the sentence in question I am willing to affirm that I have no agenda, and I certainly don't accept that I have in any way 'jimmied the facts'. --Smerus (talk) 18:33, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

I think the balance in the current article is pretty good. The stories of Brahms-and-brothels are famous, and I think our current wording of "only anecdotal provenance" covers it well.

If some actual documentary evidence turns up, that would of course be different. Antandrus (talk) 18:42, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

PS: I see that Mr. Swafford himself admits that the story that Brahms related his brothel days to Clara comes itself only as a third party story (from Clara's daughter); hence hardly watertight. Anyway I've now inserted a note citing Mr. Swafford's letter to the NYRB which I hope covers this point fairly and accurately.--Smerus (talk) 18:49, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

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)

• So a story which originates from the child of a friend of Brahms, years after Brahms's death, is "evidence"? I think not. There is in fact no first hand evidence, as Prof. Swafford admits, that "Brahms recounted this story to people." --Smerus (talk) 07:41, 24 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)

Brahms' not Brahms's

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)

This is not an issue of grammar, but of punctuation. Publishers' style sheets vary on whether or not to add another S after the possessive apostrophe at the end of singular nouns ending in S or an S sound, as described at the page you cite. The Wikipedia style sheet on this matter, found at MOS:POSS, states "For the possessive of singular nouns, including proper names and words ending with an s, add 's (my daughter's achievement, my niece's wedding, Cortez's men, the boss's office, Glass's books, Illinois's largest employer, Descartes's philosophy, Verreaux's eagle)." It does allow for certain exceptions, but this is not one of them. You will of course regard me as uninformed when I say that I always pronounce the possessive of this name "Brahmsez", but I do, even while recognizing that other people do not. It has something to do with my upbringing and education, which clearly is different from your own.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 19:18, 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)

• So you because you agree, that makes it right? That's not how (constructive) dialog works. I undid your changes until this controversy is resolved. I didn't make any changes myself initially, I posted on the talk page instead, because I recognized this was a controversial issue. (Even the United States Supreme Court is deadlocked on this very issue, something that made me laugh out loud when I read that (on the page I cited) yesterday.) Chuckstreet (talk) 12:24, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

• User:Chuckstreet: Speaking of consistency, in your opening sentence you used the non-word "occurances" and the word "occurrences". Ya gotta be squeaky clean when commenting on the infelicities of others. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 09:05, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
  • now come on there, my onlyne typiing isn't impecccable either -Smerus (talk) 09:26, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
  • "Ya" and "gotta" aren't words either. ;-) I corrected my glaring misspelling/typo. I wasn't commenting on any infelicities, just pointing out a problem. One doesn't have to be "squeaky clean" to identify a problem; this isn't politics. Speaking of the real issue here, I stand by my expert opinion and knowledge that Brahms's is a misspelling (not a punctuation issue or even a grammar problem) and "Brahmziz" is a mispronunciation. Reading the former and hearing the latter make me cringe. Chuckstreet (talk) 12:24, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

• Chuckstreet, I am very sorry that you have chosen to revert my changes. You pointed out a discrepancy. I corrected it. You have now singlehandedly reverted it to match you own preference, changing 50 examples of the word. Of those who have commented here with a preference, two prefer Brahms's, as does MOS:POSS. Actually I believe that your reversion is vandalism. I am therefore going back to Brahms's.Smerus (talk) 11:56, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

  Smerus: I didn't make any changes; the 50 examples you refer to were already there and have been for quite a while. You are the one who made changes. I reverted you because your changes were already being discussed as a controversial issue on this talk page. It's not vandalism to revert someone's edits. Your response is edit-warring.

  To cut to the chase here, there is no such thing as a consensus of one. Consensus is not majority. Preponderance is not correctness. To say "I'm right because I say so" or "I'm right because I agree with so-and-so" simply does not MAKE it right, and certainly doesn't give you the right to go ahead and make the edit changes the way YOU want them.

