Talk:Gustav Mahler

Quote

The original quote is "I am thrice homeless, as a native of Bohemia in Austria, as an Austrian among Germans, and as a Jew throughout the world. Everywhere an intruder, never welcomed." I think the text using the part of the quote is changing the meaning of his words. He lived in Jihlava, where was a german speaking majority at the time (so called Jihlava language island), so he felt as an intruder almost only because of his jewish origin as in the whole world. Bohemia didn't very contribute to it (it was the first country in the world who acknowledged Jew nationality in the census, the situation of Jews was always above average compare to the rest of Europe). On the contrary in Vienna was a strong antisemitism and he was seen as a some czech Jew here, so twice intruder. 46.135.20.12 (talk) 23:25, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

Are you talking about the section Gustav Mahler#Family background? Mgnbar (talk) 00:10, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

The source says: "Bohemia was then part of the Austro-Hungarian Empire; Mahler's native tongue was German, and he ranked as an Austrian subject of Jewish descent. He was thus from the beginning affected by racial tensions: he belonged to an unpopular Austrian minority among Bohemians, and to an unpopular Jewish minority within the Austrian one. Throughout his life, he felt a sense of exile. He once said: 'I am thrice homeless, as a native of Bohemia in Austria, as an Austrian amongst Germans, as a Jew throughout the world. Always an intruder, never welcomed.'" I think the relevant section of the article accurately and succinctly represents the source. Tim riley talk 08:11, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

Infobox

I note the old discussions about an infobox from 2012 and before. However things have changed at Wikipedia and the old editors have moved on. Is it time we had a debate about adding an infobox? The usual way is to get consensus one way or the other, now, on the talk page rather than simply shoot the idea out of the water as one editor did in 2020. Thoughts welcome — Iadmc♫^talk  20:34, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

Don't let's do this. You will (eventually) discover that nothing much has changed. Johnbod (talk) 21:19, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

I'm asking for opinions and yours is noted. Thanks. Others' opinions may differ. It is telling that Mozart has an info box, though, along with a large number of other composer articles. — Iadmc♫^talk  03:13, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

A waste of time and space. You can't put anything useful in an info-box for a composer. You could put conducting posts held by Mahler, but that's not what he's famous for now. You could say he wrote symphonies and songs but that's not helpful to the reader. The majority of composer FAs don't have an i-box for that reason. Tim riley talk 07:12, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

The composer infobox would be used which is minimal. Here's what I propose:

Gustav Mahler
Gustav Mahler, photographed in 1907 by Moritz Nähr at the end of his period as director of the Vienna Hofoper
Born	7 July 1860 Kaliště, Kingdom of Bohemia
Died	18 May 1911 Vienna
Works	List of compositions

— Iadmc♫^talk  08:20, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

As you can see it is simply the image with some biographical info added in. It won't damage the FA status as far as I can tell — Iadmc♫^talk  08:27, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

The problem with that is that it doesn't do what an info-box is intended to do: to sum up the main points of the article. It even (bizarrely) takes the reader away from the article to another article altogether. Not helpful to the poor reader! Tim riley talk 08:51, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

It is what was agree to by the composer group, assuming there is consensus at the talk page. I'm feeling no love for infoboxs here though so I'll probably move on — Iadmc♫^talk  11:10, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

(ec): What you call "another article altogether" is the list of his compositions which would be part of this article if it was shorter. It also seems to "sum up" his achievements as a composer best. If "compositions" looks too neutral (but I like it exactly for being neutral and not an editor's choice of favourites), we could be more specific and name groups of works (symphonies, song cycles) or even individual works (Kindertotenlieder), - compare Aaron Copland. I am not against mentioning other key facts from his life, such as occupations and organizations; "conductor" and "director of the Vienna Hofoper" for example should show in parameter-value pairs where readers may expect them and search, and not in the image caption. Iadmc: very few people are only composers, and {{infobox person}} is therefore often better than the limited {{infobox classical composer}}. Technical suggestions: Vienna - as a current capital - needs no link, and the repetition of his name in the works parameter is not needed. - I wrote this far in reply to Tim riley, but to you as well, Iadmc. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:20, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

I think we are all very, very well aware of G. Arendt's views on i-boxes. Tim riley talk 13:06, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

