Talk:Johannes Brahms/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Semi-protected edit request on 6 July 2020

Misspelling of "Brahms" in this section:

During 1869 Brhams had felt himself falling in love with the Schumann's daughter Julie (then aged 24 to his 36) but did not declare himself; when later that year Julie's engagement to Count Marmorito was announced, he wrote and gave to Clara the manuscript of his Alto Rhapsody (Op. 53). Clara wrote in her diary that "he called it his wedding song" and noted "the profound pain in the text and the music."

Change "Brhams" to "Brahms" DaveFromCalifornia (talk) 16:44, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

 Done. Thanks, well spotted! Favonian (talk) 16:51, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

References

Why no information box?

Beethoven and Bach have the information box. But then most of the other major composers do not. Like Mozart, Chopin, Tchaikovsky, Haydn, and Debussy. Since when are the great classical composers not worthy of an information box? Like why? Cj7557 (talk) 22:47, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

• It is not that composers are not worthy of an infobox - it is that an infobox, in the opinion of many, is not worthy of great (or any) composers. Information boxes are contentious, and many editors (including myself) deprecate them because of their duplication and generalization (among other reasons). All the information contained in an infobox - and more - can be read in the first paragraph of the lead of this article. In many of the cases you mention, disucssion has decided against an ifobox. If you are keen to have an infobox, start a discussion here and give your reasons. The discussion will hopefully generate a consensus one way or the other. I would point out that this article is currently (albeit slowly) being rewritten by me, hopefully to reach FA status. I do not myself intend to add an infobox.--Smerus (talk) 11:30, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

The name Brahms ... derives from 'Bram', the German word for the shrub broom

This is a highly dubious statement, citing a non-expert on surname history. Such claims should not be stated as fact, only as possibilities. Much more likely is that Bram is a short form of Abraham, and this should be mentioned as an option too. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.141.24.35 (talk) 14:07, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

Need reliable sources for any information to be in the article.-HammerFilmFan

https://www.deutsche-nachnamen.de/index.php/herkunft-a-z:

Brahms ...

   patronymische Bildung zu einer verkürzten Form von Abraham; auch Ableitung von dem ursprünglich patronymischen Namen Brahm: "Sohn dessen, der am Ginster- oder Brombeerstrauch wohnte"; auch aus mittelniederdeutsch bramhus (Haus am Brombeer- oder Ginsterstrauch) zusammengezogener Wohnstättenname
   Johannes Bramhus (1320), Anna Margarete Brahms (1705)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.161.107.106 (talk) 11:06, 3 October 2020 (UTC) 
   

• The citation is there, from Brahms's leading biographer. If you don't like it, find another citation to counter it. As it happens, the notion that the name comes from 'Abraham' or 'Abrahams' was invented by anti-Semitic speculation in the press by critics of Brahms (and supporters of Wagner), and imo is not deserving of mention. See Conway, "Jewry in Music", (Cambridge University Press 2012), p. 6. --Smerus (talk) 12:58, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

• I too wondered about politics surrounding Jewish issues having a role in interpreting or re-interpreting this name. However, the main point is that few biographers, however good at biography, are going to be experts in surname history. That kind of expert is extremely scarce. Conway gets it wrong by commenting on a claim that "family name was originally ‘Abrahams’". Nobody knowing about surnames would suggest that. The suggestion is rather that the family name was always Brahms, but that Brahm was a form of Abraham. Surnames don't get shortened, only first names. Every German would have known the first name Brahm; it was common for a long time. Pretty much a clincher is the final -s; it means 'belonging to the family of Brahm' (like Edwards in English, or Peeters in Dutch). The alternative 'belonging to the family of broom' makes no sense. Anyway, here is an absolutely authoritative reference:

Max Gottschald, Deutsche Namenkunde (6. Durchgesehene und bibliographisch aktualisierte Auflage) Walter de Gruyter (Berlin 2006), page 48:

"Von etwas anderer Art ist der Typus: Heinrich Heinrichs Sohn. Hier wird die Familienzugehörigkeit durch die Genitivform des Rufnamens des Vaters ausgedrückt. Diese Form als Rest des Syntagmas bleibt dann als Familienname erhalten, zum Beispiel: Heinrichs, Mertens, Steffens, Martini, weiterhin: Sievers (zu Siegfried), Rohlfs (zu Rudolf), Krings (zu Quirin), Frings (zu Severin), Brahms (zu Abraham), ..." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.161.107.106 (talk) 09:33, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