Chuckstreet (talk) 14:12, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

• The style with "Brahms's" prevails in the sources I read, though I feel that in determining that, I already spent more time on the question than it deserves. It was discussed on these very pages a mere ten years ago - Talk:Johannes_Brahms/Archive_1#s's. William Avery (talk) 12:04, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

  But Basil Fawlty sounds like he favours "Brahms' ". William Avery (talk) 14:00, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

• The MOS, as pointed out above by Jerome Kohl calls for "Brahms's"; not only that, the very link Chuckstreet gave originally indicates that "that practically all singular nouns, including those ending with a sibilant sound, have possessive forms with an extra s after the apostrophe" according to many authorities, the alternative being less common. Smerus was quite correct to make the change he did; i came to the page a little after him and would have done exactly the same had i been a little earlier. Happy days, Lindsay^Hello 12:20, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

My comment above, as well as the two previous, were removed in Chuckstreet's last edit. I am putting them back.Happy days, Lindsay^Hello 13:10, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

• Lindsay: Your post is entitled "Nope, Brahm's is correct according to the MOS". Are you claiming that there is a third possible spelling? I would disagree with that one as well, as another misspelling. Anyway, Smerus was not correct to make any changes at all; see my reply to him above, as well as my comments in the page's edit summary for my reason for reverting him. I understand how getting reverted can make one "see red"; it's happened to me. But it was pointed out to me at the time that the change should be proposed on the talk page first if it's controversial. That's why I did just that in the present case.

• But we need to get back to the issue at hand. It would appear to me that WP style policy is contradictory or just plain wrong. I'll have to examine it further; Jerome Kohl said there were exceptions. If WP:MOS is in conflict with established protocols of the English language, shouldn't we change MOS? I do understand that there are disagreements over the English language protocols, among experts. However, those experts also have exceptions, and one of those states that it must be spelled the way it's pronounced. While there are some people who mispronounce possessive names like "Brahmziz", I think we can safely say that it should be spelled Brahms', simply because that's how it's pronounced. Long-standing misuses and mispronunciations and misspellings notwithstanding. The question is, then, how do we resolve if WP's manual says we HAVE to continue to misspell and we have to conform?

Chuckstreet (talk) 14:12, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

• Just to clarify points of reference, the WP:MOS:POSS everyone is referring to doesn't actually say anything. It just refers you to articles on Apostrophe. It would seem WP Style Policy therefore DEFERS to those articles. One of these is the Apostrophe article I've referred to, and everyone has quoted from, and it bears reading beyond just the first couple paragraphs (of the relevant section the link points to). I refer to several paragraphs in that section that talk about omitting the S after the apostrophe to direct the pronunciation. It would seem therefore, that WP:MOS is not in conflict, and that it does say we should omit the second S in cases where that second S should not be pronounced. Since Brahms possessive is properly pronounced "Brahmz" and not "Brahmziz", the spelling on WP should be changed from Brahms's to Brahms' on all pages where it is found, starting with the present one at least. (That is my proposition, but no changes should be made until we come to a consensus on this). Chuckstreet (talk) 15:20, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

  To clarify a question raised by Chuckstreet, the exception mentioned on MOS:POSS is "abstract nouns ending with an /s/ sound, when followed by sake (for goodness' sake, for his conscience' sake)." Other exceptions not mentioned there but found in style guides such as the Chicago Manual of Style and Hart's Rules are Classical Greek names ending in "-es" (originally -ης), "Jesus", and "Moses", the latter two regarded as "accepted liturgical archaisms". The "pronunciation" rule, for what it is worth, is primarily an American one, and is not very reliable, not only because opinions of correct pronunciation of possessives differ (as in this case), but also because there are names which, in the nominative form, end in a silent S ("Illinois", "Decartes"), as well as names ending in an S sound but spelled with some other letter or combination of letters (e.g., "Bruce", "convenience"). British practice generally ignores this problematic pronunciation rule, but there are disagreements there as well. In any case, discussion of changes to the Manual of Style belong on its talk page, rather than here.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 17:49, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

