Talk:Max Reger

Untitled

His students also included the composer Johanna Senfter. By the way, in my edit note I meant the Jecklin recording of the 8th and 9th violin sonatas - the Koch Schwann recording is of the 4th and 5th string quartets, the latter of which is practically contemporary with, and shares at least one theme with, the 8th sonata. (Unsurprisingly both were premiered in 1911.) Schissel : bowl listen 13:56, Apr 26, 2005 (UTC)

Note: The trivia I added is not fictitious; instead of deleting it, it would be rather helpful and friendly if someone would improve its style (of course it can be deleted if it is really irrelevant). Among my sources are an old German encyclopedia on famous people, the German Wikipedia and several German sites dealing with classical music- the anecdote is quite famous in Germany. It is said that Reger's humour was quite peculiar.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 145.254.157.220 (talk • contribs) 16:00, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Theme music

Was Reger's Toccata for organ op. 59 no.5 used in the movie the Godfather when Micheal Corleon sends the hits on the rival mob bosses?— Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.125.192.104 (talk • contribs) 22:52, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Infobox

It's not needed here, redundant, clutters the edit window, cramps the text. Hasn't their function been supplanted by Wikidata? Rationale for inclusion seems rather like WP:OWN, no other reason given. Edit summary could have been stated with more clarity. Ewulp (talk) 23:19, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

You may want to consider Beethoven where an infobox was added after reaching community consensus. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:18, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

The rationale for inclusion was try ibox, on 9 May. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:22, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

This infobox looks handy to me. WData is excellent, and helps unify all appearances of a datum – across iboxes, lede sections, and body text [and across multiple articles]. But it says nothing about what makes for useful presentation of data to readers. There's a fair argument to be had about where an ibox helps and what to include in them (in general, on some meta-ibox thread); and editors of a specific article can discuss it in context. Is there any special reason why this one would be controversial? – SJ + 15:46, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

This section trying to focus on this infobox in this article

It won't surprise you to learn, Gerda, but I too think that this box is rather pointless. When done correctly, infoboxes work well, this is not the case here as the information is sparse and uninformative. All of this information can be found within the lead section and we should rely on correctly written prose rather than bulleted, factoidial lists. It makes us look more professional giving this information in prose form; this kind of IB makes us look amateurish. I do hope this can be rectified soon, as I'm all infoboxed out at the moment. Cassianto^Talk 07:33, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

Comment: I believe that we don't need another copy of the same general arguments, which the arbitration case urged us to avoid. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:58, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

Echoing what Cassianto said " all infoboxed out at the moment. " This repeat scenario has really got to stop. There's a new infobox dispute practically every day now, and it's very time consuming to have to deal with. If 1/10 the time went into expanding stubs instead...♦ Dr. Blofeld 09:43, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

As Gerda has been expanding this article for some time, that doesn't seem to apply... – SJ + 15:46, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

I refer to a comment Ian Rose made a while ago: "I'd note further that when MOS is equivocal on a requirement, it's common practice for the main editors' preference to be respected." (Laurence Olivier talk, 23 January 2015)- How about that respect (which is not ownership) in both directions? In this case, I expanded the article, am willing to expand it further, wrote more articles on the composers works than anybody else so far, and would like to see an infobox: structured information, serving people not so good in English, among others. I am one of them. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:58, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

The argument is made that a person for whom English is a second language may have difficulty gleaning key biographical facts from the lede sentences of a Wikipedia article. I wanted to test this, so I visited German Wikipedia, where few biographical articles have infoboxes. I know almost no German. I wanted to look at an article about somebody I've never heard of, and randomly selected Gustav Knuth. Quickly scanning the article's lede sentence, I understood his dates of birth and death, places of birth and death, that he was an actor, and that he did something notable after WWII involving Switzerland. Then I navigated to the English Wikipedia article on Knuth, and looked only at the infobox, which has the same information, plus some disinformation: The "years active" dates (1935–1982) are badly wrong; a little research reveals that he acted on stage from 1918. Verdict: I learned more that was useful and accurate from the German lede than from the English infobox—and it was easy and quick.

