Jump to content

Wikipedia:Peer review/Robert Schumann/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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:

  • The legacy section is perhaps concerningly concise. Much relevant information seems to spread out throughout the article. Examples:
    • "Although Schumann's works in some other musical genres have had a mixed critical reception ..." in the piano section seems an awfully important note, but is not expanded on in the legacy.
    • The paragraph which begins the Songs section seems equally out of place; a reader wanting to know about Schumann songs would click there and be greeted with repeated praises (which does not inform them of much). Such classifications are all from later commentators, hence more legacy appropriate in my mind.
    • The opening of the Works section seems to perhaps mix legacy too much (the amount of recordings there seems a bit excessive as well)
  • Something about the War of the Romantics ought to be included
  • Some scholarship/coverage thoguhts:
    • The biggest name I see missing is Dahlhaus. His Nineteenth-Century Music (1991) practically reinvented the discipline. Some other scholarship comments:
    • Some German sources (if possible), would be a fitting inclusion. The composer's MGG article and this book come to mind.
    • You might take a look at the works of John C. Tibbetts; his rather interesting A Chorus of Voices from 2010 mixes a variety of contemporary opinions on the composer
  • External links might include this site
  • Wolfgang Rihm, the leading German composer of today, was influenced by Schumann, see here, perhaps worth a mention in the Legacy section – Aza24 (talk) 04:38, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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]

  • I've expanded the legacy section, but I think perhaps you and I mean different things by legacy. I mean what he handed on to his successors, but I think possibly you also mean his posthumous reputation, which I'm not inclined to lump in with what I think of as legacy.
  • I've clarified the "other musical genres"
  • Though not entirely convinced the War of the Romantics is directly relevant to Schumann, I've given it a paragraph.
  • Never heard of Dahlhaus (showing my ignorance). I've found some useable stuff in his books and have included it. Three cheers for the Internet Archive!
  • I'll look up the German site and book when next I'm at the British Library. There are already three German publications cited, but a couple more won't hurt. (Bit of a slog, though, as my German isn't up to much.)
  • The Tibbetts book was a little goldmine, duly mined – thank you
  • The Network site is a gem and I've given it a sentence in the main text as well as an external link.
  • Rihm et al – duly mentioned.

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:
  • I find myself with some miscellaneous thoughts on the lead:
    • The first paragraph feels too barren as a single sentence. A sentence covering the composer's general output seem missing, akin to Mendelssohn or Berlioz. Otherwise, a sentence covering his reputation might work instead, akin to Ravel, or both like Britten.
    • The lead does feel a tad lengthy in biographical coverage. Two paragraphs on bio, one on music and seemingly none on legacy. I'd think the two on bio, one (probably larger) on music and one on legacy/reception might do better. In any case, music probably needs more coverage (see below) and having less biography seems like the necessary compromise.
      • Done. Tim riley talk 08:21, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      • His chamber music and symphonies are hardly mentioned. His piano music seems a bit sparsely covered; one might expect more pieces mentioned by name. Other aspects which could be considered including (instead of biography) are the opera & its mixed reception; his poor record for orchestration, which is a surprisingly consistent and repeated criticism (which the article's body already conveys); and his tendency to have prolific outbursts of compositions followed by relative lulls.
  • I do wonder if conductor is defining enough to warrant inclusion in the infobox or categories. If so, it seems missing from the lead. On a similar note, are we sure about "teacher" in the infobox? I don't see that mentioned in the text
    • The teaching is mentioned in the fourth para of the 1840s section. I can see a case for omitting "conductor" from the lead, but RS conducted on and off for years. As the the info-box, I don't think it matters much, but it is supposed to sum up what's in the article, whereas the lead is supposed to give an overview, which is not quite the same thing. Tim riley talk 08:21, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • You might consider "early Romantic..." for the lead. This is done at Mendelssohn's lead already, for example.
  • The chamber music seems slightly glossed over. That is, the third paragraph of the 1840s section ought to say something brief about when/if these works were premiered.
  • During the Russia section in the 1840s, it would be fitting to include the musical figures with the Schumanns (presumably) met. A glance at Grove lists Glinka, Rubinstein and the cellist Matvei Wielhorski. Maybe there are others
  • The way its phrased, I can't tell if Brahms played a sonata by Schumann or sonata by Brahms when the two met. It'd be nice to know which specific sonata, if that infromation is available. According to our Brahms Sonata No. 1 article, it looks like Schumann sent a letter of recommendation to Breitkopf & Härtel for Brahms. Might be worth including? – Aza24 (talk) 04:22, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I notice that many links in the solo piano section are linked earlier. Of course, that's completely fine (multi-linking is certainly permissible if helpful to the reader), but I just wanted to make sure this is intentional
  • Carnaval may have been the most popular in Maitland's time, but I highly suspect this is not the case now. In my experience, Kinderszenen is by-far the most popular; might be worth checking with newer commentators
  • He do have a List of solo piano compositions by Robert Schumann; may be worth a see also hatnote at the top of the solo piano section
  • Glad we fit Rihm in there; something strange is going on with the paranetheses for Fremde Szenen I–III
  • That's all from me! Bravo again! – Aza24 (talk) 04:59, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