  • Jerome Kohl: I don't see the exception you mention anywhere in MOS:POSS (or the linked sections it refers to). What you quoted doesn't seem relevant anyway. I don't think we need to discuss differences between American and British spelling and pronunciation. That's more of a WP nationalist style question that isn't at issue here. I'm not taking sides (of the Atlantic, that is). I'm not finding fault with WP MOS style issues. Maybe I'm misreading you, but are you suggesting we ignore the possessive pronunciation rule (for proper names or other nouns ending in S) in WP:MOS? And is that because you are suggesting it's unreliable? I don't see anything in your arguments that prove or even indicate an unreliability, other than your "nationalistic" suggestion, which I think I ought to discount for the sake of peaceful relations :-) Chuckstreet (talk) 20:07, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

    • Chuckstreet: The exception which I quoted in Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#Possessives (shortcut MOS:POSS) is under the first subhead, "Singular nouns". It begins, "For the possessive of singular nouns, including proper names and words ending with an s, add 's (my daughter's achievement, my niece's wedding, Cortez's men, the boss's office, Glass's books, Illinois's largest employer, Descartes's philosophy, Verreaux's eagle)." This is followed by the exception I quoted, above. My sole purpose in raising the issue of the difference between American and British usage is that you have been relying on the "pronunciation rule", which weights your argument in favo(u)r of American usage. I'm not taking sides of the Atlantic, either, but merely trying to explain what some of the the reasoning is, pro and con, in the debate over whether or not the extra S should always be added after the apostrophe for singular nouns. I agree with you that there is no issue of national usage here, only a question of what the Wikipedia Manual of Style says we should be doing. For me, this is extremely clear, whether I personally like that particular style or not.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 22:25, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

• For what it is worth, I have checked several standard references. The New Grove Dictionary of Music and Musicians, The Oxford Companion to Music, Baker's Biographical Dictionary of Music and Musicians, and the Harvard Dictionary of Music all use the possessive spelled with the extra S. The Oxford Dictionary of Music avoids the issue by not using the possessive case at all. I have not (yet) found any reference book that uses the apostrophe without an extra S, though there may be some that do.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 22:50, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

• Brahms's. This does appear to be the standard presentation in reference books. I did the same check JK did above, and looked through some newspapers with decent editorial capabilities (NY Times, Washington Post, The Guardian) and find the same thing. I suggest we standardise on Brahms's. Antandrus (talk) 22:54, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

• Consistent, please, whatever. For me, cominging from German, one looks as bad as the other, but to my surprise I found "Brahms'" in the corresponding article. The normal way in German would be "das 2. Klavierkonzert von Brahms", vs. "Mozarts 2. Klavierkonzert". --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:10, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
• Brahms's. As Smerus said above. It's not only WP's style, but adheres (knowingly or not) to Strunk & White's The Elements of Style. - kosboot (talk) 23:56, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
• Brahms's is correct per WP MOS, and is the style in the handful of sources I've checked. Ewulp (talk) 00:24, 4 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)

"Brahms's" per MOS:POSS, sources, and previous use in this article. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 02:19, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

Chuckstreet, Apostrophe#Singular_nouns_ending_with_an_"s"_or_"z"_sound is not part of Wikipedia's MOS; it's part of the article Apostrophe. Every Wikipedia article about punctuation is not part of the Wikipedia manual of style just because it's an article about punctuation. The relevant part of WP:MOS is MOS:POSS: it's all there in the bullet point under the heading "Singular nouns". Ewulp (talk) 02:35, 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)

Not an expert in such things: if we decide S'S is what we use, would we leave S' in a quotation? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:12, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

