Talk:Requiem (Reger)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Requiem (Reger)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: RHM22 (talk · contribs) 05:38, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

I have begun the review of this article, and I will complete it soon. I hope to be finished by tomorrow night.-RHM22 (talk) 05:38, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

---

I found this to be another interesting subject, about which I knew almost nothing. It's generally well-written, although I do have a few questions and concerns, which I'll address here.

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose, no copyvios, spelling and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

   A few things strike me as confusing in the prose.

• "...about a project "Die letzten Dinge (Jüngstes Gericht u. Auferstehung)"..." What is the meaning here? Is the project in question entitled "Die letzen Dinge"? If so, a comma is needed after "project" to let the reader know.

Let's see. I found in the FitzGibbon source - just now - that Regers idea had not been the Latin Requiem (as I had believed until I read the source) but a project "Die letzten Dinge (Jüngstes Gericht u. Auferstehung), - this is in quotation marks in the source already, as the projected title, would almost need a double quotation, but how? The source translates "[The Last Things (Final Judgment and Resurrection)]". I am not sure about that. "Die letzten Dinge" is a phrase you will find in older hymnals, for the last mysteries or however that might be called in English. "Jüngstes Gericht" (one of them) is commonly translated to "Last Judgement", to my knowledge, "Auferstehung" (another) to "Resurrection", "u." is short for "und" ("and"). All this is the title of a project which was not further pursued, while Louis Spohr wrote a well-known (well, at the time) oratorio of that title, de:Die letzten Dinge (Spohr). --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:22, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

It's always interesting how things translates (or don't). I used to often read over German auction catalogs when I conducted research on Schützentaler, but I don't understand it well enough to see the intricacies. The current wording looks fine to me.-RHM22 (talk) 17:17, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

• "...orchestra and organ to his publisher on 3 October 2014..." I think this should be 1914!

O dear, yes ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:22, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

• Also, there is some inconsistency regarding quotation marks. I added a few, but I'm not sure where they should go and should not go. It seems to me that they should be placed around all quotations, but not around titles. Could you please look into that? Italics can't be used as a substitute for quote marks, even when they're foreign-language quotations, which should be in quotation marks anyway.

Will look for that. I understand it's quotation marks for poem and hymn, italics for works and their movements. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:22, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

I fixed a few. It's in interesting experiment, to expand an article five years later. Not many people know these works, but now Barenboim made the Hebbel Requiem peace music, and it's scheduled for the Salzburg festival. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:43, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

I trust your judgement regarding the quotation marks, because I'm not entirely sure where quotes end and titles begin, being a complete novice. I'm going to look up this piece of music on Youtube tonight.-RHM22 (talk) 17:17, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

1. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

   The references are formatted a little strangely, but everything looks acceptable and reliable.

2. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   The article is broad in its coverage, yet remains focused on the subject.

3. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

   The article remains mostly neutral throughout. Perhaps a couple of the adjectives could be toned down a bit, but that's only a suggestion.

4. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

   It is free of any apparent edit warring or long-standing disputes.

5. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

   Both images need another copyright tag, as the PD-70 tag is not sufficient in the United States. I think {{PD-US-1923-abroad}} might be appropriate here.

I replaced the copyright tag on the infobox image, but I think the painting might not be PD in the United States. I'll leave some more information on your talk page.-RHM22 (talk) 17:17, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

I remember that the score image was uploaded especially for the article. If the other is a problem, it could be replaced by the standard Reger image, but I prefer to see him at work ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:22, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Well, the painting was created in 1913, but that doesn't mean it was published then. In the U.S., the author has to have been dead for 100 years for the image to be automatically PD. Even if it was on public display (in a museum or something), it's not considered "published" unless copies were created for distribution, such as in a book or a postcard. Personally, I'd opt for the postcard photo of Reger from 1910, which is unquestionably PD. If you do happen to find a book or postcard from before 1923 with the painting in it, then it would of course be perfectly acceptable to add it in the future. Another member showed me an interesting technique for cropping images. Would you like me to show you an example?-RHM22 (talk) 17:51, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

