Talk:Alma Problem

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Classical music, which aims to improve, expand, copy edit, and maintain all articles related to classical music, that are not covered by other classical music related projects. Please read the guidelines for writing and maintaining articles. To participate, you can edit this article or visit the project page for more details.Classical musicWikipedia:WikiProject Classical musicTemplate:WikiProject Classical musicClassical music articles

Sources[edit]

Please see User talk:Pfistermeister as there is nothing on this on google that could remotely be considered a reliable source per WP:RS. This appears to be in hand. --Spartaz 22:00, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Google is only useful to point to online sources. The author of this article, User talk:Pfistermeister, has referenced several books. I think that unless we can read them, we cannot tag them as unreliable.-Atavi 14:00, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I know - that's why I took the hoax tag down after discussing with him and he agreed to put the references up in the article quickly. --Spartaz 15:47, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. Sorry; I wrote the above comment without reading your discussion on User talk:Pfistermeister's talk page, but only what was written on the article talk.

-Atavi 15:49, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Alma Mahler article[edit]

I vote in favour of merging with the Alma Mahler article.-Atavi 14:03, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not too keen on that idea, actually. For one thing, the 'Alma Problem' entry is going to be very big and detailed, and would tend to overbalance the Alma Mahler article; for another, I will eventually link the 'Alma Problem' page to the 'Gustav Mahler' article: people who click on it there won't want to be taken to the 'Alma Mahler' page.

Pf.

Yes. When I wrote that, the article was quite small. But you're still working on it, and it has already grown to a size where it wouldn't be right to put on the Alma Mahler article. I think we can remove the merge tag as well. The text is so big, I don't think anyone would support merging now.-Atavi 21:00, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for this. And thanks also for your contributions to the page: I hope there will be more!

Pf.

It's an interesting piece. I'm happy to read it and also write a bit when I can.-Atavi 06:18, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Disputed neutrality[edit]

Who on earth has tried to paint this entry as something whose 'neutrality' is 'disputed'? Who is doing the disputing? The only people who have contributed to it so far are myself, 'Atavi', and 'Cenedi' -- and, as far as I can see, there's no disagreemwent between us, and the result is about as factually impregable as it is possible to be. So: can someone please take the tag off this entry? It's an insult to everyone concerned.

Pf.

Allow me! The text itself seems absolutely fine. And it's not a 'stub', either!

Uncle Brian

Gustav's last words[edit]

In the original edition of Alma's biography of Mahler (which I don't have before me) she reports that visitors in the hospital saw the dying man moving his finger rhythmically. When he noticed they were watching, Gustav reportedly said, "Mozartl... Mozartl." In the English translation this is changed to "Mozart... Mozart."

In lieu of tracing down any further clues on the discrepancy I thought a bit about why Gustav would say "Mozartl." We know that Wolfgang's sister Anna Maria Mozart was known as "Nännerl" and Gustav's first daughter, who died, was named Anna Maria. Tokerdesigner (talk) 01:49, 27 December 2007 (UTC) 18:20, 20 September 2007[reply]

Why are you wondering about what is an entirely standard Germanic diminutive...? Pfistermeister (talk) 02:34, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Alma Problem Problem[edit]

Some changes probably should be made to this article in order to make it more professional. First, this "Problem" is, on the face of it, just another manifestation of a widespread historical obstacle facing scholars: the tendency of spouses, family, and friends to want to construct the meaning of someone's life and work in a particular way. We can see it most recently, for example, amid the uproar over the new Charles Schultz biography. That said, I wonder whether this article might be seen as coming down on Mrs. Werfel pretty hard. Why describe her merely as an "articulate, well-connected and influential woman"? To boil it down, it seems to me that this article rains down pretty heavily on a single person for doing what, as any historian knows, many, many people have done. And there would hardly be room for all those "problem" articles in Wikipedia, I would think. Thoughts? Dunkelweizen 13:26, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You have a point. I would like to hear the thoughts of the primary author of the article, Pfistermeister. But in the meantime, what changes do you have in mind?--Atavi 20:07, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For now, most changes would need to be in the interest of neutrality. Some of this just seems quite angry, despite the fact that musicologists and other scholars are well aware of the need to handle family recollections with rubber gloves. Some of it is a bit exaggerated, too, such as how it conveys the centrality of Alma Mahler-Werfel's writings to Mahler scholarship. That is false. Book-length discussions of Mahler's works have been around since the first decade of the twentieth century, including those of Stephan and Specht. Sure, her letters editions were doctored up, but so were many others, especially those coming from families of the deceased. Right now, I think that an article about Alma as villainess of Mahlerian Truth is a distortion, and that if anything, this should be made more concise and incorporated into the Gustav Mahler (and not the Alma Mahler-Werfel) article. But that's just me. Dunkelweizen 22:58, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think that changes in style and adding passages to make the points you are making in this talk page can be made immediately. Besides, Wikipedia is among others about collaboration. I also hear your concern about whether this article is needed at all. I might even share your concern to a certain degree. However, the article is currently quite lengthy and to delete it I think requires input from more people. Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not and Wikipedia:Five pillars offer some guidelines on what can be included, but I won't dare to make a personal judgment on this article --not for now at least.--Atavi 20:14, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Atavi, I'll start reading up on this, and for now, I'll hold off on editing this article. I still have a lot to learn about the ways of Wikipedia, and I am enjoying it. Dunkelweizen 21:58, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, Dunkelweizen. Good luck with this. When you think you're ready to contribute be bold and go through with it; this article --like most others-- can be improved. As for if the article should exist, I'm here to discuss the matter further. Cheers,--Atavi 17:21, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Norman Lebrecht 'not a scholarly authority'??[edit]

Dunkelweizen, please justify your assertion that the writer of 'Mahler Remembered'

http://www.amazon.com/Mahler-Remembered-Norman-Lebrecht/dp/0571146929

is not to be considered a scholarly authority when he writes on this topic. My quote is restored pending your explanation. Pfistermeister (talk) 12:28, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. To be a scholarly authority, one must be properly trained as one. Norman Lebrecht is an active and dedicated journalist whose prolific output on contemporary musical life has advanced discussion of the topic in a witty and irreverent way. I love Norman Lebrecht and find his book on twentieth-century music to be a thoroughly pleasant read. But Lebrecht is not a scholar, and his insights should supply neither the basis nor the supporting arguments for any encyclopedic endeavor. His work is not submitted to peer review. Mahler Remembered is a great book to have around, but it is a compiled anthology intended for lay enthusiasts, not an original scholarly contribution by any measure. Stephen Hefling, Peter Franklin, John Williamson, James Buhler, and the late Edward R. Reilly are all scholars of Mahler's music. Norman Lebrecht is a worthwhile human being and a valuable writer, but he is not a scholar. I hope this makes sense. Unless you can demonstrate that Lebrecht is actually a scholar, please remove the quote. Dunkelweizen (talk) 15:38, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Questionable translation[edit]

The article's final paragraph notes that a mistranslation "furchtbar" -> "severe" occured in the Creighton edition and proposes to rather translate it as "frightful". Despite the two words being cognates, Creighton's translation seems to be the appropriate one in this case, as the word "furchtbar" has several different meanings. A "frightful migraine" would be a nonsensical description in English as in German if used in that context. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:810C:4000:EC:BDD3:4F91:12BB:8B14 (talk) 00:08, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]