SC

[edit]

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

Overall
  • Your comma usage fluctuates between serial and non-serial ("composer, pianist, and music critic" in the opening sentence and "lexicographer, author and publisher" in the Childhood section are the first two that struck me, so worth making consistent.
Childhood
  • As "state" can mean country as well as länder, maybe "the German state of Saxony", for those who don't know what Saxony is?
  • "last child of August Schumann": do we need to repeat Schumann so soon?

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
  • "During 1835 Schumann met three musicians whom he regarded with particular respect: Mendelssohn, Moscheles and Chopin": any useful information on how he met them? All three at once? individually? – and what was the upshot (ie. any musical impact from any of them on S?) I don't press the point – it all depends on the sources and whether there is anything encyclopaedic there.
  • 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 Schumanns toured in Vienna, Berlin": in Vienna?
  • "'Grove's Dictionary of Music and Musicians, "A regular: comma before a quote looks a bit American there.
  • 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."
  • Followed by two quotes preceded by colons, forsooth!
  • 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]

  • I think so. I think as there's only one of each the capital letter clings to it, whereas I refer to the symphonies collectively without a capital. Tim riley talk 17:46, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • May I canvass opinion on the two footnotes concerning Schumann's health - the finger paralysis and his decline and death? I have pondered whether they should be in the main text, but my conclusion is that the main text should be factual, as far as possible, and that what's in these two notes is entirely conjectural, which is why I've left them out of the main text. I'd be glad of your thoughts on this. Tim riley talk 09:42, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I think that's right, particularly as there seems to be no consensus on either point. I could see them in the body too, but I think this is probably the better of the two routes. - SchroCat (talk) 17:41, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • And another point for comment, if you wouldn't mind. My preference at first mention of composers or writers is to give them their full names if it is the composer or writer in person I'm talking about but just the surname if it's their works. So "the works of Haydn, Mozart, Beethoven", "Rossini's operas", "Mörike's poetry" but "he met Felix Mendelssohn and Frédéric Chopin". This is the way it's done in Grove's and Baker's Dictionaries and in other Wikipedia FAs on composers. What say you? Tim riley talk 11:07, 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