For a second trial, I went back to German Wikipedia and randomly selected the Mike Williams article (I did not know who he is). All the essentials are in the lede: Michael D. Williams was born April 14, 1968 in High Point, N.C.; he's known as Mike Williams or Mike IX or Mike IX Williams; he's an American singer, music journalist, and author; he was in the popular 1990s Sludge band EyeHateGod. He has worked on various music related projects including the New Yorker Extreme-Metal-Magazine Metal Maniacs. That's what I learned in 20 seconds of reading in a language I do not understand. Then I navigated to the English article to look at the infobox. It apparently gets his birth name wrong; it says he was born in High Point, N.C. but also says his "origin" is New Orleans—what does that mean?? His listed musical genres are sludge metal and five additional genres, including at least two (doom metal and blues) that are not mentioned in the text of the article, nor are they sourced. His instruments are said to be vocals and synth, although synth is unsourced and not mentioned anywhere in the body of the article. Once again, the infobox delivered some highly structured disinformation, and I think I learned more from the German lede.

Sorry to go off-topic (this should be about Reger) but the often-repeated argument that infoboxes serve readers who are not proficient in English has never seemed plausible to me, and this test has done nothing to change my mind. Gerda, you read and write English well enough to contribute very effectively and prolifically here; I can not write even one sentence in German, yet I had no trouble at all finding the key information in the lede sentences of those articles.

I note that the German Wikipedia article on Reger has no infobox. No German Wikipedia biographical articles I've checked have them, except in a few appropriate categories (e.g. sports figures, where the boxes are a fine solution to the problem of presenting a great mass of statistics in a concise format). I looked at some talk pages, and didn't see any infobox wars raging. Gerda, you may be in a position to answer a question I've wondered about: How has German Wikipedia dealt with the infobox issue? Ewulp (talk) 10:01, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

• The only sentence I know in German is "hasse nicht alle Info-Boxen , nur einige". Cassianto^Talk 11:52, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

I know only my ever repeated: "Some love them, some hate them, I just find just them useful." (I thought differently in 2012, as you can see on the talk of Samuel Barber.) Thank you for your effort, Ewulp, but this is the English Wikipedia, Reger in a line with Shakespeare, Michelangelo and Kafka, and Beethoven, as mentioned above. So many words about so little ... --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:23, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

"Reger in a line with Shakespeare, Michelangelo and Kafka, and Beethoven" is the reason for an infobox? So few words about even less. It would advance this discussion if you would please respond to a question I asked in all earnestness: Why does German Wikipedia not suffer from these time-wasting infobox disputes? Do you know anything about this? They seem to have a sensible policy—is it a policy? Ewulp (talk) 02:03, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

I don't know the German Wikipedia. I had all the infobox discussions I needed for life and a few more, sorry. The ones I like to remember about composers: Robert Stoepel (2013), Ludwig van Beethoven (2015), Peter Maxwell Davies (2016). I will never convince you by argument, and you will never convince me by argument, so why not stop arguing and let people add an infobox (as long as it's not incorrect) if they like it, and others leave an article without it, if they like it. I just mentioned this discussion. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:45, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

There is no equivalence between the liberty to "add an infobox" or "leave an article without it". What about removing infoboxes? Editors who don't like infoboxes, and who remove them from articles—even when they're the main contributor—are not left in peace, as those who add them expect to be. Most of us don't dare ever make such an edit. Ewulp (talk) 08:21, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

You are exactly right, Ewulp. In fact, I'd happily spend the rest of the day providing diffs to evidence this; but the weather is far too nice. Two recent displays of disgusting behaviour can be found here and here, where the author has worked extremely hard to research and write the article up to FA standard, only to have it all ruined by a group of people who couldn't care less about writing decent content. Cassianto^Talk 10:47, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