@Tim riley I really think you guys are out of step with the modern Wikipedia. Infoboxes, when used well, are now part of the culture. I'll hang around a while to see if others turn up to voice an opinion. Btw, writing someone off just because "we are all very, very aware of" their views is bad form. — Iadmc♫^talk  14:31, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

I think you might not think so if you knew what G. Arendt has put those who disagree with her through over the years on this point. Cautioned for bullying by the Wikipedia authorities and nearly barred. She always promises not to intervene in discussions about i-boxes and then invariably does so. Tim riley talk 14:46, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

Everybody is allowed an opinion which should be considered equally with others (even if they are opposed to your views...) Or if they have history. Respect is the word! I will respect the consensus here after a decent respectful debate. Other people may want an infobox. We are however at an impasse at the moment and need new blood. I have asked over at the composers group and will ask at WP classical music and WP musicians — Iadmc♫^talk  15:08, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

@Gerda Arendt True that few are only composers but most are primarily composers or at least known as such. I see your point though — Iadmc♫^talk  14:35, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

I've modified the box per Gerda's suggestions — Iadmc♫^talk  15:15, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

I STRONGLY agree that an infobox is warranted. Basically every other category in WP uses them, and the arguments for why this tiny corner is somehow different are unpersuasive in the extreme. PianoDan (talk) 16:02, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

Would you STRONGLY say what you would put in an info-box for a composer? Tim riley talk 16:16, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

I am, as it happens, working on the article on Robert Schumann, which has an info-box. It was there when I started work on the article, and I am not so arrogant as to remove it merely because it seems to me to serve little purpose. It does no harm even though it repeats only what is in the lead. Equally, I think those who insist that all articles must have an info-box (which is not Wikipedia's policy) should consider how arrogant they are being. The Schumann article is at PR for anyone interested in making a constructive contribution. Tim riley talk 16:33, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

@Tim riley I'm not insisting on anything. Merely opening discussions as required by Wikipedia — Iadmc♫^talk  17:39, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

I'm sure you aren't, but there those who do, emphatically and brooking no opposition. By all means look in at the Schumann PR and also the Igor Stravinsky FAC just opened. Tim riley talk 18:32, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

Ooh. Worked on Stravinsky some years ago... Will pop in. I have commented on the PR at Schumann, too — Iadmc♫^talk  19:22, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

Just an observation: you didn't remove the infobox, but you changed it. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:46, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

I have never seen any rational reason given for removing an infobox. I know that there are people, who it is not necessary to name, who have a passionate hatred of them, apparently based on personal taste. But I do know a rational reason to include an infobox: the dustbin problem...

The dustbin (AmE "garbage can" or "trash can" (also used in the UK), pronounced UK: /ˈdʌstbɪn/, Japanese ゴミ箱, also used in Hong Kong sometimes) is the collection of nominal factoids, whether trivial or significant, which populate the parenthesised portion following the noun phrase, or sequence of alternative noun phrases identifying the topic of the article . There is a very long tradition of starting an article on a person with their name followed by parenthesised dates, but this has plainly got out of hand, and I recall reading at least one WP:essay on this. Search engines typically produce a "summary" for identifying a topic, by removing all parenthesised bits from the WP:lead, sometimes with disastrous results. So apart from the dates, all of this information is best presented not in linear text form, and the obvious existing place to put it is the infobox. Precisely because information in tabular form is easily scanned, people who are not interested in pronunciation (for example) can easily ignore it.

A personal taste reason for composer infoboxes is that I want to see composers' signatures. I just fished out a couple of cherished scores: "Beethoven, Sonaten-Album" pub. Bosworth & Co. Leipzig early 20C, with the composer's signature under the growling portrait, and "Valses Nobles & Sentimentale" pub. Durand, with Maurice Ravel's signature in an otherwise text only cover: his Slonimsky rating is "great French", but surely his Adjective would be "meticulous" and that shines through his signature. Samples

Just a personal note to Tim Riley: no, I really don't need evidence that either Ludwig or Maurice could write. Imaginatorium (talk) 07:09, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

There is a case for the signatures that artists use on their works being included, but none for composers. If you are interested in seeing them, fine, but (this may seem a shocking suggestion) you'll just have to look at the article. They can't possibly be called a "key fact" for composers. Johnbod (talk) 13:03, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

I am sadly way too late to this discussion. But since I am here after all: As someone who just came by to read for myself, I was irritated when I did not see an inbox on this article, so I switched to this TP to check.

