Robert Schumann

[edit]
Toolbox
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

This is my first major overhaul of an article on a German composer (the many earlier ones were all either French or English) and I shall be particularly grateful for comments from kind colleagues. I overhauled the article because it clearly needed it (badly cited, rambling structure, too much speculation and not enough fact) rather than because I am a particular fan of, let alone expert on, Schumann. I love his piano concerto, as who does not?, but his songs at the piano make my heart sink (unlike French mélodies which I love), and I hope my text does not make my prejudices discernible. Please tell me if I have steered too far in any direction. I hope to take the article to FAC, but I'll see what this review brings. Tim riley talk 13:30, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment

[edit]

As a singer, when I see an article about someone known for writing lieder, I am interested in seeing descriptions of what critics, singers and coaches/voice teachers or musicologists have said about the "singability" of his lieder -- what do they think of its construction for the voice, his skill at, or approach to, word-setting, and the way the accompaniment interacts with the voice, for example? -- Ssilvers (talk) 17:16, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think we cover his skill at word setting and his use of the piano-v-the voice in his Lieder in the existing text. I have seen nothing in the sources about how his songs lie in the singer's larynx. In preparation for revising this article I reread Gerald Moore's Am I Too Loud (a wonderful read and reread) and none of the singers from the 1920s to the 1960s are quoted on how the songs sit in their voices, but they all had them in their repertoires. Tim riley talk 17:32, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've since reread the chapter on the songs in the Cambridge Companion to Schumann and also Eric Sams's book on the songs, and I can't find any discussion of how the songs sit in a singer's voice. Tim riley talk 16:12, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Aza24 Comments

[edit]

What a thrill to see this here! Thank you Tim. I should love to comment extensively, but fear my schedule would not permit that until June. Some quick thoughts below:

Aza24. I am most grateful for these comments, which I have started addressing. It strikes me that you know a great deal more about Schumann than I do, and June is not far away: if you can give me more comments then, I am quite happy to wait. There are a couple of points above on which I think I may end up disagreeing with you, but let us wait and see. Meanwhile my warmest thanks for the above. Tim riley talk 08:29, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bless you! Like Oliver Twist, I hope for more. But quite understand if you haven't got time. Tim riley talk 15:27, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think you're quite right that we have different definitions of legacy; in my mind it includes both influence and reputation (see Josquin), albeit those being two distinct subtopics. I must admit, I recalled Schumann being a much bigger player in the 'War of the Romantics' paradigm, I'm now agreeing that the information is perhaps largely superfluous. Aza24 (talk) ;;06:51, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Aza24, thanks for that addendum. If you think you may have leisure and inclination to look in here again I'll keep this review open into mid-June. I hope you'll be able to comment further, but will perfectly understand if you can't. I'm already in your debt for excellent suggestions. Tim riley talk 17:19, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Some further comments, as promised:

SC

[edit]

Comments to come. - SchroCat (talk) 12:03, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Overall
Childhood

Done to the start of University; all very nicely written and very readable so far. - SchroCat (talk) 18:16, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you v. much for these. Looking forward to more when you are at leisure. Tim riley talk 07:41, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
1830s
  • Good point about whether he met all three at once. He didn't and I'll clarify. As to their influences on him, not much I think, but I'll check the sources and add something if it seems justified.
1840s
  • The comma is OK here, I think. This is an extract from Plain Words showing the comma before the quote: "The rule is easy enough to state. It is, in the words of an old grammarian, ‘that the words or members most nearly related should be placed in the sentence as near to each other as possible."
  • I think it has to be a colon in both cases. If it were simply noun, verb quote as in John said, "I think it's raining" I'd certainly use a comma, and would see a colon as AmE. But here the colon serves what Fowler calls "a special function, that of delivering the goods that have been invoiced": I make a statement and then back it up with a quote. There's no equivalent of "John said" before either of these quotes.

Done to the start of the Chamber section. Hopefully should be finished later today. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 08:06, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Second lot of thanks. No rush for the concluding batch, needless to say. At your leisure! Tim riley talk 09:04, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Only one more comment, and a small one. In the Chamber section, you have "Quartet as equally brilliant as the Quintet": Are the caps right? – SchroCat (talk) 17:41, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

MyCat

[edit]

Excellent to see another composer article- I regret missing the Offenbach FAC, so I hope to be of help here! I'll focus on 'Works' to the bottom, since it seems the bio was addressed by SC. MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 00:03, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Works

  • I think this must be a matter of individual computer settings. None of the sound clips are squashed on any of the three screens I have edited on. But I don't mind in the least if you want to experiment yourself. Tim riley talk 11:13, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'll ponder this. The main complaints seem to have been that Schumann wrote as if for a piano rather than an orchestra, with themes played by various instruments at once, producing a thick (some have said "muddy") sound. Tim riley talk 11:13, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Recordings

