![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 5 | ← | Archive 9 | Archive 10 | Archive 11 | Archive 12 | Archive 13 | → | Archive 15 |
The article currently reads:
I think one can only see a contradiction here if one twists the meaning of Schopenhauer's assertions with respect to music. It's true Schopenhauer did claim that music is uniquely situated relative to other art forms. In his World as Will and Representation, Schopenhauer draws an analogy with the doctrine of Platonic Ideals, where music alone affords direct access to the universal will, while all other art forms must get at the will indirectly through concepts, like shadows on the cave wall.
The above referenced passage seems to interpret Schopenhauer's claims to mean that music itself is therefore more "important" or more "primary" than other art forms. I'm not so sure about that. All that matters for Schopenhauer is the aesthetic experience, which he describes more or less as getting lost in a moment of blissful union through whatever abstract knowledge the artist conveys. Any art form has the potential to evoke such experience, and all such experiences are important for Schopenhauer. All he was saying is that music has an advantage, owing to its direct relationship with the will, of being able to evoke such eperiences more efficiently.
So when the passage implies that Wagner simply inverted the relative importance of music and drama in his later work, it misses the point entirely. If Wagner thought early on that music must be subservient, after coming to grips with Schopenhauer, his view simply became more nuanced -- what mattered was how they comingled to evoke the aesthetic experience. It was for this reason that Wagner’s goal became, in his later work, "what he called the Gesamtkunstwerk, or “total work of art”—a theatrical event in which music, literature, and the performing and visual arts would all come together." It was not that drama became subservient to music, but that the entire opera became attuned to the nature of aesthetic experience as described by Schopenhauer.
Much more could be said on the subject, for Schopenhauer's aesthetics rely on an understanding of the role of the will in his entire philosophy. But this is not an article about Schopenhauer, and so I am not sure how to edit the above passage to make it more accurate without an inappropriate digression. Editing is further complicated by the fact that the passage appears adequately sourced, whereas my beef here probably smells like WP:OR to some. In anticipation of this objection, I will just point out that Dahlhaus was a musicologist, not a philosopher. His opinion on the matter may not be particularly relevant.
If anyone would like to take a stab at reworking this passage, I think it would add a lot to the article. Schopenhauer's influence on Wagner was pivotal, so it's a shame that this section does such a poor job of imparting the nuance of that influence. 137.254.4.5 ( talk) 09:22, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
It is totally unrepresentative of his life, achievements, and contributions as a whole. Frankly, it smacks of the main stream media's oft-used ploy of ending their segments with a question, and is overly sensational and weasely. Let us keep this fine site dry and void of telling stories. The "anti-semitism" aspect should be in the intro, just not as the last sentence. I am going to change unless someone convinces me I shouldn't. Lars2701 ( talk) 15:26, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
I have had a go at rewriting. -- Smerus ( talk) 18:21, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
In the passage below, what does 'eventually' mean relative to his 'infatuation' and 'during the course of'? And what affair?
I believe that Wagner and Bruckner were close friends, and this article could clarify this. Didn't Bruckner say "Wagner? He is my man". ACEOREVIVED ( talk) 08:35, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
I have to agree with Major Torp. that if the text is a lead issue then why is it being deleted? I would be upset if someone did that also. Valid information should never be thrown out. Simply move it to a better place. And end the war. So simple. Do not delete content which is not a serious violation. I wish I knew the topic then i would move it to a better place. War for no reason. And on another note, where is the info box for Wagner? -- Halqh حَلَقَة הלכהሐላቃህ ( talk) 07:56, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
There are certain problems in simply repositioning User:Major Torp's texts within the article and I raise them here without editing the article as I do not wish to restart any cycle of ripostes.
Might I add that I write not, as I have been kindly characterised by User:Major Torp, as an 'excessively zealous Wagner Fan club member' but as one who is keen to ensure reliable evidence-based balance and information in an article on a controversial topic. I take it in these circumstances that if there is some consensus or agreement with some of the issues I raise above there is no obligation to accept User:Major Torp's unilateral instruction, in his last edit, 'DO NOT REMOVE' (his caps), which would in fact seem to be out of step with Wikipedia procedures.