Representing more the average reader than the average editor here, I am very much in favor of adding an inbox for two main reasons: (1) Consistency. Browsing most articles of renowned composers of the era, they all have an inbox. Therefore I'd say that this is a larger community-established precedent that this article should follow too. Not having one feels off. (2) Brevity. There are readers who come in for a quick scan of key data, and others who want to read more. In my case, I wanted to quickly cross-check during which years our friend Gustav lived and where, to cross-check at a glance who his contemporaries were. Instead, I had to parse through a bunch of prose. One may find my particular use case too fringe, but since most other articles have settled on a specific set of fields for composers, I believe it has already evolved enough to have the vast majority of such quick uses covered. DracaenaGuianensis (talk) 04:55, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

TLDR: I really can't grasp how can an infobox harm an article.

I would like to argue that an infobox does add to the article, and more, to the overall purpose of Wikipedia, which I quote:

Wikipedia's purpose is to benefit readers by acting as a widely accessible and free encyclopedia

given that it makes very relevant key facts (Birth date, death date, birth place, death place, ocupation, most famous compositions (I'm sorry, but, yes, his second symphony is a tad bit more famous than his lost works, or even his uncompleted piano quartet), burial place, alma mater, posts held, family information) more difficult to find, thus, less accessible.

I know that, as per, MOS:IBX all of this information in within the article, but having to make the effort to find it is a loss of time for the reader only interested on the straight facts.

And, even assuming that this is not the case, and having a clear tabulated template with all of the person's information is somehow not useful for the average reader, to the people that oppose an infobox, what harm is there in one? If you don't want to read the infobox, just, don't. As simple as that. It even makes the rest of the article more readable, as the lead section's width is smaller (see [1] this very famous TeX Stack Exchange post).

For mostly-readers-but-sometimes-editors like me, it is really strange that this article does not have an infobox. Today, it turned what would have been thirty seconds of my life spent in the following manner:

• I wonder where did Mahler die?
• I shall go to Wikipedia
• Oh, he died in Vienna!

into:

• I wonder where did Mahler die?
• I shall go to Wikipedia
• Oh, this article does not have an infobox, strange!
• I will create one to help the community out.
• Oh, it was removed. Why?
• Oh. I see...

I see that some people refuse to accept it, but it is expected of basically every Wikipedia article to have an infobox. I ask the those against the infobox: Which articles of similar importance to this don't have one? And please, do not give me an example in which you are also actively blocking the infobox being created.

Furthermore, the lack of consensus for 12 (!) years, maybe warrants an attempt to get a third party involved.

Milo8505 _(talk) 14:40, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

"it is expected of basically every Wikipedia article to have an infobox" just isn't true, I'm afraid. There are thousands, hundreds of thousand of articles that don't have IBs. It's also not true to say that there has been a lack of consensus for 12 years. For most of that time there has been a consensus not to have one. And the lack of an IB in absolutely no way stops WP being a widely accessible and free encyclopaedia - such hyperbolic claims are patently absurd. - SchroCat (talk) 15:28, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

First, of the 6,9 million articles on Wikipedia, more than 3 million have an infobox. Yes, there are millions of articles without one, but, with nearly half of articles having one it can be said that readers come to expect them.

Second, the person who reverted my edit (@Tim riley) said there is a lack of consensus. I want to challenge that.

Third, Are you claiming that making information more easily findable does not help the purpose of Wikipedia? I never claimed that the lack of the infoboxes stopped Wikipedia from being widely accessible or free, I claimed that they would help in that regard.

Fourth, could you tell me why an infobox would harm this article in particular? That is the most important part, as I can not find a single reason other than "X group of people really dislike them". Even Tim admits they do no harm! (in another article, I know). Milo8505 _(talk) 16:20, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

• If half don't have them, it's an odd claim that readers expect them: if it was 90 per cent, that may be a good line, but it isn't. So have you asked the readers? Have you seen any research that says people expect them? Even that isn't really a good argument. Expecting something doesn't mean a positive outcome. Asking whether something is beneficial and aids understanding would be a better starting point. You are free to challenge it, but as the last argument was slightly earlier this year and there have been no additional reasons or major changes to the article, it's difficult to see any new arguments coming up. The information is findable: it's on the page. Whether having trivial factoids in a prominent position, stripped of context in such a prime position, giving them extra weight really is beneficial is another matter altogether. there are very good reasons why IBs are flawed: they are listed in the archive discussions of several dozen pages on WP, but they start with what I have already said: that presenting trivial factoids stripped of context and nuance in a prime position does readers a disservice. The really important information on Mahler is in the first paragraph, particularly the opening line. - SchroCat (talk) 17:42, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

  An infobox would serve to highlight certain undisputable facts that need no context (like date and place of birth and death).