Legacy

  • Odd indeed, but it seems odd that Brahms of all people – devoted to Schumann – claimed not to have been influenced by him, and I want to get that out of the way before moving on to those who do show RS's influence. Tim riley talk 11:13, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's all from me. It's always a joy to read your prose, and I hope to comment at the FAC as well. Let me know when it's sent off- good luck! MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 00:03, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for these suggestions, which I'll enjoy working through. Tim riley talk 08:32, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And now done. Thank you so much. Tim riley talk 11:13, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

UC

[edit]
  • I hadn't spotted that suggestion on the talk page. I filched a few bits from the German article (e.g. the crack about him starting as a genius and ending as a talent). I'll remove the suggestion from the talk page. Tim riley talk 12:03, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm loth to include conjecture. I've added a bit saying there has been a fair bit of it, none of it conclusive. (I have not added that I think much of it is what is technically called bollocks. Has there ever been more ink spilled over any musical conundrum apart from Elgar's Enigma?) Tim riley talk 12:03, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • As I say in my preamble at the head of this page, I am no expert on Schumann, and practically all that's in the present text is drawn from the sources I have consulted while working on the draft. I didn't notice any suggestion, even in passing, that Schumann batted for both teams. Your comment sent me to the Grove article, which, as Grove articles do, gives one something to measure one's writing against, and there's not a word in there about any gay aspect in his nature. Schubert, I grant you, and Grove discusses that in his article. I see the German article also doesn't mention homo/bisexuality. I avoid "personal life" sections when possible. In my view it ought to be possible to include relevant personal details in the chronological narrative. Sometimes – e.g. for Benjamin Britten – a separate section is unavoidable but we've managed without for FA composers with colourful private lives, including Debussy, Berlioz, Offenbach, Wagner, Poulenc et al. Tim riley talk 12:03, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I can see this one both ways: there's certainly a lot of speculation (stick "Robert Schumann homosexuality" into Google Books to get an idea: here, p. 110f, for an example); on the other hand (as you say, unlike for Schubert), nobody seems willing to stick their head up and say that Schumann was attracted to men, and much of the debate seems to hinge on a reference in his writing to "Attic nights" with other men, which most seem to say could but need not be erotic. Happy to leave to you. UndercoverClassicist T·C 12:30, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • No. Blitzed.
  • The Great C Major was at the time much the longest purely orchestral symphony most if not all people had ever heard. True, Beethoven's Ninth, the Choral, is just as long, but at between 53 and 61 minutes in the recordings on my shelves the Great C major undeniably has length, and I'm not arguing with Schumann's praise of it as heavenly. In playing time it dwarfs all Schumann's symphonies, none of which lasts for more than about 35 minutes.
Unless it was actually written in China, Japan etc, I think you're going for a form of "orientalism" (that is, imitating vaguely-Eastern art in that quintessentially C19th, slightly eroticising, slightly idealising, slightly dehumanising, European way). UndercoverClassicist T·C 12:32, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent. Many thanks. Done. Tim riley talk 17:10, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I see what you mean, but the existing form is more usual in the sources. However, Daverio, who was a leading Schumann expert, uses the form you favour. I'll change for now, with the proviso that later in this PR, or at FAC if I get there, I may well meet objections. Tim riley talk 12:03, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not sure either. The older biographies suggest that the head of the clinic denied her access, but a couple of more recent writers have cast doubt on whether Clara, a woman of strong character, would have brooked an outright ban, and may have been convinced by the director's theory that a visit would be harmful to her husband until it was too late to make a difference. Tim riley talk 12:03, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