  • Is there a reason that all the audio boxes are squished up besides the second paragraph? I'd expect maybe one right at the top of the section, and then the rest down below the 'Solo piano' subheader
  • 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]
  • In his youth the classical tradition of Bach, Mozart - my limited knowledge of classical period music is about to show, but wasn't Bach late Baroque? Is it correct to classify his music as within the "classical tradition"?
  • Link Moscheles once more, since this is a new larger section and it's unlikely someone will read the entire article) as opposed to just skipping to this section)
    • Ditto for Abegg Variations (also, is the title intentionally not italicized?)
      • I can't get the italicisation as I want it if I use the required lang template. I'd prefer the work to appear on the screen as the Abegg Variations, but If that is possible using the lang template I'm blest if I know how.
  • Identify Maitland; critic? Musicologist? Composer?
  • "Of all the pianoforte works [it] is... - I recognize that "the first of these" precedes this quote, however it is still helpful to identify the work within the quote; no harm in repeating the name
  • His self-references include both the "Florestan" and the "Eusebius" elements he identified in himself. - having not red the bio part, this doesn't make sense to me- perhaps add an explanatory efn for those who skipped straight to this section
  • Although Schumann greatly admired Goethe and Schiller - any reason for not linking the writers here?
  • although with twenty-six songs with lyrics from ten different writers this set is a less unified cycle than the others - the double "with"s is tripping me up- perhaps "although this set is a less unified cycle than the others due to the twenty-six song's use of lyrics from ten different writers" or something of the sort
  • and many analysts have criticised his orchestral writing - I'm left curious what they criticised him for- maybe an efn with some more interesting bits?
  • 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]
  • After the successful premiere of the first of his four symphonies (1841) the - the year in parentheses looks like it's referring to the four symphonies, as if they were all composed in 1841 (could just be me though)
  • Link Allgemeine musikalische Zeitung
  • Link Genoveva and Das Paradies und die Peri once more in 'Opera and choral'
  • that it is "an evening of Lieder and nothing much else happens" - quote is not credited