  Where did Mahler die? is a question that someone may try to find an answer to in wikipedia.

  With an infobox, that would take less than a second to find, and no one is being forced not to read the article if they want more nuance. It is true that information should be presented in a way that isn't misleading, but that doesn't only apply to infoboxes.

  I feel that when you talk about disservice to readers you are attempting to tell people how should they read an article, which is not the purpose of Wikipedia.

  You are intentionally making some facts about the article's subject more time-consuming to find in order to protect readers from themselves. I do not believe that is a good argument. Everyone is free to read, or not to read, whatever they desire.

  Your spirit, of suppressing information in the interest of the people is quite clearly contrary to the spirit of Wikipedia. Milo8505 _(talk) 18:21, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

• "highlight certain undisputable facts": Yes, they certainly do that, but whether that is a good thing depends. Is the place of birth and death really going to aid readers in their understanding of Mahler? From one point they are little more than trivia
• It's certainly possible that someone may want to know where he died, and it's mentioned in the article. But when someone hears his second symphony, are they going to be looking for his place of death as one of the first things? Is it one of the most important points about Mahler that you think readers need to know as one of the most important ten things about him? I would suggest not, but by including it in the IB, that's what you make it
• No, that's not what I am saying by any stretch of the imagination
• Again, no, that's inaccurate: that's clearly not what I am saying
• "Your spirit, of suppressing information in the interest of the people is quite clearly contrary to the spirit of Wikipedia": that's just hyperbolic nonsense. No information is being supressed, and it's disingenuous to suggest that's what I am arguing for or what I have in any way suggested.

You're misrepresenting what I've said to such a ridiculous degree that I'm going to step back from this and let others chip in. I refute most of your claims as nonsense that is a long way from what I have said - it's a farcical stretch to come to the conclusions you have based on what I have written; much misrepresentation may be a pseudo-smart rhetorical device, but I'll have no truck with it. - SchroCat (talk) 19:14, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

First, I'm sorry if I have offended you. However what I said in my post is what I interpreted from your reply.

When you say:

But when someone hears his second symphony, are they going to be looking for his place of death as one of the first things? Is it one of the most important points about Mahler that you think readers need to know as one of the most important ten things about him? I would suggest not, but by including it in the IB, that's what you make it.

are you not, at the very least assuming the intentions of people visiting the page?

Yes, I do in fact agree that when someone first hears about Mahler it is the information on the lead paragraph that they are looking for, but that does not warrant eliminating other information (or burying it paragraphs deep inside the article).

What I continue not understanding is why do you object the mere inclusion of an infobox? The infobox (if correctly placed) does not remove the lead paragraph from the most important spot on the page on desktop, and appears after this paragraph on mobile, so it does not remove the lead paragraph from the most relevant position.

An bad infobox would elevate wrong, misleading or irrelevant facts to a prominent position, but a good one would be a quick reference for something quick biographical doubts that one might have. And I understand that this might come across as a infobox-on-every-article mentality, but that is not my intention.

I do not think that the article is bad in any way shape or form without the infobox, but I do believe that it would be better with one, because, as I have stated a few times over by now, it would make for a more useful article. It wouldn't cease to be a good article for those who want to read a moderately sized introduction on Mahler, but it would also be a good article for those in a hurry looking for a biographical fact _{(which is the situation I was in this morning and why I started this whole discussion. I tought that the article would be better with an infobox, and following WP:BOLD, I added one. I should have checked the TP, I know.)}

I think that the text of an article and the infobox are different things. The infobox is not a summary of the article, but rather a collection of organized information found in the article. When looking at the infobox for a person, in general, you find their basic biographical information, and then, information relevant to the reason they are on Wikipedia. In Mahler's case, I believe a good infobox would contain first, their important biographical information, an then, what he is known for: being a prominent composer of the late romantic era, and a link to his works' list. This, I know, is a simplification of the article and one might even claim that prominent composer of the late romantic era is maybe not the best description of his musical style, but, an infobox does not and should not substitute the text, which clearly explains who he was and what is he known for.