I would appreciate any (constructive) comments. Then we can resolve this situation properly. Thanks.--Smerus 16:10, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
MT, Your "His accomplishment was an operatic genre that he called simply “drama“ (later known as music drama), synthesizing music, drama, verse, legend, and spectacle" is inappropriate as it ignores and repeats the mention in the very nexy paragraph creating the stylisticly awkward repetition of "synthesis/zing". I am therefore removing it.-- Peter cohen ( talk) 12:20, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
I have I hope relocated one of the contested texts appropriately. In doing so I have made it clear that the phrase used is in fact a quotation from the source which is cited, as this is standard WP practice.
Now I have a further query. Whilst you demnstrate that Wagner once referred to his works as 'drama' in his 1850 essay, he did not habitually refer to his works as 'dramas', nor of course can this term be held to have applied to the works he wrote before 1850, ( Rienzi, The Flying Dutchman, Lohengrin, Tannhäuser). To include this statement s it stands in the lead, where there is not the opportunity to explain this in detail, risks being misleading to readers. I propose therfore to relocate the sentence in question to the section Wagner#Opera where there will be better opportunity to explain it in a fuller context.
Thanks,--Smerus 14:07, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
The change by Smerus is acceptable, with small hesitation and an correction of names that will follow. The move does not so much move the text from an erroneous spot but it from the main view of some editors. In hindsight I understand why so much fuss and outright anger emerged: Idols are not be tampered with.
The first change ok, but what has User:Peter cohen done. This edit had surely not been approved and your language, honored fellow Wikipedian, is quite uncouth. Respectfully, User:Major Torp ( talk) 21:46, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
Views and research on Wagner are not controversies. Important elements in the discussion on Wagner is utterly absurd to be placed after Film portrayals and other menial subjects. The legacy of Wagner is usually a conclusion not in the middle as to blackout other elements of the article by understandably devoted Wagner enthusiasts. Respectfully, User:Major Torp ( talk) 14:30, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
Has the article already been written and the content of it already been decide by a chosen and closed group of aficionados of a certain persuasion. This of courses should be something totally abhorrent in Wikipedia, but sadly is part of every day Wikipedia life. I hope that members of the "project Michael Jackson" do not dictate the form and content in the Wikipedia Michael Jackson article to suit there liking.
User Smerus unilaterally removed in his last edit (15:21, 6 November 2011 ) Smerus) the entirety of my contribution that was composed of many varying edits (such as the removing controversial text removal (3x times) by User: Peter cohen, that had not been given general consent in the discussion page). If this be the case and such high-handed all around editing is done, I see no other course of action then respond in kind and reinstate the whole edit until someone can properly discuss and correct the particular mistake I supposedly made. I have not started this edit war and hope neutral voices could step in and look at the present battle positions and cool things done. I have already been threatened by User:Smerus who wrote to me that me right could be removed and that I had succumbed to Vandalism. I ask myself when reading the whole discussion here, am I just the one-sided editor here, as User:Smerus would like it to?
-Course of action to be considered:
1. Original edits (2x pharses) kept by Major Torp, with minor alterations.
2. The one phrases kept in the original place, but other phrase rewritten properly and placed at a suitable place in the article
3. Remove all User: Major edits (2x phrases),
4. Remove one, keep one
I will not accept that certain people will dominate certain articles, what ever there CV is. We have no professional music historian involved in these discussion and even if we would, no one shall have total mastery of the Wikipedia content and points of views, if not blatantly inaccurate or harmful. Thank you User:Major Torp ( talk) 20:25, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
When I have been reading the articles history, I see that User: Smerus has been hunting the unwanted rodents from this article. This I accept and approve, but I feel that he and another active editor have gone on autopilot mode by removing things in this "ready made article". I have not been alone in this opinion and now some want to decide which German history professor, German literature professor, musicologist or a renowned contemporary can and can not be acceptable in the Wikipedia article. If you want an regular dictionary then get it, if you want a Wagner biography buy it written by one of the many dozen Wagner writters. The thing I find interesting and invigorating about Wikipedia that you find different and varying texts and opinions that all fit the quality bill but are not just the basic mainline espoused out there.