More to follow: I'm down to "Works" at the moment. UndercoverClassicist T·C 09:08, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for these. Looking forward to more at your leisure. Tim riley talk 12:03, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Interesting. I took this route because our WP article on the work is titled in English, but I have no objection to giving it here in German with an English translation. What think you? Tim riley talk 14:55, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
German with translation would seem both clear and consistent, both within the article and with the article for it. UndercoverClassicist T·C 15:03, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is frightfully difficult. Lied (or lied) and Lieder (or lieder) are words that if not fully naturalised have indefinite leave to remain. The OED calls it "a borrowing from German" and doesn't italicise it, but does capitalise it. I am confused. I'm not sure if I ought to use the lang template, but I entirely concur I need to be consistent about italicising, and will ponder further about what to standardise on. Tim riley talk 14:55, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough; I hadn't -- as they're optional, you're welcome to choose whichever option you see fit. UndercoverClassicist T·C 15:02, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes indeed. I was first ticked off for failing to close a subordinate clause or phrase with a comma circa 1963, and I'm still bloody well doing it! Thank you: it shall be amended. Tim riley talk 14:55, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
All three of them, I'm afraid: I would simply avoid anything like "as noted above", "the aforementioned", "as we have shown". Two reasons: one, they create a strong authorial voice, but a Wikipedia article wants to have a very quiet one of those, as the author (you or I on the internet) claims no authority, expertise or even identity. Secondly, for any reader who hasn't read the article top to bottom (for example, someone jumping straight to that section from the ToC), this could be the first time this information has come up. UndercoverClassicist T·C 15:00, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I see! But if I remove the backward reference I'll be sure to be accused of repeating myself. I'll trim for now, but I shouldn't be surprised if I had to reinstate the wording or something like it. Tim riley talk 15:13, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • The network is referred to in several German music journals, though it's all a bit circular as Crescendo: Das Magazin für klassische Musik & Lebensart, Das Orchester: Magazin für Musiker und Management and Die Tonkunst: Magazin für klassische Musik und Musikwissenschaft are all named as Partners on the Network's site. Given the involvement of these magazines and indeed of the Federal Government I think we are on safe ground in giving the network a mention. Tim riley talk 14:55, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, agreed, but I think we should have a citation to at least one source that isn't the thing itself to be iron-clad as to notability, DUEWEIGHT and so on. UndercoverClassicist T·C 14:58, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Right ho! Done. Tim riley talk 16:08, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's my lot. As ever, greatly enjoyable, and much of the above is well open to counter-nit-picking. UndercoverClassicist T·C 10:32, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much, UC, for your comments and suggestions. I value them hugely and will now deal with them in the text of the article. Tim riley talk 14:55, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

KJP1

[edit]

As the nominator is well aware, my musical knowledge is limited, but shall review shortly. One immediate point that struck me on first reading:

Legacy
  • "Schumann had considerable influence in the nineteenth century and beyond" - this statement is immediately followed by two comments which seem, at least to me, to suggest his influence was minimal. Would it flow better to put the positive comments first, and then follow with the ones that show the view wasn't universally shared?
And a few other queries/comments, most likely arising from my ignorance!
Childhood
  • "cello and flute lessons with one of the municipal musicians, Carl Gottlieb Meissner" - what is a "municipal musician"? Zwickau had a city orchestra, or some such?
1830s
  • "Schumann wrote enthusiastically about the work and described its "himmlische Länge" – its "heavenly length"" - heavenly length also puzzled me. Was it a "perfect" length, whatever that might be? The main article tells me it was unusually long for a symphony, would that be worth setting out in a footnote? I know it's been flagged before, by UC. Would your explanation there work as a footnote?
1850s
  • Genoveva - this has a bluelink. Has it been done already? It is linked under Works: Opera and choral later.
Sorry, I was unclear. What I meant was that it’s not bluelinked here, at what I think is its first mention. KJP1 (talk) 17:07, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I see. I think the first link is in the right place. We appear to be less rigorous these days about duplicate links, which is, I think, very sensible. Tim riley talk 17:15, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Works
  • "Hall suggests that this is because they are now played more often in concert, are widely available on record" - are they really widely available on records, in 2024? Perhaps they are, but maybe "recordings are widely available" would encompass those of us who no longer hold collections of LPs?

And that's it. It seems very comprehensive to me but, as you are well aware, I'm hardly a suitable judge. It certainly looks ready for FAC. All the best. KJP1 (talk) 09:17, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks, KJ. In fact there's much to be said for comment from someone not familiar with the subject. When writing about something one knows a bit about one is apt to make assumptions – the "heavenly length" being a case in point. I'm much obliged, dear boy! Tim riley talk 11:09, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My comments

[edit]

I've just read the lede. I note many "In 1844", "In 1841" etc., which feel overdone. Also, a comma should, I feel, follow the year: "In 1846 Clara gave the first performance..." would be "In 1846, Clara gave the first performance..." That would be my preference after we cull or move some of those. Eg "Clara gave the first performance, in 1846, of..." or "Clara gave the first performance of Robert's Piano Concerto in 1846". Though given the following clause that might not work so well. "In 1840 Schumann married Wieck's daughter Clara, despite the bitter opposition of her father..." would be "Schumann married Wieck's daughter Clara in 1840, despite the bitter opposition of her father" (no comma needed here). This is all pretty minor stuff, though, and may depend on personal taste. The whole article is well shaped and sourced, however, and reads well. A great candidate for GA/FA — Iadmc♫talk  19:18, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, the article is better than the C-class it has at the moment! — Iadmc♫talk  23:50, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for these points. BrE punctuation differs from AmE punctuation: each uses or omits commas where the other does not. I'll have another look at the quantity of dates in the lead and trim if I can, and move some years to mid-sentence if that maintains the sense. If you're interested, there is another overhauled article on a composer (in AmE, you'll perhaps be pleased to see) up for review: Igor Stravinsky. I peer reviewed it and will be rereading before commenting at FAC. Tim riley talk 08:15, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Tim. Not thought of Am/Br English. I'm going to review Stravinsky today — Iadmc♫talk  08:36, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Category