I have helpers for cropping (Gardiner, Hogwood), but think it's not needed in this case. For now I will take the postcard, but will keep talking about the other. Seems strange that readers used to seeing the work pic loose on the article being improved, sigh. - I still don't know who 1923 is a magic date. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:58, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

U.S. copyright law is a bit strange and even convoluted at times. Our magic number is 100 years post-mortem for authors. Articles on subjects who were active around the early twentieth century can be tantalizingly difficult for that reason. Little consolation though it may be, the painting will be in the public domain in 2018 no matter what.-RHM22 (talk) 18:07, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

1. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   This nomination is currently on hold, until the issues are addressed. The article now meets the GA criteria, in my opinion.

Pre FAC comments

To my cursory I the prose seems in pretty good shape. Only thing I'd do for sure is try and eliminate 1-2 sentence paras, either by expanding or merging. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:13, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Thank you, taken. I will also try to have a little bit more on the composer, for background. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:55, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Poem

I added the lyrics. It has been suggested to make a translation. I am on vacation and don't have time right now, suggestions welcome.

Column-generating template families

The templates listed here are not interchangeable. For example, using {{col-float}} with {{col-end}} instead of {{col-float-end}} would leave a <div>...</div> open, potentially harming any subsequent formatting.

Column templates

Type	Family	Handles wiki table code?†	Responsive/ mobile suited	Start template	Column divider	End template
Float	"col-float"	Yes	Yes	{{col-float}}	{{col-float-break}}	{{col-float-end}}
	"columns-start"	Yes	Yes	{{columns-start}}	{{column}}	{{columns-end}}
Columns	"div col"	Yes	Yes	{{div col}}	–	{{div col end}}
	"columns-list"	No	Yes	{{columns-list}} (wraps div col)	–	–
Flexbox	"flex columns"	No	Yes	{{flex columns}}	–	–
Table	"col"	Yes	No	{{col-begin}}, {{col-begin-fixed}} or {{col-begin-small}}	{{col-break}} or {{col-2}} .. {{col-5}}	{{col-end}}

^† Can template handle the basic wiki markup {| | || |- |} used to create tables? If not, special templates that produce these elements (such as {{(!}}, {{!}}, {{!!}}, {{!-}}, {{!)}})—or HTML tags (<table>...</table>, <tr>...</tr>, etc.)—need to be used instead.

You may get inspiration from the translations published in the Hyperion liner notes and the appendix of the work by FitzGibbons. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:20, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

Something to get the translation process started. This is not a literal translation of the verses. It attempts to try to convey some of the emotive content apparently expressed by the original author. Fountains-of-Paris (talk) 16:13, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Comments and queries during copy edit

• I can't make anything of "Klangapparate" in the Lateinisches Requiem section. It isn't a term used in English. Google translate give "sound equipment", which doesn't help at all. Clarify please? --Stfg (talk) 10:42, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

If I knew I had clarified. Let's try Klangapparat means a source/force of sound, for example the chorus, the orchestra. Klangapparate (plural) is more than one, here the ensemble of the soloists also. --GA

I think I see. I listened to a performance on youTube last evening and I think I can identify the four Klangapparate as: chorus, orchestra, soloists, audience coughing ;) OK, joking apart, we do refer to "forces" sometimes, but I don't think its use here would be understood. Rather than saying "The four <something> ..." it might be best just to list them: "The chorus, orchestra, organ and soloists are used like the several choirs in compositions by Heinrich Schütz." Does that work for you? --Stfg (talk) 14:21, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

• I've made so bold as to remove the mention of Mozart's Requiem from the Structure section. Restore it if you like, but lots of works are in D minor, and I don't think the key of Mozart's work adds anything to our understanding of Reger's setting of a completely different text. --Stfg (talk) 11:12, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