The sequence of events (Numbering stands for order of events)
Thank you User:Major Torp ( talk) 01:58, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
Was my contribution at the start so bad that it deserved to be totally removed before any discussion or even a yay or nay vote of confidence was done. Most editors thought that there was no qualitative fault to be found and still it was send in to the waste bin. Which edit is then the right one - with or without the text? Who is the belligerent or the singled out culprit? Respectfully User:Major Torp ( talk) 02:17, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
Dear User:Major Torp - Wikipedia seeks to be an encyclopaedia,not a personal essay contest. Please read, and seek to understand, WP:NPOV, WP:NOP,and WP:V. You should also read carefully and fully WP:NOT. Not least, you should read and understand WP:SHOUT and WP:MULTI. I hope this is helpful to you. --Smerus 05:43, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
I hope we can find resolution and avoid similar events in the future.Thank you User:Major Torp ( talk) 08:27, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
User:Major Torp ( talk) 16:06, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
One should take heed when the Wagner Cartel speaks on the topic of objectivity. Wagner's music took early on an quasi-religious overtone, and followers of his music were referred to as "disciples" who "made the pilgrimage" to the festival house in Bayreuth. Concert-goers were reported to have fainted at the performances as if under the influence of some religious fervor or ecstasy. User:Major Torp ( talk) 18:25, 7 November 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.192.40.14 ( talk)
Monsieurdl mon talk 19:46, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
User:Major Torp ( talk) 11:43, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
PS I guess under the regime of the Wagner Cartel, this could never be included User:Major Torp ( talk) 11:43, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
For Wagner, the pagan northern myths served several purposes in his operas. First, they gave the German people a nationalist identity. (Dr. Bradley J. Birzer, Professor of History at Hillsdale College http://www.isi.org/lectures/text/pdf/birzer.pdf)
Is this (See also) okey to add?
User:Major Torp ( talk) 10:57, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
Just a tired mans lapsus linguae. I will correct my text, even though I think it was readable. Will improve. Thank You User:Major Torp ( talk) 08:35, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
A bit of cooling of the heated debate is welcome. Inside a few days I will post concise bullet points on ideas and suggestions on the topic on developing this article. I hope that even the Wagner Project people will join in an open and democratic spirit, so as to calm down any fears of any "High Priests" among us. Thank you. User:Major Torp ( talk) 09:40, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
Taking a detour from the exhausting edit war. I am no expert but I know Wagner exclusively through Ride of the Valkyrie should that not be in the lead since that is his most popular piece? [1] I think if you meet the average person and wanted to say "do you know Wagner" you would have to play that piece, so that might merit a mention in the lead. I had to search pretty deep into the article to find out anything about it.-- Halqh حَلَقَة הלכהሐላቃህ ( talk) 06:12, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
I have created a new section because the above discussion was getting ridiculously long. I received a solicitation to review the issues going on here. I see that a number of trustworthy mensch have this in hand (Smerus, Antandrus, etc...), so I wish only to comment that the lede as it is written now is fine and needs no change. Eusebeus ( talk) 08:53, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
Instead of wasting time and space by fatuous sarcasm, you could just look up the WP guidelines - here they are, from WP:LEDE - (and by the way the Wagner article has about 80,000 characters) -
The appropriate length of the lead section depends on the total length of the article. As a general guideline, the lead should be no longer than four paragraphs. The following suggestion may be useful:
Article length | Lead length |
---|---|
Fewer than 15,000 characters | One or two paragraphs |
15,000–30,000 characters | Two or three paragraphs |
More than 30,000 characters | Three or four paragraphs |
Hope this is helpful and instructive.--Smerus 08:23, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
I have to say that I'm not an expert on Wagner. I joined this discussion because I feel that discussion in talk page is a good practice which contributes to article's success. I haven't experienced any edit wars and do not wish to be involved in any – I'm here just to express my opinion.