MOS:CONFORM specifically says that only "alterations which make no difference when the text is read aloud" are OK. Admittedly it's in a slightly different context, but seems to favour retaining the original, possibly with a "[sic]" or comment in the markup. William Avery (talk) 12:00, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

But if the text as it stands now is read aloud, it sounds absolutely grating to my ears and to my sensibilities, especially as there are 51 occurrences of it. Just reading it makes me cringe because I know it's not pronounced that way. I have the same reaction when I hear people mispronouncing all kinds of words, and I'm not talking about differences in dialect or national/regional considerations. Brahms' is most definitely pronounced brahmz not brahmziz, so that would indicate by MOS:CONFORM that the change in spelling to Brahms' should be made. Chuckstreet (talk) 13:54, 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:

• all the online Grove bits to which my miserably limited account has access – that is, the front-page summaries, though a surprising number do manage to mention Brahms’s Geistliches Wiegenlied or He [Hugues Imbert, since you ask] was, with Edouard Schuré, one of the few Parisian advocates of Brahms’s music or something along those lines;
• Einstein, Music in the Romantic Era, Dent;
• Sadie (ed.), Grove Concise Dictionary of Music, Macmillan;
• Kennedy (ed.), Oxford Dictionary of Music, obvs;
• Headington, A History of Western Music, Triad/Paladin.

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:

• BBC Soul Music podcast – around 03:30 the announcer uses both forms, and neither sounds laughably wrong to me;
• In the above the preview text and the page text flip between both forms;
• BBC Record Review podcast – the announcer at 01:10 says Brahms's and so does Tom Service around 09:30;
• In the above I can only find Brahms's on 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?•••

MOS:POSS does NOT state it should be Brahms's, it states that it should be Brahms'. I've pointed this out several times now and indicated the reference, but no one is listening.

Michael Bednarek: "previous uses" does not mean it's correct.

Ewulp: You are incorrect: the section I am referring to IS part of WP:POSS. It's incorporated by reference. Go to WP:POSS and you'll see. WP:POSS contains but a single paragraph of two sentences, the first says to see an article/section regarding what symbols to use for apostrophes in possessive case (which BTW this Brahms page is also violating, including in Smerus' recent edit). The second sentence says to see an article/section regarding the English language usage, which is the relevant section we're discussing here.

Ewulp: the section "Singular nouns" in WP:MOS is not part of MOS:POSS, though it sort of looks like it could be interpreted as part of it since it immediately follows MOS:POSS. I'm focusing on the single paragraph clearly under MOS:POSS that refers to a section that states due to pronunciation of proper names being without an second S sound, the rule is to spell it S'. That rule is listed as an "exception". So even if we were to take the "Singular nouns" section of WP:MOS literally, the article/section definitely incorporated under MOS:POSS contains an exception to it, and we should follow that exception and not ignore it. Hey, I'm just trying to be a stickler for the rules, as much as it may pain me to do so! ;-)

The section of MOS:POSS that I keep referring to is about spelling a word like it's pronounced. This whole discussion subject is really about spelling, not grammar or style. Jerome Kohl took the view that this pronunciation rule was "unreliable" because it was "American" (like me) and not "British" (like him), but I find that argument ridiculous and insulting. The pronunciation rule is not unreliable. Besides, if we can't "rely" on the WP:MOS rules, we're sort of lost aren't we? I haven't heard any valid arguments as to why we shouldn't follow this rule. Only claims trying to discount the presence of the rule itself, and claims trying to imply we shouldn't follow it.

Chuckstreet (talk) 12:57, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

I'm sorry, Chuckstreet, you are wrong. MOS:POSS says this: For the possessive of singular nouns, including proper names and words ending with an s, add 's (my daughter's achievement, my niece's wedding, Cortez's men, the boss's office, Glass's books, Illinois's largest employer, Descartes's philosophy, Verreaux's eagle)". This is the second or third time you have had this pointed out, so please take notice that the MOS does call for Brahms's precisely. The only exceptions noted are abstract nouns ending in "s" and names ending in "s" or "z" which would be difficult to pronounce. While Brahms's name does end in an "s", it does not become difficult to pronounce, so does not fit the exception.