This infobox would however present this information, which is not necessarily the most important, but standardized in the template description, in a format that is, at least, widely used in the rest of Wikipedia.

As an example of what I mean: see J. Robert Oppenheimer's page. The infobox is huge with loads of fields, but, if you just looked at it, it wouldn't be a good substitute for the rest of the article - because it's not meant to be. What it is is an standardized collection of information about him.

TL;DR An IB does no harm and adds, at least, some value. Milo8505 _(talk) 19:57, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

Whatever outcome this discussion has, please let's not go with "prominent composer of the late romantic era". Espresso Addict (talk) 05:36, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose infobox. While sports and politician bios can benefit from infoboxes, as a Signpost report notes: "Infoboxes may be particularly unsuited to liberal arts fields when they repeat information already available in the lead section of the article, are misleading or oversimplify the topic for the reader". I disagree with including an infobox in this article because the box would misleadingly emphasize less important factoids, stripped of context and lacking nuance, whereas the excellent WP:LEAD section emphasizes and contextualizes the most important facts about the subject. In addition, as the key information about the subject that could be included in the box is already discussed in the Lead and in the body of the article, the box would be a 3rd mention of these facts. Particular problems with the recently suggested box include: (1) It includes a pronunciation of his name. This belongs in the Lead, if anywhere, not in the box; (2) are his place of death and burial place really "key information" that the reader needs to see before reading the Lead section?; (3) the "occupations" will be clearer if the article simply starts off with the Lead section; (4) Era will be clearer if the article simply starts off with the Lead section. So, it seems like a largely redundant infobox that merely delays the reader in getting to the clearer, better contextualized Lead section. -- Ssilvers (talk) 19:44, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

  Again, an infobox does not displace any information other than the Download as PDF button do. I'm not advocating for removing any of the great text already written, but there is no harm in the infobox. Milo8505 _(talk) 20:00, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

  An even better example than Oppenheimer: Freddie Mercury

  Would you argue that that infobox puts the bands Sour Milk Sea and Queen at the same level? Milo8505 _(talk) 20:07, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

• Support an infobox for Mahler. He was a giant of classical music with a sprawling career. An infobox is good information hygiene for an article like this.Trumpetrep (talk) 20:07, 27 November 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose an infobox, and particularly the one suggested. I have absolutely no idea why anyone would think his birth & death dates are worth highlighting so many times, and list of compositions invites the reader to click away from a featured article to a bald list. Espresso Addict (talk) 13:04, 28 November 2024 (UTC)
• Support an infobox: Almost all prominent composers have one: Mozart, Beethoven, Brahms, Tchaikovsky, ... If the relevant community has converged to the view that infoboxes are merited, then I see little need to reinvent the wheel here. As for the question of which fields inside the box are helpful, again we may want to defer to how it's handled elsewhere, since presumably other editors have put in their thoughts over the years and made it evolve in a productive way. I don't expect the discussion here to yield fundamental improvements over that. DracaenaGuianensis (talk) 18:36, 28 November 2024 (UTC)
• Support an infobox. If some readers find it helpful and some don't, and it takes a small amount of space, why on earth would we side against the readers that find it helpful? Some of the opposers take a prescriptive view of the correct way to read the article, which I feel is fundamentally misguided as an approach to good design. Unfortunately, on all issues of user experience, Wikipedia's approach is firmly rooted in the 1990s. Endless debates based on personal views are as unlikely to achieve a good outcome as Ancient Greek philosophers were to stumble on quantum physics through pure reason. What users in the aggregate find intuitive and useful is surprisingly unintuitive to the designers. In the absence of actual systematic user testing, the best we can do is listen to what others find helpful (like a simple infobox that orients the subject in space and time) and not judge them for reading articles wrong.--Trystan (talk) 15:03, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

  Do you have anything to back up your claim that readers find them helpful? As far as I am aware, no research has ever been done. - SchroCat (talk) 15:06, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

  I’m referring to the participants in this discussion that have stated they find it helpful, which is all we have to go on in the absence of formalized research.--Trystan (talk) 15:10, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

  Ah, so a tiny handful of editors claim they find it useful; that's rather different. Thank you for clarifying. - SchroCat (talk) 15:28, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