I think the two issues are separate, so I used a separate subsection for each topic.
In my opinion, the words common Germanic past should be included in the article. As I see it, romantic nationalism and symbols of Germanic past have influenced Wagner's music. The word supposedly might mislead readers who are not familiar with the terminology of social science. Such readers might think that a Germanic past did not exist. To avoid any misunderstanding, I suggest to choose one of the following options:
In my opinion, social class is an important part of people's identity and background. Therefore, the article should mention Wagner's social class. I think the best would be putting a general label, and then the details. Of course, the labeling should be based on reliable sources.
Sapere aude22 ( talk) 15:16, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
This concern reflects the current resurrection of Marx’s ideas. We can credit the untiring efforts of academics around the world for this resurgence. The only problem that we have is that the word “class” is vague and ambiguous. Where, for example, does lower class end and middle class begin? Possibly the word "class" may designate a concept that has no relation to experience. Lestrade ( talk) 10:57, 14 April 2012 (UTC)Lestrade
So there are at least two "middle classes" here. One for Wagner in c. 1870 and one in our time, 2012. There are countless others, also. For example, there is a middle class in 1789 and there is one in 1971. This goes on to infinity. Where are the demarcations between lower, lower-middle, middle-lower, and middle class? A problem for Marxists. If a man earned 12,000 pupniks per year, he was middle class. If he earned 11,999, he was lower class. If Richard Wagner shined his shoes before coming to dinner, he was middle class. This illustrates the hopeless vagueness of social class distinctions. In order to discuss Wagner’s class, this vagueness must be taken into consideration. Lestrade ( talk) 13:17, 15 April 2012 (UTC)Lestrade
If we are to discuss Wagner in terms of Marx, then it is absolutely necessary to include a consideration of Wagner’s social class. In his Communist Manifesto, Marx wrote that: “the history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggles. ( Bottomore, Tom, ed., A Dictionary of Marxist Thought, Cambridge, Harvard University Press, 1983, p. 75.) Also, we must be sensitive to Wagner’s many political struggles. Now that Communism and Socialism are becoming the popular choice of all people on earth, thanks to the influence of the entertainment industry and to academia, we cannot ignore this aspect of Wagner’s life. Lestrade ( talk) 15:38, 15 April 2012 (UTC)Lestrade
Class distinctions, then, are not as vague as I had thought. If we add up police clerk, police actuary, chief of police, civil servant, theologian, and master baker, we arrive at “the absolute pinnacle of lower-middle-class, bordering on upper-middle (by the standards of the times).” It seems pretty straight-forward. Wagner’s class background, then, can be determined with almost scientific accuracy. Is there anything that he could have done to drag himself down from that class pinnacle to the lower depths of low class poverty, imprisonment, and dishonor? His arrangement with Baroness Cosima von Bülow was somewhat irregular. Lestrade ( talk) 16:58, 15 April 2012 (UTC)Lestrade
All this stuff, so far from defining the situation with 'scientific accuracy', is basically waffle and WP:OR. Come up with a recognised, citable, source for dealing with W's 'class', and then you are welcome to put something in the article, of course. -- Smerus ( talk) 14:42, 16 April 2012 (UTC)-
Just for the record, I am not a Marxist, in spite of one user's repeated attempts to characterize me as such. I read The Economist, The Financial Times, and The Wall Street Journal, and have a soft spot in my heart for Austrian-school economics. Furthermore, I am, and have been from the beginning, on the same side of the argument as said user. I was merely, after stating my own position, trying to characterize as fairly as possible the other side's point of view, as one is expected to do in civil discussions. Zyxwv99 ( talk) 14:32, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
I would have thought the way Wagner was used in both films "A Dangerous Method" and "Melancholia" was sufficiently more than just dramatic accompaniment and thus could be said to be demonstrating Wagner's influence on film, especially when compared to Excalibur and Apocalypse Now. hence these comments should be reinstated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.210.120.198 ( talk) 04:00, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