I could give you examples of how they got their will, such as the Frank Sinatra compromise, but the weather is too nice. Why are these comments under "this article"? - First to remove an infobox, then to start a discussion, and then to mention time-wasting seems a bit strange to me. Ewulp, you could have just left it in peace. - I don't particularly like the "common practice" of main editors (see Laurence Olivier, where the main editors had an infobox for years, until new main editors came and removed it, which I and others found questionable, - I think removing something that others created is different from adding something that might help others - even if only a few others), but as long as that practice is common, it should at least work both ways. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:46, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

Ibox removal is not common. You've mentioned two examples, one of which is a compromise, not a removal. So you've named *one* example that happened a year-and-a-half ago. I have removed only a single infobox from a single article this year (Reger, and I was instantly reverted by you). On the other hand, drive-by adding of infoboxes is very common. In only the last seven days, you have added infoboxes to Elisabetta, regina d'Inghilterra, Othello, La Cenerentola, Semiramide, Mos in Egitto, and Death in Venice. Five of these six are articles you have not previously edited. There seems to be an assumption that if an article is missing an infobox it must be because the main editors forgot to add it or was too tired, not that the main editors thought it better not to have one. "Removing something that others created" is pretty trivial when the thing created is an infobox; they take seconds to make. I've made them myself for articles (e.g., Interior (Degas)) where I thought they would do little harm and perhaps some good. It was easy; so easy that an editor could tag hundreds of articles in a single afternoon. And some do. Keeping infoboxes out of articles is much, much more effort than adding them. That's why so few editors do it, and are so seldom successful.

Finally, the reason I started a discussion is because you reverted my edit, and we have a rule that calls for discussion rather than edit warring. You could have just left the edit in peace... Ewulp (talk) 05:34, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

I add infoboxes to operas, because I love them (operas, I mean) and the project is open to them, actually introduced them in 2013, to be used. Compare the clarifying discussion on the project talk. The infobox replaces the same content in a navbox. - I don't add drive-by, but systematically, as Viva-Verdi added to all operas by Verdi. Long live his memory. - Yours is another comment that seems to belong under a different header. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:13, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

It belongs under your comment about Sinatra and Olivier. But this is the only header we have. Ewulp (talk) 06:25, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

We were discussing Sinatra and Olivier, because two examples were introduced where a "group" of people allegedly displayed "disgusting behaviour": Catherine Zeta-Jones and Josephine Butler. The weather is still (too) nice, but I object to the view that a "group" was active. I commented (because they are two more examples of where new main editors removed what others had created before them) but spoke only for myself. See if it was disgusting, - if yes I will modify. I can't help that other users arrive at similar looks on the topic of the removals, - that doesn't make us protesters a "group". - I changed the header, to "trying to focus ...". --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:00, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

ps: In the case of Butler, the new main author, who reverted the infobox (that was there for years) six times in three weeks (reverting four different people), only plans to expand to FA, while I waited here until I expanded at least a bit. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:32, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

Gerda, Is there a reason why you keep quoting my use of the words "weather far too nice" and "disgusting behaviour"? Do you not think it's disgusting to destroy a FAC and to then deprive a nicely written article the chance to achieve FA status and for its author not to be rewarded for all their hard work and research? I do, and so would millions of other people. Also, why don't you answer Ewulp's point: There seems to be an assumption that if an article is missing an infobox it must be because the main editors forgot to add it or was too tired, not that the main editors thought it better not to have one. The pro-infobox crowd have a canny knack to not actually answer the points raised and instead, steer the discussion around to what a travesty it is for the project and to those who rely on metadata blah, blah, blah... Cassianto^Talk 09:54, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