  In the absence of robust testing, all we have to go on is the self-reporting of a handful of editors. It's very little, but what carries even less weight is a different handful of editors dismissing that self-reporting and telling the first group they should approach articles in a different way. Prescriptivist approaches, telling people how they should absorb information, invariably lead to bad design.--Trystan (talk) 17:27, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

  If only people were doing that you may have a point, but I don't see anyone above saying it. Could you clarify who in the above thread has said it? (The conversation is getting a little long, so I may well have missed the comment in all the noise, but hopefully you can enlighten me). - SchroCat (talk) 17:35, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

  Two things:

  1. Why do you require hard and fast evidence from us to show that infoboxes are good and warranted, while not providing any yourself that they are harmful?
  2. I quote you: [...] [P]resenting trivial factoids stripped of context and nuance in a prime position does readers a disservice.

  It seems to me that you do in fact tell readers how they should read (which I already told you and you dismissed me...). Milo8505 _(talk) 17:39, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

  Oh dear: that's a complete misrepresentation of what I have written, which anyone being truthful to themselves can see. Saying that something can be harmful is not in any way whatsoever telling people how they should read. I will wait for an answer from the person to whom I asked the question. - SchroCat (talk) 17:43, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

  I believe you and I have a very deep misunderstanding.

  If you say: X is a disservice to Y, then, isn't that equivalent to saying Y is bad for X, which is itself equivalent to Y shouldn't use X? Milo8505 _(talk) 19:16, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

  No. Just stop trying to twist my words to something I have not said - it's deeply dishonest. My words are very clear to anyone who doesn't want to twist them. As I have already said, I will wait for an answer from the person to whom I asked the question. - SchroCat (talk) 19:29, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

  Please do not accuse me of something I haven't done. It is pretty clear to everyone what you are saying. Please tell me how can your sentence that I quoted earlier not be interpreted as a prescriptive approach to reading Wikipedia. Milo8505 _(talk) 20:21, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

  As I have said twice, I will wait for an answer from the person to whom I asked the question. - SchroCat (talk) 20:28, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

  I believe that your spirit of not answering me is against the spirit of a well-intentioned discussion. I don't think that consensus could be reached in this manner. Milo8505 _(talk) 20:59, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

• Support Infoboxes are useful on larger articles. Arguments that infoboxes are negative on an article like this are uncompelling. Nemov (talk) 16:23, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

Request

If any contributors to the enormous screed above who have actually read the article would care to offer suggestions on the point raised in the following section, it will be esteemed a favour. Tim riley talk 17:53, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

What is the usual consensus for determining which works are important and which aren't?

I think (but maybe I'm very wrong) that the third paragraph would be better without the mention of the piano quartet, and the first paragraph should be extended to

Mahler then became one of the most frequently performed and recorded of all composers, a position he has sustained into the 21st century, with his very popular works, such as X, Y and Z.

The exact list of works would be, IMO, a list of the most performed works by some reputable concert aggregator, something akin to Operabase for symphonic music.

This is just a quick though and by no means a well researched endeavor. What do you think about the idea?

I have read that you despise Mahler symphonies (I really really encourage you to give his second or fourth another chance), but I believe that it is clear that it is for this works that he is remembered today. Maybe, in the above paragraph, X can just be "his symphonies" or "his large orchestral works".

Your encouragement is very kind, but I find myself in agreement with the great record producer John Culshaw: "... so much of his music makes me feel sick – not metaphorically but physically sick. I find his strainings and heavings, juxtaposed with what always sounds (to me) like faux-naif music of the most calculated kind, downright repulsive". But as Benjamin Britten said about his own aversion to Brahms, "I don't like tomatoes and mushrooms but that didn't mean they were wicked or anything". And the Mahler song "Ich bin der Welt abhanden gekommen" seems to me the most moving orchestral song there is. It's just the frightful symphonies I can't be doing with. But I digress. Tim riley talk 20:18, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

Well, no need to suffer then. It's not wrong to disagree! (even about infoboxes /j). Milo8505 _(talk) 20:25, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

This would be similar to how in:

Nevertheless, his innovative productions and insistence on the highest performance standards ensured his reputation as one of the greatest of opera conductors, particularly as an interpreter of the stage works of Wagner, Mozart, and Tchaikovsky.

some aspects of his conducting career are highlighted. Milo8505 _(talk) 19:15, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

Mention some more works in the lead?