the LA times article given as a ref reports on an interview with Howard Shore who states that he used the music of Siegfried and that the Wagner influence pervades the whole film, which is about early psychoanalytic practice, itself influenced by earlier writings of Wagner, see influence on philosophy section above. (A Dangerous Method) Thus Wagner affected the structure of the film. Any Wagner lover would recognise several Ring motifs used in appropriate psychological points in the drama. In the case of Melancholia the use of Tristan is all pervasive in a film about depression and the end of the world, also supported by the ref imoh. Thus much in these films relates specifically to Wagner. Also see WP entries on the films themselves. Amfortasj ( talk) 10:31, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
This is still too detailed/overweight for an article on Richard Wagner. Using W's music does not per se demonstrate his influence. You may be on stronger ground with 'A Dangerous Method', but you would need to show exactly how 'Wagner affected the structure of the film.' Why not use this info instead in the articles on Siegfried (opera) or Tristan und Isolde, and/or in the film articles, where they properly belong?-- Smerus ( talk) 10:39, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
ok but on that argument, the material on Excalibur and Apocalypse now should also be removed. Amfortasj ( talk) 10:47, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
But so do ADM and M even more so, and in a more psycho dramatic way. why not at least include them in list "Some films have used Wagner (eg AN E ADM, M). ADm and M imo are both important films not just any films. Amfortasj ( talk) 23:29, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
Does anyone know what exactly his father did for a living? Polizei aktuarius or police clerk is a bit vague. Some sources give Secretary of Police Headquarters, others Secretary of the Municipal Court. Zyxwv99 ( talk) 21:17, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
Hello. I have been considering getting this article up to FA status and have it put on TFA on the 200th anniversary of his birth (22 May 1813) or the 130th anniversary of his death (February 13, 1883). Right now, the article looks good, but the lead section may need to include the history of his early life and death, as it needs to summarize the article as a whole. All are welcome to assist in this process. Thanks, Lord Sjones23 ( talk - contributions) 17:23, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
The idea, to meet the 200th anniversary, is excellent. I don't think the lead particularly needs info about his early life and death (apart from dates) - neither are central to his importance. Before any tinkering about I would like to solicit the opinions (if any) of others on the Wagner project as to exactly what they feel may need to be done.-- Smerus ( talk) 08:22, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
Can someone, or someones, look at the rules and be specific about what might need to be changed/added/tidied up to make this FA? My feeling is that it is generally OK as regards content, but there may be technical things to be done. They could be more relevant to FA status than adding information.-- Smerus ( talk) 07:22, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
Bearing all the above in mind, if no one has specific issues which they strongly feel need to be addressed in the article, why not put forward the article as it is for a FA review? It has been stable since getting GA and now that the external links issue has been remedied it may very well qualify. If not we can see what comments are made in review and remedy them and resubmit.-- Smerus ( talk) 22:14, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
Here are some helpful comments by User:Brianboulton:
In conjunction with the comments of User:Peter cohen above they give I think appropriate starting points for preparing the article. There are elements of both addition and removal. I would propose that we start by adding before we remove, so that we can get a clear idea of the scope involved. I will begin by looking at the biography section in the near future. I would hope to have the article ready by the end of 2012 so that we can propose it for FA status for May 2013 on RW's birthday. -- Smerus ( talk) 09:16, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
Because of the comments above, I started looking at the Bayreuth section to decide how I might want to expand it and the first thing that struck me was that some of the events described (e.g. the premiere of Rheingold) predate some in the previous section and the Wagner's move to Bayreuth.