I won't describe anybody's actions as disgusting, so need quote marks. - I just factually say that an infobox was reverted six times, reverting four different people. - I don't think a FAC can be "destroyed". I didn't take part in the FAC, didn't watch it, leave it to others to evaluate. I only commented the removal of the infobox on the article talk. I told the main author to try again, their talk. - To Ewulp's point: I add infoboxes in the good faith that they improve the quality of an article, even if the main editor(s) may not think so, therefore I say "try" infobox, following (from the opera discussion) "it's bureaucratic and a bloody waste of time to start a talk page discussion before adding any infobox anywhere on Wikipedia." - Only two of the infoboxes I added in 2016 were reverted, the others were accepted. - The concept "pro-infobox crowd" is wrong. How many times do I have to say that I speak only for myself, but can't help if others share my view? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:06, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

Of course the FAC can be destroyed; and it has been, systematically, with each and every pro-infobox comment. unfortunately for Light show and his pals, the nominator is the only one who can ever take it to FAC in the future as it is he who has done all the work on it. Personally, I would consider you to be one of the key members of the "pro-infobox crowd": you are a supporter of infoboxes, as evidenced pretty much everywhere where there has been an infobox discussion, and you were among a group of people who you admit "share[d] your view". If that doesn't make you a member of such a group I don't know what does. Anyway, that's not for here and this'll be my last comment on the matter. Cassianto^Talk 11:27, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

Perhaps I have a language problem, - I am in the (large) group of people who think infoboxes are useful (probably the majority of Wikipedia editors), yes, but I am in no "crowd" (sounds negative to me, sorry), and certainly not in any group having to do with the withdrawal of the FAC at which I didn't even look. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:42, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

No, I don't believe the problem to be the cause of a language barrier; I think it has more to do with the fact that you don't want to recognise a fact when you see one. You clearly know what I mean when I lump you in with a crowd as you've admitted to being in a "(large) group of people who think infoboxes are useful". The crowd I'm likening you to be a member of is the same group of people. And for group/crowd, they are essentially the same thing. The disruption at the talk page caused the editor to throw the towel in, and frankly, I don't blame him. Cassianto^Talk 14:15, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

I don't follow the logic by which you seem to hold anybody who supports infoboxes for the withdrawal of the FAC. It seems particularly unfair to the editor who supported to restore the infobox but also supported the FAC. I caused no disruption on the talk, and seem to be the only one of those who commented in the talk interested in the Reger article. I'd urge you to differentiate. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:40, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

Perhaps you think an FAC is the best time to hold an !vote? I would counter that and say that it was the most inappropriate time to hold one. I also wasn't born yesterday; it was designed to introduce 1:e to the nomination but the plan was thwarted by the nominator who withdrew it before such flags were waved; not by you, but there were others there who would have done it. There is certainly a time and a place for such discussions and that was not it. I'm also not convinced by your attempt to turn Moxy into a saint; he was chief disruptor, so I'm not at all ashamed with how I've spoken to him. I'm also not fooled by his support at FAC, frankly. I refuse to fall out with you over this, Gerda. My problem is not with you but with the whole idea that people think they can just suddenly turn up to ruin all the hard work of others under the premise that they are there to "aid the reader". Enough space has been taken up with this here now. After all, this isn't the correct place to be holding this discussion. Cassianto^Talk 19:45, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

(after rehearsal of inspiring music): "Perhaps you think an FAC is the best time to hold an !vote?" - No, I don't think so. I think a FAC is not the right time to remove an infobox. Keep the two topics separate if you want to avoid what you call "ruin". (Or just don't remove it at all. You know how you can opt out out to even see one, if it bothers you so much.) Do you remember Michael Hordern? I promised you not to speak up then, but also that I would not look away the next time I noticed a longstanding infobox removed. It happened to be the actress, - I didn't even notice there was also a FAC. Back to music, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:57, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

I got pinged ..have no clue who this article is about thus have no comment on any box. As for what happened at "Featured article candidates/Catherine Zeta-Jones" all could have been avoided if one person did not get involved and give bad advice that put the main FA contributor on the wrong path... all would have went well if that one editors was not there to begin with. What has to be looked at is the actions that lead to overall problems.....was it worth not having an FA article because of a box....I think not....all are aware of the problems so why go out of your way to cause problems like this is beyond me.-- Moxy (talk) 22:56, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