• I would suggest an edit something like this: "The surname Brahms has long been understood to derive from Brahm, a short form of Abraham (cite Gottschald p.48). However, at some point in the nineteenth century a re-interpretation which would derive the name from Bram (German for the plant 'broom') arose; this was possibly a reaction to anti-Semitism. The revised etymology was assumed correct by Swafford (p.7)." It's not necessary to get into the complex politics at this point; it is a separate issue which should have its own section. The origin of the name was in the medieval period and what happened in the nineteenth century cannot change this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.161.107.106 (talk) 11:58, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

• You give no citation to support the point you wish to make. Gottschald's book is about surnames in general, not Johannes Brahms im particular, and gives absolutely no grounds for your assertion that the latter's name has 'long been understood to derive from Brahm, a short form of Abraham.' Nor do you give any attribution to your supposition that Swafford's etymology is 'revised' or was in any way a reaction to supposed anti-Semitism. Wikipedia is not an arena for exercising one's own opinions.--Smerus (talk) 19:20, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

• I did not assert that JB's surname has long been understood to derive from Brahm; the assertion was that this is a generally true statement for most, if not all, instances of the surname. This is overwhelmingly likely on general principles of surname history. In most cases we cannot detect if individual cases deviate from the most common etymology, because family histories do not go back far enough. And topographic German surnames (like Busch) do not have the -s. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.161.107.106 (talk) 20:26, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

  "...has long been understood..." "...this is a generally true statement for most, if not all, instances of the surname" "This is overwhelmingly likely on general principles of surname history." Harumph. I've been an amateur genealogist for a number of years. If you can not produce a couple of good quality sources (not just one) for these assertions then they are worthless and not to be trusted. - kosboot (talk) 22:04, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

• I notice that the same point as mine was made under the "surname" heading above, and it was never resolved. For reference, here is exactly what Swafford says: "The family name, indifferently spelled Brahms or Brahmst or Brams, identified them as Lower Saxon, speakers of Plattdeutsch, the Low German drawl. Their name comes from the broom plant, Planta genista, called Bram, common as dust but sturdy and useful, whose yellow flowers cover the sandy heathland and dunes of the Ditmarsh region on the edge of the North Sea. In France, Johann Jakob might therefore have been a Plantagenet, but in Germany he was plain Brahms: child of the broom, son of the heath. In his dingy Hamburg quarters Johann Jakob would display, framed over the sofa, what he called the family coat of arms — three brambles, a wheel in a shield, a helmet, and so on. Everyone knew what that amounted to, an attempt at respectability whipped up, for a fee, by a local genealogist.". So, no supporting evidence at all is provided, unless it's the brambles in the coat of arms. But he admits that this was "whipped up for a fee", and anyway inventing symbols like this as a rebus is typical on coats of arms. Describing Plattdeutsch, a perfectly respectable language in its own right, as a "drawl", is rather denigrating too. Gottschald gives evidence and actual historical examples of the surname Brahms not just on p.48, but also on pages 80 and 125. Other books on German surnames (like the dtv-atlas Namenkunde) are likely to be derivative on Gottschald, since the latter is so well established (6 editions going back to 1932), and nothing else is so comprehensive. So checking other books may not provide independent confirmation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.161.107.106 (talk) 13:41, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

I'm pretty involved in genealogy, and I would rather trust a genealogical source for surnames than a musicological one (unless the musicologist specifically cited reliable genealogical resources from the past 10-20 years). In the areas in which I work (Poland, Belarus) there are plenty of books and resources discussing surnames and their origins. I would think there would be even more sources for German-speaking lands. - kosboot (talk) 14:00, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

Yes, on a question of surnames I also would rather trust a genealogical source than a musicological one. However, the question here is not one of genealogy. It is a question of onamastics, a discipline which is a branch of linguistics. And specifically it is the historical linguistics which has to be done correctly here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.161.107.106 (talk) 15:44, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

You think it's onomastics and I would agree for an article discussing the origins of the surname. But this is not that article; this is about one person who has that surname. All that is needed is a reliable source citing its derivation. This is not the article for discussing the derivation of that surname. Additionally, it's the general custom not to use asterisks for comments on talk pages but to use colons so that it's easier to see the dialogue between participants. - kosboot (talk) 16:13, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

