Talk:Richard Strauss

Much improved article

I hadn't looked at this article for quite some time and am delighted and impressed how much it has been improved since I last saw it. I had it on my to-do list but have now removed it as no longer needing upgrading, IMO. Has/have the main author(s) considered putting it up for peer review with a view to taking it to GAN or FAC? I think it deserves it. Tim riley talk 20:54, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

Good question. @4meter4: any plans? Aza24 (talk) 06:35, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

@Tim riley: and @Aza24: I hadn’t considered it, but I might based on this suggestion. Thanks for noticing my work.4meter4 (talk) 05:10, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

"better source needed" tag on Strauss quote

There's a quote from Strauss's journals that now has a "better source needed" tag on it (added by Michael Bednarek June 2020: [1]).

The episode of Exploring Music it is cited to can currently be listened to free online (labeled Friday, June 14, 2024) for the next 13 days at https://www.wfmt.com/programs/exploring-music/. The quote is at about one-and-a-half minutes in.

I'd like to remove the tag since it's checkable right now, and also the "Richard Strauss" series gets re-aired on Exploring Music approximately every four years (and is listenable for two weeks online each time).

From May 2013 to sometime in late 2019, Exploring Music also had a listen-on-demand archive of all of its past episodes. The last Wayback capture of on-demand streaming of the "Richard Strauss" series is August 2018: [2] (no longer listenable, but describes each episode).

Bill McGlaughlin writes his own scripts and does extensive research for every episode, as noted in Exploring Music#Production and distribution.

I've been unable to find the quote in a Google search -- although there are many dozens of English-language biography books on Strauss, Google currently does not offer either previews or snippets of the overwhelming majority of them. Softlavender (talk) 22:32, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

There are no problems with sources that verify a quotation but are no longer available. I suggest you update the URL and access-date and title/label of that reference, as well as indicating the time of the quote. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 00:30, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

OK done, thanks. I'll keep an eye out for any books I come across physical copies of that may also include it (particularly if the books predate 2004). I have ordered a copy of the Tim Ashley book you mentioned in your rationale; the snippet on GoogleBooks shows he doesn't quote the whole thing but he may have a footnote that gives the exact date of the journal entry, etc. BTW, I prefer to title the week-long radio series "Richard Strauss" rather than "Strauss, Richard", because the title these series are announced as is the composer's normal name, not surname+forename. I have also Wayback-saved the link and added access-date to the ref. Softlavender (talk) 01:44, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

Image missing when hovering on him on another page

I just changed his main image to one that is more accurate. However, when I hover over Richard Strauss on another article the image isn't showing up. I'm guessing this has to do with the image size, but I don't know how to fix it. Could someone help out? Wikieditor662 (talk) 09:13, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

I see this only after I reverted the image to the state before, and addressing the issue on your talk. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:30, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

Swapping his main portrait

I propose we swap Richard Strauss' main image from his portrait into his real life picture as it is more accurate and I believe choosing the more accurate image is more important than the better one. What do you guys think? Wikieditor662 (talk) 15:39, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

• The current picture (painting) doesn't seem like a bad option to me, but i agree that swapping it for an appropiate photograph could be an improvement. This one (1910 postcard) or that one (unknown year pic) seem like good candidates. There are others available here. — Gor1995 𝄞 17:28, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
• The Liebermann picture has been in this article's lead since User:Softlavender put it there in September 2010. I see no reason to change that. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 05:04, 1 August 2024 (UTC)
• I think this (1922) is a good photo – I agree that a photo would be more accurate than a painting. intforce (talk) 08:22, 1 August 2024 (UTC)
• I think that the current image works well to illustrate both him at the height of his career, and that he was portrayed by a notable artist. I could be convinced to change to a photo if it was equally good, but haven't seen one yet. Of the suggested options, the 1922 photo comes closest to what I would want, but has a restless background. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:23, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

  There is definitely more than one good option to put as the lead image. The one thing I am certain about is that it should be an image rather than a portrait as accuracy should be the priority, even if the portrait was the lead for a while (we should always strive to improve).