• Another mind-boggling attack on a fine and stable article for no apparent reason. Since Cassianto invited me here with a ping, let me just comment that the topic on this article is again a no-brainer. Gerda has spent six years working on the bio and is a main editor who took it from a bare stub to a readable and informative biography. She added nearly 8,000 bytes of detail, or nearly 1,500 words of text and citations. Then two editors out of the blue attack the infobox. Ewulp has contributed nearly zilch, equal to 13 bytes, a few words. Cassianto and Blofeld have added absolutely nichts, nothing. Dr. Blofeld, who was one of the key editors on other bios, such as Sean Connery, Maureen O'Hara and Carole Lombard has no problem with their infoboxes. So why do a drive-by attack on this one? --Light show (talk) 17:19, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
  • I didn't invite you anywhere, Light show. I pinged you as I don't talk behind people's backs. I don't enjoy conversing with you; frankly, I'd rather stick forks in my eyes. Cassianto^Talk 19:26, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

Answer specific questions

• "It's not needed here, redundant, clutters the edit window, cramps the text." (Ewulp, the beginning above)

1. No infobox is needed. (No image is needed. No table is needed. No map is needed. They are all roads to access the information better and in different ways than plain prose. They are all additions, taking nothing away.)
2. Every infobox is redundant, by definition.
3. "Clutters the edit window, cramps the text": your perspective. For me, it offers a welcome structured approach: structured content and structured display. (I see all infoboxes with nicely rounded corners, btw. Copy table.infobox {border-radius:16px;} to your common.css if you want to see the same. If you don't want to see them opt them out, ask RexxS.) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:40, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

I am bothered by the ibox in this article not because I see it, but because I don't think it serves the reader well to load the top of the article with redundancies. If redundancy is as desirable and as unobjectionable as you suggest, wouldn't a second identical infobox alongside the first one would be twice as beneficial? Three would be better still. Imagine eliminating all the prose from this article, and replacing it with one long infobox filled with nothing but attribute-value pairs. Imagine a 300-page biography in infobox form. Trying to "read" such a thing would be painful and unenlightening, or do you disagree?

When we want somebody to understand something, we usually use sentences. All day long we communicate using sentences; it's natural. You mention images and tables—a picture can display in an instant a detailed scene not easily expressed by words; a table can organize data usefully. But when images and tables are judged to be merely redundant, they often get deleted from articles. Lemon provides an example. Incidentally, I like the infobox in that article. An infobox can provide the taxonomy of a lemon. But an infobox cannot tell you very much about Max Reger, and what it can tell you is already in the lede, where it is more easily read. This is because the structure of the lede sentence in a Wikipedia biographical article is structured and predictable: [Person's Name] (date of birth – date of death if applicable) was/is a [nationality] [noun that describes the person's occupation]. The position of words in the sentence clarifies meaning for those who are not skillful in English. Unfamiliar words rattling around in a box are merely puzzling. The ibox slows down the more skillful reader, who finds only the same information twice, a waste of time. It also introduces ambiguity and miscomprehension: The lede says very plainly that Reger was "a professor at the Royal Conservatory in Leipzig"; the ibox only identifies the Royal Conservatory in Leipzig as an "Organization" related somehow to Reger. Perhaps the Royal Conservatory in Leipzig is a music school he founded, or a greenhouse where his modern fan club meets. If this infobox has value that outweighs the nuisance it creates, it has not been revealed here. Ewulp (talk) 04:50, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for a well-phrased thoughtful response. Identical infoboxes, interesting idea, - how about identical images ;) - Thank you for amusing me! - You say: "a table can organize data usefully", - I say: an infobox can organize data usefully. An infobox can also do that predictably, while the lead is free. The lead - per MoS - should not contain places of birth and death, - someone looking for that will get faster to the information in the box. - The infobox could mention "professor", - or could mention no organization, - parameter questions are different questions. - Did you know that the Italian Wikipedia has no infobox for people but a template for the biographical data that translates to a lead sentence, see it:Maria Carbone? That would be an alternative, but I find the box more attractive, and a lead governed by a template would be rigid. Therefore I'd prefer to keep two things separate: the predictable structure of core information in the box, and the nuanced flow of a lead, as two ways of access to the same information, serving readers with different needs. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:00, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

