Talk:Clarinet Trio (Brahms)

Untitled
The History section doesn't make sense. His 58th birthday was in May 1891. So he couldn't have soon "afterwards" heard Muhlfeld in March 1891. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sportzak (talk • contribs) 04:40, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 11 January 2021 and 1 May 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Justpatriciathings.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 19:08, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

The present version is tendentious
I am flabbergasted by the present content of this article. Brahms's clarinet trio is a sublime composition, full of an almost overwhelming emotional warmth, and is greatly loved by many musicians, both amateur and professional. I can hardly believe that the consensus of the literature about it is negative. I've tried to track down some of the cited sources, but there are a couple of dead links and pay walls, so that none of the on-line sources can be verified. I find the word "admitted" to be quite tell-tale about the sophomoric intent to slam this piece in defiance of all sensitivity and refinement. Whether it is among Brahms's greatest compositions I will leave to others -- obviously that is a very high bar -- but having immersed myself in this piece for long practice sessions and having felt the great reward of living inside this music, I find it almost insulting. Sorry to be taking this so personally. I feel, however, that the article is really wrongheaded, and am skeptical that it presents a neutral point of view. Ishboyfay (talk) 06:23, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

I agree with Ishboyfay. This article could be improved by deleting most of the opinion in it. Sayitclearly (talk) 16:17, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

Hi, I'm justparticiathings, and I will be revising this article as part of my class on chamber music literature this spring. I look forward to adding more information and details to make the article to the next step. I look forward to your feedback on my revisions. --Justpatriciathings (talk) 16:08, 26 February 2021 (UTC)justpatriciathings
 * I agree that the article needs a rewrite. Regarding justpatriciathings' recent edits: I tried to fix the mangled Wiki syntax, spelling errors, uncited WP:OR, citation errors, but it was too much. Please start again, more carefully, improving but not demolishing the previous writing. Even the rewritten lead was no improvement. If the criticism cited in the article can be verified by inspecting the sources, it should not be discarded without other sources contradicting those. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 03:31, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

Wrong publishing date
Why does it say 1854? 2A0D:6FC7:213:CF95:246F:2203:DF2:6862 (talk) 09:17, 19 February 2024 (UTC)


 * That should be 1892, yes. I regret to say that this article has still been left in the sorry state it was well over 8 years ago now, with the criticism-driven flow and the problematic history to boot. Unfortunately I do not have the necessary grasp on article-writing to fix this... hopefully this will be taken up again within the next 8 years? 2001:569:7EFD:B100:3453:684E:9C96:74D3 (talk) 10:41, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I have rewritten most of the article using new sources. intforce (talk) 19:16, 22 April 2024 (UTC)