  I originally suggested swapping the portrait with the 1938 photo. Although the 1910 or 1913 photo might show more of his face from the center, the 1922 photo does seem to be the most wanted option by you guys (perhaps because it was taken at a significant time in his life) and I think it would be the most likely candidate to have us all in agreement. What are we thinking? Wikieditor662 (talk) 14:47, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

  I think that you should let this run without a further comment for a week, and then look again. You might want to make a neutral note of this discussion on related projects, Classical music, Composers and Opera. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:07, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

  I'm not sure if the people who aren't watching this page care enough about this change. Wikieditor662 (talk) 16:49, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

  That sounds rather like you are attempting to avoid additional neutral input. You've had an account for barely a month and have made only 94 mainspace edits. Please listen to the guidance of highly experienced Wikipedia editors. Softlavender (talk) 22:49, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

  Thanks for the heads up. There are users with much more experience with me and I think I should still be able to question what they say. As for what Gerda said, I did end up doing she suggested and I posted on project classical composers. Wikieditor662 (talk) 16:55, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

A photograph makes more sense to me and I'm yet to see an actual reason for the painting other than "its been there for a while" (the photographs equally show Strauss "at the height of his career". MOS:LEADIMAGE: Lead images should be natural and appropriate representations of the topic; they should not only illustrate the topic specifically, but also be the type of image used for similar purposes in high-quality reference works, and therefore what our readers will expect to see. A photograph seems more natural than a painting and from a glance at some biographies and articles, I'm seeing mostly images used, not paintings and definitely not this painting specifically. – Aza24 (talk) 01:36, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

Which photograph do you think we should use? Wikieditor662 (talk) 16:56, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

The composer of Salome and Elektra will always be that of the 1910 photo in all his insouciance (and it is a sin that it is not already in the article: "bring me the head ..."). But that insouciance lends it a certain bit of shock value, maybe. And he is also the composer of Metamorphosen so much later.

The medium seems fundamentally unimportant. A painted portrait is not necessarily less accurate or natural than a photo which may be dated (poor in quality), inappropriate in expression, monochrome, or strangely set (whether in his composure or the background). It may be the case that a painted portrait was considered more formal and representative (i.e., less experimental or instantaneous) in a given social context or by the subject. A painting may add significant contextual and historical value, as GA also noted (e.g., the person was sufficiently important and moneyed to be portrayed, the artist's style, perhaps their relationship). There would be great value in somehow retaining both paintings of him in this article if the lead image is changed.

I propose to leave the current lead image as-is. It is the cover of Laurenz Lütteken's Strauss. There are no excellent Commons photo of him in his middle age. The problem with the 1922 photo, besides the restless background GA noted, is that he is posed obliquely: this introduces a certain element of undesirable ambiguity. In this painting, he is posed so to produce a more accurate and informative semblance than the 1922 photo. The problem with the other photos is that he is either too young or too old. MONTENSEM (talk) 08:14, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

• The lead image should not be changed without an RFC (and the RFC should not be done by a newbie editor).

  In my opinion, the lead photo for any deceased major composer should show them at their most recognizable. Strauss is most recognizable with his moustache, with fairly distinctive and fairly chiseled features (not the amorphous blob his face started turning into as he aged and his hair turned white), preferably facing forward (and also not obscured by shadow), looking reasonably healthy and neutral (not glaring out cholerically as in the 1910 photo), and not noticeably in his youth (pre-prime). Of the options available on Commons [3], there aren't that many great choices that meet those criteria. For that reason, I still favor the Lieberman portrait; here also is a headshot of that. -- Softlavender (talk) 05:23, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

  Yes! I propose leaving it as it is, not cropping up the painting of Strauss as if this were his social media profile. MONTENSEM (talk) 07:03, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

  There is absolutely no requirement for an RFC to change a lead image (or for any editor to need a certain amount of experience to initiate one), but in any case, I tend to agree with Montensem's comment on Strauss's renown being around ~1910 and such. The photographs available all seem too late in this regard. This is similar to the image choice at Berlioz, where the current image was favored over photographs depicting him in old age (not the age in which he wrote his best known works).Aza24 (talk) 00:19, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

  It seems that most people favor leaving the painting as it is. What happens now? Does an administrator need to change the marking of this conversation, or do we just leave this as it is? Wikieditor662 (talk) 00:52, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

  We just leave it as is. Sometimes these kinds of conversations are closed with {{archive top}} & {{archive bottom}}, but that's usually for more formal RFCs, RMs etc. Aza24 (talk) 03:39, 5 August 2024 (UTC)