As for your argument that Smerus is edit warring ~ you opened this section by pointing out a contradiction, he noted that and resolved the contradiction in favour of the overwhelming usage in the article and the correct usage per MOS; that wasn't what you wanted so you have reverted, but to say what he does is a "consensus of one" or is not correct or "[p]reponderance is not correctness" or is edit warring is, well, wrong. The clear consensus here is that we follow the MOS and use "Brahms's". Happy days, Lindsay^Hello 15:33, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

Lindsay: we don't have consensus just because you say we do. That's a way of deplatforming, shouting down others, trying to close a dialog. Keep your comments constructive. Smerus has been engaged in disruptive editing without contributing to the talk page discussion instead. He has been warned and is on the edge of violating 3RR. Your posts and actions make me think you're a meatpuppet.

Re S' vs S'S: As for your insistence that you're right according to the rules, you (and several others) are not listening: I have provided the proof of the rule, you are reading the wrong section. Please go look at the sections I have indicated. Insistently and repeatedly shouting me down or belittling me personally (as Smerus continues to do) without addressing my points is abusive behavior.

Chuckstreet (talk) 17:30, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

• But despite this consensus, Chuckstreet has once again reverted 3 examples (only) of Brahms's to Brahms'. He has clearly gone against the consensus here and anyone who is in the mood should report him. I have too many other things going on in real life to engage with his pointless attempts to enforce his eccentric opinion.Smerus (talk) 17:06, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
• I read here "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". No. NO. There is no such thing as "correct English"-- s or not is a matter of style. If one runs into 51 with and 4 without an s, then maybe that's a sign already; in addition, I count maybe half a dozen editors who for one reason or another support "Brahms's", and not a single one except for Chuckstreet who is against it. Personally I don't know who's "right" here, but I do see that a. the s-es have it, b. the s-es cite precedent in the MOS, c. the s-es cite what appears to be a preponderance of 's in the literature. If this were an RfC we could close this right now. As an admin, I'm just afraid to look at the article history because it might lead me to block someone for edit warring. Drmies (talk) 17:25, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
• Chuckstreet, you're at 3 (reverts). Do not revert anymore or you will be blocked. And plz don't wait a few hours until you're outside the 24-hr window, because you would still be guilty of edit-warring. One more thing: you said "Since this issue has become controversial" and threw in a meatpuppet accusation? No--this issue, judging from this discussion at least, has not become controversial despite your best efforts. You can go on to discuss, sure, but you may not a. continue to edit war or b. make accusations. Drmies (talk) 17:28, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

Drmies: Stop making personal attacks and stick to the subject of this thread. Smerus has been edit warring and has been warned. I'm not the one edit-warring; I'm the one pointing it out and reporting it. I'm aware of 3RR: Smerus is on the edge of violating it, he's at 3 edits now; his next edit will go to AN3 and ANI. This issue is obviously controversial; it's a hot topic for some reason, but we need to engage in constructive dialog. Saying something is a certain way doesn't make it so, and an attitude of "Chuck is the only one who's against it, everybody else agrees" is an attempt to shout down the person (me) and stop the conversation (deplatforming). That sort of belittling is contrary to the consensus process. And we don't use majority rule; preponderance of evidence or occurences does not mean it's correct. Anyway, your own comments here sound like meatpuppetry. Let's try to have a dialog on this subject without the abuse, shall we?

My posts on this subject are still outstanding and have not been addressed. See above. I have pointed out the WP style rule and it says we must use Brahms' not Brahms's. Please address my points and stay on this subject. No more flaming or attempts to derail the conversation.