The question arises how much do we want to organise things chronologically and how much thematically?-- Peter cohen ( talk) 21:01, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
The recent edits largely address the questions that I raised a few weeks ago on my talkpage. Some of the prose is a bit tortured, e.g. "The Festspielhaus finally opened on 13 August 1876 with Das Rheingold, now taking its place as the first evening of the premiere of the complete Ring cycle", and "Wagner was responsible for several theatrical innovations developed at the Festspielhaus, (for the design of which he appropriated some of the ideas of his former colleague, Gottfried Semper, which he had solicited for a proposed new opera house at Munich)." I am prepared to do a general copyedit if you think that will help.
I have also carried out a full review of the images on the page.
Brianboulton ( talk) 17:41, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
I can't help thinking that someone has been a little overenthusiastic with the images recently added to the latter sections of the article. I suppose the Betz image can be justified, just about, though I would add to the caption that he also played Wotan in the first Ring cycle at Bayreuth. But what's Mahler doing here? His single intemperate comment to Alma isn't worth an image (nor in all honesty would I bother with the comment). Nor do I think Baudelaire and Hanslinck have significant enough connections to justify images. After all, if you're not showing Liszt or von Bulow, who had strong musical and personal connections with Wagner, why bother with the also-rans? (Note: this is not a suggestion that you should add Liszt and Bulow images!) Not every section has to have an image, and sometimes, excessive image clutter detracts from the text itself. I recommend a bit of a rethink here. Brianboulton ( talk) 15:13, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
Noted! - will consider - -- Smerus ( talk) 16:33, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
Anyone have time to repair the vandalism on the images of Betz and Baudelaire? Lestrade ( talk) 21:26, 2 November 2012 (UTC)Lestrade
I have no idea what "cock-ups with the alt parameter" means but I thank you for repairing the damage. Lestrade ( talk) 12:20, 3 November 2012 (UTC)Lestrade
As far as I can see, the formatting of the sources is inconsistent. Here are the inconsistencies that I noticed:
"Prose works by Wagner":
In one case there's a comma after the name, in the next there is nothing after it, and in the third there is a colon after it. The translation information could also be standardised.
In some cases there's "vol.", but in others there's "Vol.". The same is true for "No./no."
Another issue:
In some cases there's the following:
And in others, there's this:
I don't know what the preferences here are, so I'll leave it as it is. Toccata quarta ( talk) 10:19, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
User:Brianboulton remarked that the lead might be overdetailed. Since work on the body appears to have become less frequent, here's my proposal (per WP:LEADFOLLOWSBODY). I reorganised it thematically and condensed/changed some passages.
I accept that I ended up with three instead of four paragraphs, but I think it makes sense this way. Comments? Toccata quarta ( talk) 19:51, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 5 | ← | Archive 9 | Archive 10 | Archive 11 | Archive 12 | Archive 13 | → | Archive 15 |
The article currently reads:
I think one can only see a contradiction here if one twists the meaning of Schopenhauer's assertions with respect to music. It's true Schopenhauer did claim that music is uniquely situated relative to other art forms. In his World as Will and Representation, Schopenhauer draws an analogy with the doctrine of Platonic Ideals, where music alone affords direct access to the universal will, while all other art forms must get at the will indirectly through concepts, like shadows on the cave wall.
The above referenced passage seems to interpret Schopenhauer's claims to mean that music itself is therefore more "important" or more "primary" than other art forms. I'm not so sure about that. All that matters for Schopenhauer is the aesthetic experience, which he describes more or less as getting lost in a moment of blissful union through whatever abstract knowledge the artist conveys. Any art form has the potential to evoke such experience, and all such experiences are important for Schopenhauer. All he was saying is that music has an advantage, owing to its direct relationship with the will, of being able to evoke such eperiences more efficiently.