I take it, but the source FitzGibbons ("This pedal point can now be seen as alluding to at least four historical Requiem traditions: the funeral music tradition of Bach and Schütz with their use of pedal points, the D minor of the Mozart Requiem, the pedal point with quarter-note pulsation in the opening of the Brahms Requiem, and finally Reger’s own earlier Latin Requiem.") refers to the key related to Mozart's, who assigned D minor to very few compositions, such as Don Giovanni, yes, different text, but also dealing with death. --GA

Right you are, but I think FitzGibbons is discussing pedal points there, not the keys of the works. The mention of Mozart vis-a-vis the pedal point is in section A - I didn't change that -- but I don't think it's needed in the Structure section as well. The rarity of D minor in Mozart (another is the D minor piano fantasia, btw) is interesting when examining Mozart, but not when examining Reger. Only if some scholarly work indicated that Reger's choice of key was influenced by Mozart would I mention it. --Stfg (talk) 14:21, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

• The comparison of the D pedal point with the E-flat of Das Rheingold seems to me to be irrelevant, and even less useful as the source is a populist one rather than a scholarly one. --Stfg (talk) 11:23, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

The piece is mentioned by scholarly FitzGibbons, who mentions another scholar ("Although Susanne Shigihara sees the long pedal point as similar to the opening to Wagner’s Das Rheingold, I find it more convincing as an allusion to Brahms’s Ein deutsches Requiem, which begins with an F pedal point with quarter-note pulsations.), - only she doesn't mention Wagner's E-flat, which is in the score, and mentioned also by other scholars. --GA

OK, that justifies the comparison in the Lateinisches Requiem section, but in the A section, I think that "lower even than the opening of Wagner's Das Rheingold on E-flat" is over the top (and the source is populist). It implies that there is something remarkable about a D1 in the bass, and really, in the 20th century, there isn't. --Stfg (talk) 14:21, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

• In the same section, I suggest removing the mention of using ledger lines. This is a tiny and insignificant detail of notation. --Stfg (talk) 11:26, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

It's something you see on the lead image, and it strikes me as unusual, but if you and others think it's OR, I'll think about it. --GA

It's not so much a question of OR as one of too much attention to a trivial technical detail. The lead image is the piano reduction, by the way; I assume that these notes would have been scored for Cb and Cfg, and organ stops at 16 or 32 ft, so these wouldn't have shown ledger lines. This many and more ledger lines are commonplace in 20th (and later 19th) century in violin, flute and piano parts. Frankly, who cares whether the notes are written on ledger lines or with octave notation? --Stfg (talk) 14:21, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

I've now checked with the full score, which can be seen on IMSLP, here. There's nothing extraordinary in the notation. That D1 is notated under the first ledger line for contrabass, sounding an octave lower than written. This is the normal way to write it for contrabass. (No contrabassoon and no organ.)

• In section A", I'm confused the sentence beginning "The quoted words, for the bar form's ...". Bach used the whole stanza (Movement 62 of the St Matthew Passion). Also, the quote omits the words "wenn ich den Tod soll leiden, so tritt du denn herfür" (which are under the repeat in the Bach). What is this sentence trying to say? --Stfg (talk) 11:46, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

I'll try to clarify, hoping that you can word it better. Bach quotes a complete stanza, 8 lines, 2 each Stollen, 4 Abgesang. Of these, Reger quotes only the melody of 3 lines, the first Stollen and the first line of the Abgesang (line 5). The text of these lines is: "Wenn ich einmal soll scheiden, so scheide nicht von mir. Wenn mir am allerbängsten ...", ending mid-sentence, on "most anxious". Omitted is also the text of lines 3 and 4: "wenn ich den Tod soll leiden, so tritt du denn herfür". Do we also need to say that none of these chorale words are heard, but instead "Vergiß sie nicht, die Toten ...", sung to the chorale melody, but the listeners are expected to understand the reference? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:58, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

Still working on this. --Stfg (talk) 14:21, 19 May 2016 (UTC)