Regarding the value of infoboxes to various audiences: reusers of articles tend to find them extremely useful. The value is partly a concise display format; and partly having basic details about a topic (here: biography) organized in comparable ways across thousands of people. Mobile displays can easily offer a separate "infobox" section for those who want such a view.

I wonder if one type of solution (generally) would be to make them easy to collapse and make invisible for those who don't want to see them. – SJ + 15:46, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

This section for improving the article

Instead of more words above: The article is mediocre, still, and would profit of improvement. More than hundred of Reger's compositions don't have an article. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:06, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

I'll take a look at it later. Cassianto^Talk 11:32, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

Recipe for a stub on a Reger composition:

1. Go to Max Reger works and pick one. You will normally find two sources there to begin with, a free score and the link to the Max-Reger-Institut coverage.
2. Follow example Geistliche Gesänge, Op. 110 --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:48, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
3. Link the article where mentioned, perhaps even create new links (in the genre, for performers etc.). --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:57, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
4. Better example: Vier Tondichtungen nach A. Böcklin, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:11, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

Additional sources, quoted from my talk page

I found a lot of books about him at the Internet Archive. All are from before 1923, so they're considered to be public domain in the US. Some of the books are set in script type. I've skimmed them and they look like they would be good material. There are a lot of photos in them-his parents and childhood home, his wife and children and even a death photo of him. Using photos from them, I'd suggest they be uploaded here at WP with a Pre-1923-abroad license, since they may not be in the public domain elsewhere. The books can be downloaded from the Internet Archive in PDF format.

• Max Reger : Abriss seines Lebens und Analyse seiner Werke 1922
• Max Reger und Karl Straube 1907
• Max Reger; Darstellung seines Lebens, Wesens und Schaffens 1921
• Max Reger 1921
• Max Reger; eine Studie über moderne Musik, mit einem Bildnis und vielen Notenbeispielen 1911 We hope (talk) 15:11, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

I place it here, because I will archive soon, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:55, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

A proposal has been initiated to merge List of works by Max Reger into List of compositions by Max Reger

A proposal has been initiated to merge List of works by Max Reger into List of compositions by Max Reger. The merge proposal discussion is at Talk:List of compositions by Max Reger#Merger proposal. -- Softlavender (talk) 05:04, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Works section

The entire (now shorter) first paragraph of the Works section is unsourced and includes unsupported subjective language -- "enormous", "well known" and "Many of his works" -- all more dubious than the wording, now removed, about his relative prominence during his lifetime and the greatly diminished public performance of his work in more recent years. As my edit summary stated, I think that a reference is not urgently required to state that his work is less performed in public recently. The Schoenberg reference is not a peer reviewed statistical study, but it does reflect reality from the point of view of a writer who was well aware of what was being performed at that time. It's generally sufficient for an uncontroversial statement.

At any rate, I'm inclined to remove the short first paragraph, given the discomfort with it, and perhaps we should start from scratch on the beginning of that section? SPECIFICO talk 13:08, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

Go ahead. - I felt uneasy about the phrasing, but am always reluctant to delete the efforts of others, - silently hoping the same will be done to mine ;) - I made Reger works, and hope that will be read, not the little prose bit which will always be selective. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:39, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

Hello Gerda. Frankly, for our readers who know little of Reger, the old text -- including the parts that offended another editor recently, gives them good information. It's not up to academic standards, but we could tag with better source needed or similar improvement tags. I don't think we should descend into idle concert program notes chatter, but on the other hand we shouldn't remove context that's correct but not precise. Thanks for your reply. SPECIFICO talk 13:44, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