So when the passage implies that Wagner simply inverted the relative importance of music and drama in his later work, it misses the point entirely. If Wagner thought early on that music must be subservient, after coming to grips with Schopenhauer, his view simply became more nuanced -- what mattered was how they comingled to evoke the aesthetic experience. It was for this reason that Wagner’s goal became, in his later work, "what he called the Gesamtkunstwerk, or “total work of art”—a theatrical event in which music, literature, and the performing and visual arts would all come together." It was not that drama became subservient to music, but that the entire opera became attuned to the nature of aesthetic experience as described by Schopenhauer.
Much more could be said on the subject, for Schopenhauer's aesthetics rely on an understanding of the role of the will in his entire philosophy. But this is not an article about Schopenhauer, and so I am not sure how to edit the above passage to make it more accurate without an inappropriate digression. Editing is further complicated by the fact that the passage appears adequately sourced, whereas my beef here probably smells like WP:OR to some. In anticipation of this objection, I will just point out that Dahlhaus was a musicologist, not a philosopher. His opinion on the matter may not be particularly relevant.
If anyone would like to take a stab at reworking this passage, I think it would add a lot to the article. Schopenhauer's influence on Wagner was pivotal, so it's a shame that this section does such a poor job of imparting the nuance of that influence. 137.254.4.5 ( talk) 09:22, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
It is totally unrepresentative of his life, achievements, and contributions as a whole. Frankly, it smacks of the main stream media's oft-used ploy of ending their segments with a question, and is overly sensational and weasely. Let us keep this fine site dry and void of telling stories. The "anti-semitism" aspect should be in the intro, just not as the last sentence. I am going to change unless someone convinces me I shouldn't. Lars2701 ( talk) 15:26, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
I have had a go at rewriting. -- Smerus ( talk) 18:21, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
In the passage below, what does 'eventually' mean relative to his 'infatuation' and 'during the course of'? And what affair?
I believe that Wagner and Bruckner were close friends, and this article could clarify this. Didn't Bruckner say "Wagner? He is my man". ACEOREVIVED ( talk) 08:35, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
I have to agree with Major Torp. that if the text is a lead issue then why is it being deleted? I would be upset if someone did that also. Valid information should never be thrown out. Simply move it to a better place. And end the war. So simple. Do not delete content which is not a serious violation. I wish I knew the topic then i would move it to a better place. War for no reason. And on another note, where is the info box for Wagner? -- Halqh حَلَقَة הלכהሐላቃህ ( talk) 07:56, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
There are certain problems in simply repositioning User:Major Torp's texts within the article and I raise them here without editing the article as I do not wish to restart any cycle of ripostes.
Might I add that I write not, as I have been kindly characterised by User:Major Torp, as an 'excessively zealous Wagner Fan club member' but as one who is keen to ensure reliable evidence-based balance and information in an article on a controversial topic. I take it in these circumstances that if there is some consensus or agreement with some of the issues I raise above there is no obligation to accept User:Major Torp's unilateral instruction, in his last edit, 'DO NOT REMOVE' (his caps), which would in fact seem to be out of step with Wikipedia procedures.
I would appreciate any (constructive) comments. Then we can resolve this situation properly. Thanks.--Smerus 16:10, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
MT, Your "His accomplishment was an operatic genre that he called simply “drama“ (later known as music drama), synthesizing music, drama, verse, legend, and spectacle" is inappropriate as it ignores and repeats the mention in the very nexy paragraph creating the stylisticly awkward repetition of "synthesis/zing". I am therefore removing it.-- Peter cohen ( talk) 12:20, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
I have I hope relocated one of the contested texts appropriately. In doing so I have made it clear that the phrase used is in fact a quotation from the source which is cited, as this is standard WP practice.
Now I have a further query. Whilst you demnstrate that Wagner once referred to his works as 'drama' in his 1850 essay, he did not habitually refer to his works as 'dramas', nor of course can this term be held to have applied to the works he wrote before 1850, ( Rienzi, The Flying Dutchman, Lohengrin, Tannhäuser). To include this statement s it stands in the lead, where there is not the opportunity to explain this in detail, risks being misleading to readers. I propose therfore to relocate the sentence in question to the section Wagner#Opera where there will be better opportunity to explain it in a fuller context.
