Talk:A German Requiem (Brahms)

Removal of recordings
Many recordings were removed, I don't know by what standard. I suggest to establish a separate article A German Requiem discography, as for major operas or the Bach Passions. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:58, 6 May 2011 (UTC)


 * The standard that I used was there was an explanation of notability, such as that the orchestra uses period instruments or the choir sings it in a language other than German. Or even that it won an award (I'm being generous and counting Grammies as awards).
 * But of course I have to explain my edits. Other Wikipedians who are more powerful than I am can remove anything they want and they don't have to explain it to anyone. That's the Wikipedia way. James470 (talk) 20:09, 8 May 2011 (UTC)


 * I don't see it as a matter of power. I would like to go for completeness. To go for original instruments but exclude recordings in the original language seems a bit strange to me. To remove historical figures such as Shaw and Celibidache left me speechless, I confess. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:27, 8 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Indeed, there are other criteria that should be used ... e.g. a major re-release of a recording, how "famous" it is ... which is quite hard to quantify! I agree that it would probably be best to move them to a separate discography article. Graham 87 01:11, 9 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Moved. That article is in it's beginning, help and comments welcome. Once it is established, it should replace the personal selection of one editor left in the works article at the moment, imo.--Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:47, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Lyrics
Per WP:NOT and WP:MOSMUSIC, I am removing the source text and translation, as they do not seem to fit the guidelines for usage of source text. I am copying the table over here, however, if anybody would like to move the source text ot Wikisource, which is likely where it belongs.  Bramble  claw  x   15:57, 24 June 2011 (UTC)


 * I disagree that the placement of the German and English text in this article contradicts the guidelines you mention in any way. The removal of the table above left the article with an ugly and pointless and unencyclopedic playlist. Im accordance with widespread Wikipedia practice, it should be reinstated. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 09:03, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, of course it should go back: readers should not have to go to the talk page or edit history to find information they're looking for! Sparafucil (talk) 19:10, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Track/Movement Listing
I came here to check on correctness of movement names and found none listed. Usually classical compositions have differing headings on the various recordings, but aside from a lengthy, exhaustive table, I found no reference to titles of movements. I have a recording, so am inserting them from that CD ("EDR" - Price, Ramey, Royal Phil. Orch., Previn, 1987). --David Be (talk) 14:50, 27 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I've formatted them as a list and added English translations. The conventional titles of movements 4 and 7 are shorter than the ones you provided, so I've modified them accordingly. Graham 87 04:40, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
 * The new section "Movement Titles" has several flaws. It's not conforming to MOS:HEADINGS (sentence case), and its wording is redundant; it should be "Movements". Second, the whole section is redundant because the section "Table of movements" shows the titles in German and English as the first line of each movement. Once the redundant section has been removed, the naming of the remaining section can be simplified. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 06:24, 28 April 2013 (UTC)


 * I knew about the table, but it's almost a bit too exhaustive ... it wasn't easy for me (doing a quick scan of the table with my screen reader) to figure out the titles of the movements. Perhaps a separate column should be created for the titles, or they could be incorporated with the Roman numerals next to the audio? (The latter would be a bit redundant, but maybe easier to understand?) I don't know what's possible with tables, and I'm aware this is a special case where the text is specific and very important to the understanding of the piece. (Many of the details are already in the German Wikisource entry.) Anyway the extra list really won't help us here, so I've removed it again. I hope I'm making sense ... it's awfully late here! Graham 87 16:25, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I had the same thought about trying to incorporate the movement titles into the table rows with the Roman numerals, but decided against it as it would be ridiculously redundant. Maybe emphasizing the relevant first lines by bolding them in the table might be better.
 * P.S. The last part of the second movement should be named "Freude, ewige Freude" (Joy, eternal joy). -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 02:57, 29 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Done and done. Graham 87 16:33, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Some discussion of the influence of Schütz would help
This article fails to even mention the often discussed fact that Brahms was quite familiar with, indeed had made a study of, Heinrich Schütz's 1636 Musicalisches Exequien; Concert in Form einer teutschen begräbnis-Missa. The influence of Schütz, in the declamation and textures, despite more than 200 years of stylistic change, is fairly obvious, and deserves some analysis. Oldionus (talk) 17:01, 25 August 2013 (UTC)