Talk:Richard Strauss

And the nazis

Practically half the article about his life is "with the nazis". I think that he did a "little" more than have a "relation" with them, and that should be reflected in the article. The same happens when someone is allegadly homosexual, half the article is about it...

Please someone reconsiderate this when editing the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.174.164.87 (talk) 17:53, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Point taken. It interrupted the flow of information that is strictly a grouping of types of works, so it has been moved to below that whole meta-section. One must remember, however, that how any German artist dealt with the Nazis is an important part of their biography, and it affected their works as well. I've removed the POV elements in the section, and added some subhheadings that relate it back to the works. Softlavender (talk) 00:27, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Burleske in D minor

Anyone know why the opus number 11 is often used with the Burleske (Richard Strauss)? Strauss published it only reluctantly, and never gave it an opus number. Opus 11 is his Horn Concerto in E flat. -- JackofOz (talk) 22:45, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm guessing it's probably because it was written (or at least started) directly after his so-called "Opus 10": List of compositions by Richard Strauss. Softlavender (talk) 01:11, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

I can imagine a person making this assumption, but they must have spoken extremely authoritatively to have a multitude of reference sources slavishly follow them without any checking back with the composer or his publishers, who would have quickly revealed they were in error. Thanks for the suggestion, but I think there's more to it than that. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 10:59, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Duplication of, inconsistent, and inaccurate opus numbering is quite common. Publishers can make mistakes; composers can change their minds or make mistakes, etc. All of this becomes even more likely when the now-deprecated number makes perfect sense chronologically. Opus number#19th_century_to_date. Softlavender (talk) 23:49, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Yep, makes perfect sense alright. I'd still like to see a cite about it, though, rather than just making this (perfectly plausible) assumption. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 06:03, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Could post the question on the List of compositions by Richard Strauss article's talk page -- people seem to be watching and responding to questions there. Softlavender (talk) 01:17, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Will do. Ta. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 01:58, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Appointment to high nazi office

in Composers of the Nazi Era: Eight Portraits by Michael H. Kater (Paperback - Oxford U Press, 2000 - ISBN 0-19-509924-9) Mr Kater points out that Richard Strauss was consulted BEFORE he was appointed head of the Reichsmusikkammer. see page 228

"Part of the conventional interpretation is that Strauss became president of the RMK on 15 November without even being asked. This is a myth. As a logical consequence of the bilateral dealings between Goebbels and the composer since the spring, Strass received a telegram on 10 November 1933 from Ministerial Counselor Hans Ruediger of the Promi, asking him whether he wished to accept the position and participate in the opening festivities on 15 November. Although we do not have Strauss's answer in writing, we must assume that he went through the formal motions of agreeing."

which makes the sentence: "In November 1933, without consultation with Strauss, Joseph Goebbels appointed him to the post of president of the Reichsmusikkammer, the State Music Bureau." something of a whitewash. It certainly would be convenient if this appointment came "out of the blue" as a big surprise, and was accepted in all innocence... but it seems to be otherwise.

I would suggest editing the sentence by removing "without consultation with Strauss" - as the rest of the sentence is patently true, and verifiable.

Diaphora (talk) 16:34, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

More Sources

The article is generally good, but much is said without being backed up with citation. I'm not saying there are inaccuracies. Frankly, I couldn't see any...but there seems to be much said without reference. Gingermint (talk) 03:43, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

If you feel that way, it's best to take the time (if you can) to tag uncited claims with {{fact}}, and if there are a lot of them, add the tag {{refimprove}} to the top of the entire page. Softlavender (talk) 01:04, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Live-recording player piano music rolls?

"Strauss also made live-recording player piano music rolls for the Hupfeld system, all of which survive today." I deleted this sentence because (A) it was in the Opera section, and so seemingly irrelevant, and (B) it begs the question, "of what?" If anyone knows of what, and hopefully can also give a citation, it can be replaced in the article, in the correct section (which might end up being the "Death and Legacy" section). Softlavender (talk) 03:25, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Update: I added this to the "Recordings" section, but we still don't know what the piano rolls are of. Softlavender (talk) 05:46, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Image

I have uploaded a public domain image of Strauss with his wife and son, dating from 1910: File:Richard-strauss-and-pauline-and-franz-1910.jpg. I don't wish to barge in and rearrange the existing images, but if regular editors of this article think the new image worth using, it's there if wanted. (By the bye, the image of Strauss in 1938 seems to me very dubious on the copyright front: how can one claim pre-1923 publication for a picture taken in 1938?) Tim riley (talk) 07:40, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Good show. I'll add it in. It's good to have a photo with an actual date. BTW, in terms of the TIME cover, Wiki has other TIME covers around that date when relevant to a point made in an article. The cover proves Strauss's worldwide eminence, which is why the Nazis were virtually forced to make him Reichsmusikkammer president. There is also a cover from 1927 available, but it's most unsuitable in my opinion because it doesn't look like Strauss at all and in fact looks exactly like William Powell. I chose the 1938 one to avoid any confusion. Softlavender (talk) 07:54, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Note about the format, structure, and sections of the article

Because Strauss's life under Nazi rule has been the subject of endless scholarly discussion, it has been necessary to explore this subject at length, even though the rest of the article currently lacks a synoptic biography. We've decided to move the section on Nazi Germany outside of the section on his Works, and present it as a separate subject, after the Works section. This makes it less prominent than his Works, but allows it to be discussed in enough encyclopedic length to cover all necessary controversies. The section on his Final Upsurge of Genius is also in that section, because this was inspired by his despair over the Nazi destruction of German culture. The section on his death and legacy, though short (it can and certainly should be expanded), follows that.

I realize this may seem at first glance slightly non-chronological, but it's the most logical sequencing of the sections for the article as it now stands. If someone wants to add a complete and exhaustive year-by-year and decade-by-decade biography of Strauss to the article, then the Nazi section could possibly be incorporated into that; but as is, this works best for now. Thanks for understanding. Softlavender (talk) 08:30, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Die schweigsame Frau

Can anyone verify after how many performances it was banned? Some sources say three, others two. Danke. --Lazer Stein (talk) 22:00, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

I can try but please don't hold your breath! :) DBaK (talk) 07:32, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Kennedy, currently by far the most reliable and disinterested source on Strauss, says three, so if you are questioning it you need to give a source more reliable than that, which I think would be difficult. Softlavender (talk) 04:10, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Atheist

I noticed that the German atheists category was added. Is this appropriate. I can't find a mention in the article. AsZ was inspired by Nietzsche's "God is dead" work while T&V refers to some sort of afterlife. Did Strauss express his beliefs in any published form?--Peter cohen (talk) 16:21, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

I wondered the same thing last night, but decided not to revert the edit. There's a bit about Strauss's alleged atheism in this article, including a reference to a review by Tim Ashley in the Guardian. Ideally we do need to have something in the article to support the category (and a slightly stronger reference, such as from a dedicated biography, would be better). Antandrus (talk) 17:01, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. It does seem at least to be true, then. It would be nice to have a stronger reference as you say indicating how his atheism contributed to his music.--Peter cohen (talk) 22:14, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Nothing in the article itself confirms this (which is the criterion for such a Category listing); in fact, many of Strauss's musical works seem to refute it: Death and Transfiguration, Metamorphosen, the Four Last Songs. I'm going to remove the category since it is not mentioned in the article, much less confirmed anywhere on Wikipedia. A conjecture in a review is not a confirmation. Only a personal quote would be a conformation, and it would have to be a quote practically from his deathbed, since as mentioned his late works seem very reverential. Softlavender (talk) 02:16, 26 July 2011 (UTC)