I hate these tags, which discredit the information in the eye of the reader. What can we do? - I "dissolved" the cne for the premiere in Breslau, easily, such a well-known fact. But as when exactly Reger wasn't fashionable any more, I have little interest. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:31, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

We know he was mainstream during his lifetime. We know he was little-performed anywhere in the world as of post-WW2. Regardless of the detail or even whether that is a useful narrative, we know that it is true. I think it's pointless to nitpick over whether there's a peer-reviewed academic study of the matter. I agree it is not worth the battle it's apparently raised. SPECIFICO talk 14:37, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

Let's not call it a battle. The tags appeared today, and perhaps Jerome has a solution. I have no time to dig into performance history of Reger's works, but dislike tags enough to rather say nothing than something discrediting ("failed verificaion"). He studied close to where I live, therefore interest is probably higher than elsewhere. This years Winterspiele were supposed to be crowned by the Breslau piece, but it didn't happen, of course. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:58, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

Well jumping to tags and denigration of adequate though not perfect sourcing like the NY Times article is battle, but you and I are pacifists. Yes maybe there will be some constructive progress. Otherwise, we can just blow it up and work on more substantive article content. Regards. SPECIFICO talk 15:34, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

On Bach's birthday, I work on BWV 227, and first of all, I'll take in some fresh air ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:53, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

Perfect. We still have fresh air! SPECIFICO talk 16:50, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

I did not mean to provoke such a storm in a teapot! If it makes any difference, my curiosity was drawn to Kosboot's deletion of "unsupported opinion", and SPECIFICO's subsequent restoration of the claim, "with a reference". When I checked the reference, I could not find anything in it that even remotely touched on the recent performance history of Reger's music, so I tagged the reference as failing to verify the claim. I really have no idea whether performers' interest in Reger's music has increased, decreased, or stayed about the same since the beginning of the present century. It is almost certainly true that it has not been as high as during the composer's lifetime, but that is more than a hundred years of history now. I first got to know Reger's music in the 1960s, and he was certainly not as often-performed then as, say, Brahms (my direct comparisons being the clarinet quintets and sonatas). Since the late 1980s I have observed a general increase of interest in the lesser masters of the late-19th and early 20th century. Some cases (Alexander Zemlinsky, for example) have amounted to wholesale resurrection of the reputation of almost entirely forgotten names. Even if Reger might be among those, my generalization is only a personal feeling, far from a reliable source. I am interested in seeing some real data, or at least respectable, well-informed opinion on the matter.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 22:30, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

Well snarky summaries and tags rarely support any constructive mode of collaboration. That unsourced text you seized on did not say that the number of performances has declined during any recent period of time. Rather it made the WP:SKYBLUE statement that he's less performed/known now than during his lifetime. It sounds as if you agree with that. Now, my impression is that he's a bit more often performed in the most recent 30 years than the preceding 30 years, in part -- as stated in as what you scornfully called a critic's opinion -- due to the performances of the Serkins and the larger American chamber music circle around them. At any rate, the part that you picked at/on is not perfectly sourced, but it is uncontroversial and better-sourced than the program-note chitchat about "enormous output" etc. As I said, given the high standard you set, I was about to remove that whole first paragraph. I'll leave it to you to look back and maybe improve the whole thing. No harm done either way. Thanks for your reply. SPECIFICO talk 01:12, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