Recordings

  • No concerns here

Legacy

  • Schumann had considerable influence in the nineteenth century and beyond. Brahms said that all he had learned from Schumann was how to play chess, and Dahlhaus regards Brahms's symphonies as in direct descent from Beethoven's, rather than drawing on Schumann - claiming that Schumann was influential, then immediately following that claim with someone that Schumann didn't influence is an odd way to structure this paragraph.
  • 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 notice that the Talk page suggests expanding the article from German: is there still anything there that would be useful? Would be odd to bring to FAC with a notice that it has gaps, but it might be the notice rather than the article that is at fault.
  • 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]
  • Born to a comfortable middle-class family, Schumann was unsure whether to pursue a career as a lawyer or to make a living as a pianist-composer: the nit-picking begins... firstly, a bit of a dangling adverbial: it's a little mean to be picking on him for not having made his mind up at the moment of his birth! Secondly, he did eventually make his mind up, so I would suggest adding "initially", "until he was thirty", or so on. UndercoverClassicist T·C 09:08, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • a growing problem with his right hand: suggest rephrasing: is this a problem with its growth, or a problem that got worse?
  • I think it's twenty-year-old when used in apposition, but happy to be counter-quibbled here. We do later have the twenty-year-old Johannes Brahms.
  • I appreciate that the origins of Florestan and Eusebius are obscure, but I think it would be worth including the suggestion made by Sams here and developed by Chernaik here, p. 53ff that he might have been looking for two saints' names connected, via the Christian liturgical calendar, to those of Clara (C) and his own pseudonym (David). I'm struggling to explain it briefly, but something to the effect that there has been at least one conjecture and that it's him and Clara, via saints' days, would be good: at the moment, we imply that nobody has had any ideas.
  • 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]
  • The article seems to have consciously avoided a "Personal life" section, but I do think the comments about his sexuality here, pp. 19f would be worth a mention: he comes up a lot in works on queerness and homo/bisexuality in music, though it's usually left as a "we don't know for sure, but maybe". As an aspect of his historiography, if nothing else, I think there's a WP:DUEWEIGHT case here. Certainly, we spend about a paragraph later talking about how he fell in love with Clara.
  • 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]
  • Carnaval, Op. 9 and the Symphonic Studies, Op.13: should this not work like MOS:GEOCOMMA and have a comma after "Op. 9"? It does in the article on Carnaval.
  • the work's world premiere: do we need world?
  • No. Blitzed.
  • Do we know exactly what he meant by "heavenly length"?
  • 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'm not a fan of "Firstname and Surname", where we default to giving the husband's surname but the wife's first name when there's a possible ambiguity: it can read as giving more respect or gravitas to the former. See In 1844 Clara embarked on a concert tour of Russia; Schumann joined her: if we're going to make her lose her last name for clarity, he should too: after all, they were both equally Schumann. So "Clara ... Robert", and then "but the tour was arduous and by the end Robert was in a poor state ..."
  • 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]
  • On 27 February he attempted suicide by throwing himself into the Rhine.: we clarified that it was a river in the lead, but not here. I can see an argument either way, but it's odd to have more detail/words in the lead than the body.
  • Friends, including Brahms and Joachim, were permitted to visit Schumann but Clara did not see her husband: I'm not sure whether to take from this that Clara was prevented from doing so.
  • 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]
  • Schumann's works in some other musical genres – particularly orchestral and operatic: not sure about the adjectival forms here ("Shakespeare's works in other literary genres -- particularly erotic and detective -- have been lost": sounds wrong to me): suggest adding pieces vel sim after operatic.
  • Schumann's first published work, the Abegg Variations, is in that style: I'm not sure whether that style is the Austro-German tradition or the style of Moscheles (who may well have been counted as German at the time, so maybe a contrast with "Austro-German" isn't quite right here?)
  • But he revered the earlier German masters: and thought Mozart was a bit naff?
  • often programmatic, though seldom explicitly so, such as: suggest reworking slightly: it's not clear whether the list that follows is a list of stuff that is cycle of short, interrelated pieces, or only that which is programmatic.
  • Although some of his music is technically challenging for the pianist : could cut for the pianist: I'm not sure who else it could have technically challenged, as it's for solo piano?
  • I notice that Album for the Young is titled in English, while practically everything else is titled in the native language.
  • 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]
  • "one of the four supreme masters of the German Lied": I think Lied and forms thereof should be italicised/in lang template, as we're using the German word: the eponymous article italicises (as do we, a bit later).
  • 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]
  • Would year of Lieder be a more useful translation for Liederjahr -- assuming he means specifically works in the Lied genre rather than music more generally?
  • I would italicise Rhenish in the caption, as we have elsewhere.
  • The music scholar Julius Harrison considers such alterations fruitless: I worry about WP:DUEWEIGHT here: presumably, if these distinguished conductors thought it worth fiddling with the instrumentation, at least someone thinks it needs fiddling with?
  • Hall comments that...: perhaps clearer if we can either rework the gigantic noun phrase or perhaps split the sentence into stronger clauses after it. This is a long one that requires the reader to hold their attention on the first bit for a long time.
  • I would make the link to Symphony No. 1 cover the "the" to be clear that it's not linking "first" (MOS:LINK?).
  • sometimes described as "a symphony without a slow movement".: I think it would be helpful to clarify a moment earlier that a symphony traditionally has a slow second movement.
  • With all respect to Simon Rattle, MOS:HONORIFIC would prefer that we drop the "Sir".
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]
  • Pianists for other recordings of Schumann Lieder: italics/lang template. Better as "Schumann's"?
  • Schumann's only opera, Genoveva has been recorded: comma after Genoveva.
  • 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]
  • Mother Goose 1908): I'd put a comma in here, as we did for "Children's Games" a moment earlier.
  • as noted above: I would avoid editorial insertions like this: we do well to minimise the authorial voice in a work where the author admits no authority, and many readers will read the article out of sequence.
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]
  • Dahlhaus regards Brahms's symphonies as in direct descent from Beethoven's, rather than drawing on Schumann,: final comma should be a full stop.
  • Fremde Szenen: we've translated every other piece of German, I think, so should follow that here.
  • During the second half of the nineteenth century...: this sentence becomes extremely long: suggest cutting up.
  • By the turn of the century critics such as Fuller Maitland and Henry Krehbiel showed that neither faction had a monopoly of virtue and that it was possible to like music by the conservatives and the radicals.: I'm not sure that showed is quite right for a subjective judgement, and the second bit seems a bit banal to me: do you really need to prove that someone can have odd tastes?
  • This led to the New Schumann Complete Edition : when was that published?
  • In 2005 the German federal government launched the online Schumann Network in collaboration with cultural institutions in Zwickau, Leipzig, Düsseldorf and Bonn. The site aims to offer the public the most comprehensive coverage of the life and works of Robert and Clara Schumann.: this is only cited to the Schumann Network itself, which makes me twitchy for MOS:PRIMARY, MOS:SELFPUB and so on. Has anyone outside the institution ever mentioned it?
  • 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]
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Peer_review/Robert_Schumann/archive1&oldid=1228269670"