Chuckstreet (talk) 17:56, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

Chuckstreet: First, i am not a meatpuppet, and i'll thank you to retract that ~ you can do so by striking the suggestion above; second, the Good Doctor didn't come close to making a personal attack, and i suggest you strike that, too, as well as the suggestion that he is also a meatpuppet (i suppose i ought to be honoured to be included with him like that, but...); third, you have been shown precisely the correct section of the MOS, it is you who is not using the MOS but depending on an article in the encyclopaedia for your information, which is wrong; fourth, finally, if it is pointed out that you appear to be in a minority of one, that is pretty much a definition of consensus, so you may need to re-examine your arguments or conclusions.

To be clearer on the third point, quoting you from above, you say "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." The issus is that your link [[this one, here, is not part of the Manual of Style, it is part of the article on Apostrophes, which has nothing to do with how we write the encyclopaedia. I hope it is clear, then, that you have been shown the correct place to look, and that you really ought to look there. Happy days, Lindsay^Hello 18:11, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

There was no personal attack: I warned you that you were edit warring and that I would block you if you would continue. That's not difficult. And now my comments "sound like meatpuppetry"? That doesn't even make grammatical sense--but I read your lack of good faith loud and clear. You are correct in saying "a minority of one does NOT make consensus"--a majority, with arguments, of half a dozen, however, does. Drmies (talk) 20:27, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

A minority of one does NOT make consensus. Please learn the consensus process. Minorities of one are the most powerful voices in the consensus process; it is they who point out things nobody else is seeing, which serves to move along the process to an acceptable solution. Consensus process is different from majority rule in that everyone has an equal voice and no one can be shouted down just because they're in the minority.

As for your comments on the issue; I've already addressed that point in a previous post. The article has been incorporated as part of the rules. See MOS:POSS. And the section you and some others are quoting is NOT part of MOS:POSS; it is a different section of WP:MOS that comes *after* MOS:POSS. There may be a contradiction within MOS, but I wish people would stick to the section I'm referring to and address what it SAYS instead of discounting it out-of-hand. One person did address what it said with the comment that it was unreliable because it was American (like me) and not British (like him). This is just one more example of disparaging comments against me without addressing the issue in constructive dialog.

Belittling me (as you and others seem to be doing) is abusive and not constructive. Please have some respect for people and respect for this forum and the process.

Chuckstreet (talk) 18:53, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

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)

I don't see anything "official", but I do see a strong consensus around "Brahms's". By all means change any awkwardly worded passages to use "his" but certainly not all uses of "Brahms's". Antandrus (talk) 20:59, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

Peacockery in lead

Several terms in the lead can be classified as peacockery:

• "masters" from His music is firmly rooted in the structures and compositional techniques of the classical masters.
• "diligent, highly constructed" from The diligent, highly constructed nature of Brahms's works was a starting point and an inspiration for a generation of composers.
• "meticulous" from 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)

• WP:PEACOCK refers to "unprovable proclamations". The terms referred to above don't fall into that category, and when the section on music is revised (as it needs to be) it can be updated with references which justify them. The word "meticulous" doesn't in fact occur in sentence which the above editor cites. In the sentence which it does occur, "meticulous" is not an "unprovable proclamation", it is a description of Brahms's work process.--Smerus (talk) 23:22, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
• In addition, "the Classical masters" is a frequently used expression to refer collectively to Haydn, Mozart, and Beethoven. It has nothing to do with peacockery. It could of course be replaced with their names, but it is more elegant as it stands.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 23:34, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

Surname

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)

Cytisus scoparius, German Besenginster, is indeed called "Bram", especially in northern Germany. But IMO this titbit is not important enough for this article and the passage could be removed without loss. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 13:57, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

OK. Just a sidenote for the sake of clarity: I know it's called "Bram". But plants and flowers are much rarer sources for surnames than an ancestor, in this region as in many others, and homonyms (or near-homonyms) are ubiquitous and often alluring for a linguistic layperson (whether in the family or scholar in another discipline). 151.177.57.24 (talk) 14:40, 25 April 2020 (UTC)