I shall do my best to avoid snarkiness (I thought I already had done, but apparently not). The text that Kosboot seized on (and which for that reason caught my attention) was "Few of his compositions are well known in the 21st century". No doubt this should have continued "in comparison with his own lifetime", though that in turn would leave a question-mark over the 84 intervening years. Personally, I would be happier with a more general statement about the decline in prominence of his work after his death, rather than pinning things directly to the 21st century but, in general, yes of course I agree with you. Those "program chit-chats" to which you refer often include bold but unsupported claims about this or that neglected composer making a triumphant comeback in recent years. More often than not, this means that there has now at last been a single performance of one of the composer's works, whereas there had been none at all for over forty years. "Well known" is a relative term, of course. A few years ago, on one of the Google Groups, there was a silly proposal to measure the fame of "classical" composers according to the number of recordings found on the ArkivMusic sales site. The winner, of course, was not Bach, or Beethoven, or Vivaldi, but Franz Xaver Gruber. I believe that Gruber has now been demoted to some extra-classical category, but the serious issue is: how can we objectively determine "well-known-ness"?—Jerome Kohl (talk) 01:34, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

I would say, for that particular subject - "less known than in his lifetime"- that if we all know it's true we can safely put it in the article. Some reasonably credible source will have said it and we can hope an editor will find a good source. Schoenberg is OK for that casual statement, and it's still informative. The program notes part that I think is more of a problem is "enormous output" or "best known" or similar writing. That's not really descriptive, just enthusiastic hand-waving. This article is pretty sparse and not bad for what it is. There are other music articles that have outright nonsense in them, like the Alfred Brendel article that tells readers he's been picked the "8th greatest pianist of all time." That bit was fiercely defended when I raised concerns on the talk page some years back. I don't have access to the rest of that Musical Quarterly issue on Reger. Maybe there's some good material to be found there. Zemlinsky was beneath obscure 40 years ago, and now is at least a recognizable name to many listeners, so he really made a comeback. Reger is interesting partly because he and much of his music is so weird and worthwhile at the same time. SPECIFICO talk 01:53, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. I just revisited the Clarinet Quintet, after a long absence. "Weird and worthwhile" certainly fits. I may have access to that Musical Quarterly issue. I shall see what I can discover. Thanks for rekindling my interest in Reger.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 02:38, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

It was not my intention to be snarky but simply use the tools that the majority of editors on WP use. It's so easy to read and think in terms of the prose one finds on liner notes and programs, e.g. "Not heard as much," "gone through a period of decline," "more popular than x since the 1930s" etc. To me it's all unsupported literary prose. It's also very unnecessary in WP unless one is writing reception history. Just say what the works are and leave it at that - that's my attitude. I've been on the music scene since the early 1970s and I don't recall Reger ever being neglected. It could be that certain performers promulgated him more than others and once those artists were off the scene, the perception might appear as if he's gone in decline. But unless you can find an authoritative source to support that, there's no reason to say it at all. Stick with facts. - kosboot (talk) 16:01, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

Snark was not about you. But there is now a reasonably good source, the Harold Schoenberg article, about Reger's relative obscurity. I don't know what scene you inhabit, but if you live in a place where Reger has consistently in the public eye with frequent performances, that's a very unusual zipcode. The performers cited in the Schoenberg article were virtually the only ones programming his work at the time of that article. As a result of their performances and recordings, the frequency has increased, not decreased, since then. SPECIFICO talk 16:44, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

I won't disagree with you about Reger. But I want to put before you the example of Mahler. Mahler went through a big resurgence in the 1960s U.S. mainly due to Bernstein - at least that's how program notes state it. You can find examples of prose saying that he was neglected and only resurrected because of Bernstein. Of course that's nonsense; Mitropoulos and Walter were programming him with regularity. In fact, I think from 1920 to the present there was not a NY Philharmonic season that didn't have some Mahler on it. This is an example of very typical music promotion: that to raise the profile of a performer, publicity states that he/she was the first, or the most, or championed, etc. etc. So I'm always wary of such statements unless they're backed up by solid hard facts. In general I think it's better to eschew such prose altogether (although I see the NY Philharmonic did not program Reger very much in the 1940s and 1950s.) - kosboot (talk) 18:37, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

Absolutely right about Mahler. But of course Bernstein may have thought he was Mahler so there's that. SPECIFICO talk 19:39, 22 March 2020 (UTC)