I think the lead could benefit from mentioning a few more works than the piano quartet and symphonies no. 2 and no. 8. If you'd never heard of him, it would be easy to come away with the idea that he was a conductor with a minor sideline in composing. I will leave which to suggest to those better versed in the topic than I am, but I think the quartet is sufficiently atypical that it should be removed. Espresso Addict (talk) 08:30, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

Espresso Addict, sadly, the main editor of the article, Brian Boulton, died almost five years ago; a few of his admirers, including me, keep an eye on the 100+ articles he took to FA. I knew him well enough in real life to guess fairly confidently what he would have said in reply to many suggestions about any of the articles he wrote, but this one stumps me, rather. "A conductor with a minor sideline in composing" is pretty much how Mahler was seen in his lifetime, I think. BB's mention of the 2nd and 8th symphonies was specifically to emphasise that the other major works were unsuccessful at first. I hesitate to offer suggestions for the lead as I detest Mahler's symphonies and know little about them. I think perhaps it would be helpful to me and other editors if you let us have a suggested form of words for the paragraph you think needs revising. Tim riley talk 15:51, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

I think that the lead is missing some works (see comment in above discussion), but, I don't believe that the lead, as it stands, would make anybody think Mahler is now "a conductor with a minor sideline in composing" (although, when alive, he pretty much was). Seeing the biography for Lorin Maazel gives you a better idea of how a lead about a conductor-first, composer-second lead section is. Milo8505 _(talk) 19:20, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

I think it depends how quickly and carefully you read it, and how much you already know about classical music -- for example, whether you are familiar with Schoenberg, Berg and Webern (which is imo unlikely if you don't know much about Mahler); "As a composer he acted as a bridge between the 19th-century Austro-German tradition and the modernism of the early 20th century" is fairly opaque if you don't have a clue what the two movements mentioned are, and only the second is wikilinked. The conducting paragraph is rather long, and my attention started drifting in the middle; I can imagine someone whose acquaintance with classical music is limited to, say Eine Kleine Nachtmusik & Pachelbel's Canon might just have clicked away.

Current version of the bit about works:

Mahler's œuvre is relatively limited; for much of his life composing was necessarily a part-time activity while he earned his living as a conductor. Aside from early works such as a movement from a piano quartet composed when he was a student in Vienna, Mahler's works are generally designed for large orchestral forces, symphonic choruses and operatic soloists. These works were frequently controversial when first performed, and several were slow to receive critical and popular approval; exceptions included his Second Symphony, and the triumphant premiere of his Eighth Symphony in 1910.

Version that was featured:

Mahler's œuvre is relatively small—for much of his life composing was a part-time activity, secondary to conducting—and is confined to the genres of symphony and song. Most of his ten symphonies are very large-scale works, several of which employ soloists and choirs in addition to augmented orchestral forces. These works were often controversial when first performed, and were slow to receive critical and popular approval; an exception was the triumphant premiere of his Eighth Symphony in 1910.

I think the featured version is generally better; it doesn't mention the piano quartet, and does mention that there are ten symphonies, include the easy-to-understand word "song" (I think in the current version it is easy to miss that Mahler also wrote standalone songs). I would tend to suggest reverting to something closer to Brian Boulton's version -- but retaining the useful link on œuvre, and adding "largely" to cover early works -- and add a short sentence about works not popular in his lifetime that are highly perceived now, such as Das Lied von der Erde. I'm not a great fan of Mahler's symphonies either (I caused a kerfuffle in my youth by fainting in a Bruckner performance at the Proms, which rather put me off long symphonies); I'll go and see how Grove handles it and come back. Espresso Addict (talk) 03:43, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

The lead in Grove focuses on him as composer, and only discusses his conducting briefly. It highlights "large-scale symphonic works and songs (many with orchestra)" and talks about his symphonies as a mass. Espresso Addict (talk) 04:34, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

The Rest is Noise (Alex Ross) (pp. 18–25) discusses in most detail no. 6 (which is one of his 30 suggested recordings [for 20th-century music], p. 595), with some coverage of no. 1, no. 8, and to a lesser extent several other symphonies, but the discussion is largely framed in terms of his relationship with Strauss. I note in passing that Ross doesn't agree that Mahler was under-appreciated as a composer during his lifetime, but I've no idea how authorative that statement is. Espresso Addict (talk) 05:00, 30 November 2024 (UTC)