A 100% reliable source on the origin of the specific surname of Johannes Brahms does not exist, and probably never will. To get that you would have to trace one branch of his ancestry back to probably about 1300, and that is impossible. I am only saying that if the wikipedia article says anything at all about the name, it should start with what standard reference works in the field of German-language surnames say about that name, then if there are alternative suggested theories they could be added, but are only worth mentioning if there is some evidence for the alternatives. As we have seen, no evidence has been presented for the Swafford theory. There is still the strong argument about the -s suffix, which you never get in topographic surnames like Bach or Berg or Stein, but you often do in patronymics. Anyone proposing "broom" for an etymon has to have an answer to that point. The author of the "Surname" point above got it right: the discussion of the name by Swafford is the typical sort of thing that non-linguists write when they are not aware that there is an academic discipline which has already considered the question and come to a collective decision. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.161.107.106 (talk) 19:48, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

(Please read Wikipedia:Signatures.) As kosboot wrote above, this is not the article for such elaborations; maybe Brahms (surname) is. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 00:50, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

I absolutely agree; I was only putting the arguments in order to get the false etymology removed from the current article. It is a blemish on an otherwise excellent article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.161.107.106 (talk) 08:30, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

Let's get this straight; whilst you are contesting the etymology, it is not thereby 'false', and has not been shown to be. Unless it can be shown to be false, there are no grounds on WP standards for removing it, as the etymology is cited by a leading authority on JB; who moreover cites other old versions of the name, such as 'Brahmst' which is not compatible with the 'Abram(s)' derivation. And please deign to sign yourself, rather than leaving it to others. --Smerus (talk) 11:11, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

The form Brahmst is perfectly compatible with the other forms - an excrescent -t was often added to Low German and Dutch words (like burcht instead of burch, which has become the standard Dutch word for 'fortress'). It is a purely phonetic phenomenon, and not etymological. Ok, the 'broom' etymology has not been shown to be false. It has only been shown not to have any supporting evidence presented in its favour, not to conform to known surname patterns (and thus to be without parallel), and to not be accepted by authorities on German surnames. I don't know how to sign myself.

On this final -t, see de Vaan, The Dawn of Dutch (2017) pp.220,242,326,445 (he calls it paragogic). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.161.107.106 (talk) 14:07, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

More evidence for "Abraham", from A. Bach, Die deutschen Personennamen (1943) I p.230: "Von fremden KF gebildete Namen: Von stark flektierten: Nickels (Nikolaus), Bartheis (Bartholomäus), Dams (Adam), Brahms (Abraham), Stoffels (Christoffel), Frings (Severin)". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.33.61.76 (talk) 15:53, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

That is evidence for some people called Brahms deriving their name from Abrahams, but is no evidence whatosever for this being the case with JB.--Smerus (talk) 09:49, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

information in 'External Links'

Hello, I am the creator of www.johannesbrahms.org . In earlier versions of this article my website was referenced in External Links in regards to containing a list of Brahms's works. Recently I edited the text for the reference and that seems to have started a back-and-forth among later editors on whether the info should be in the section or not. Currently the history shows that it was taken out. I don't understand what the concerns are here, I am not trying to promote my work for gain. Can someone help me understand the concerns please? T. Quigley — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thomqui (talk • contribs) 23:36, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Reading is fundamental. WP:ADV. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 05:16, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

Thank you. Thomqui (talk) 19:24, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

I want to point out that the reference to www.johannesbrahms.org was put into Wikipedia in early October 2010 and I didn't put it in. It appears to have been put in because it contained a list of Brahms' works which appears to have been missing from the site at that time. Why can't we just revert to the reference as it showed before? I feel like i am being singled out unfairly. Thanks. Thomqui (talk) 20:20, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

I don't feel that strongly about the removal but I understand it. The thing is, Wikipedia has evolved in the past ten years and its guidelines have been refined. Anybody can build a website, but that doesn't mean it's authoritative. I would say that's the issue with your website. It's basically a fan site. If you said (and could prove that) most of the information comes from the McCorkle book, maybe that might merit greater attention. But essentially, it's just a fan site that does not substitute for more reliable sources. - kosboot (talk) 23:25, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

The bigger issue is....the site doesn't add anything WP doesn't already have. It's pretty barebones. 'Fan sites' are fine, as it were -- tchaikovsky-research.net isn't any more official, but it is extremely comprehensive and enriches the info that WP provides (though maybe bringing up what must be the best composer site out there is playing hardball). By contrast....the Brahms site has practically nothing of value. The works list is on WP (and IMSLP as well, which also has the benefit of the scores themselves) and the other pages don't have much on them. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 05:11, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

I agree, if it repeats stuff available elsewhere on WP and/or adds nothing of value, it's pointless to include it.--Smerus (talk) 11:37, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

Thanks to everyone for their time in explaining the issue. Thomqui (talk) 03:58, 22 October 2020 (UTC)