Thanks,--Smerus 14:07, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
The change by Smerus is acceptable, with small hesitation and an correction of names that will follow. The move does not so much move the text from an erroneous spot but it from the main view of some editors. In hindsight I understand why so much fuss and outright anger emerged: Idols are not be tampered with.
The first change ok, but what has User:Peter cohen done. This edit had surely not been approved and your language, honored fellow Wikipedian, is quite uncouth. Respectfully, User:Major Torp ( talk) 21:46, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
Views and research on Wagner are not controversies. Important elements in the discussion on Wagner is utterly absurd to be placed after Film portrayals and other menial subjects. The legacy of Wagner is usually a conclusion not in the middle as to blackout other elements of the article by understandably devoted Wagner enthusiasts. Respectfully, User:Major Torp ( talk) 14:30, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
Has the article already been written and the content of it already been decide by a chosen and closed group of aficionados of a certain persuasion. This of courses should be something totally abhorrent in Wikipedia, but sadly is part of every day Wikipedia life. I hope that members of the "project Michael Jackson" do not dictate the form and content in the Wikipedia Michael Jackson article to suit there liking.
User Smerus unilaterally removed in his last edit (15:21, 6 November 2011 ) Smerus) the entirety of my contribution that was composed of many varying edits (such as the removing controversial text removal (3x times) by User: Peter cohen, that had not been given general consent in the discussion page). If this be the case and such high-handed all around editing is done, I see no other course of action then respond in kind and reinstate the whole edit until someone can properly discuss and correct the particular mistake I supposedly made. I have not started this edit war and hope neutral voices could step in and look at the present battle positions and cool things done. I have already been threatened by User:Smerus who wrote to me that me right could be removed and that I had succumbed to Vandalism. I ask myself when reading the whole discussion here, am I just the one-sided editor here, as User:Smerus would like it to?
-Course of action to be considered:
1. Original edits (2x pharses) kept by Major Torp, with minor alterations.
2. The one phrases kept in the original place, but other phrase rewritten properly and placed at a suitable place in the article
3. Remove all User: Major edits (2x phrases),
4. Remove one, keep one
I will not accept that certain people will dominate certain articles, what ever there CV is. We have no professional music historian involved in these discussion and even if we would, no one shall have total mastery of the Wikipedia content and points of views, if not blatantly inaccurate or harmful. Thank you User:Major Torp ( talk) 20:25, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
When I have been reading the articles history, I see that User: Smerus has been hunting the unwanted rodents from this article. This I accept and approve, but I feel that he and another active editor have gone on autopilot mode by removing things in this "ready made article". I have not been alone in this opinion and now some want to decide which German history professor, German literature professor, musicologist or a renowned contemporary can and can not be acceptable in the Wikipedia article. If you want an regular dictionary then get it, if you want a Wagner biography buy it written by one of the many dozen Wagner writters. The thing I find interesting and invigorating about Wikipedia that you find different and varying texts and opinions that all fit the quality bill but are not just the basic mainline espoused out there.
The sequence of events (Numbering stands for order of events)
Thank you User:Major Torp ( talk) 01:58, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
Was my contribution at the start so bad that it deserved to be totally removed before any discussion or even a yay or nay vote of confidence was done. Most editors thought that there was no qualitative fault to be found and still it was send in to the waste bin. Which edit is then the right one - with or without the text? Who is the belligerent or the singled out culprit? Respectfully User:Major Torp ( talk) 02:17, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
Dear User:Major Torp - Wikipedia seeks to be an encyclopaedia,not a personal essay contest. Please read, and seek to understand, WP:NPOV, WP:NOP,and WP:V. You should also read carefully and fully WP:NOT. Not least, you should read and understand WP:SHOUT and WP:MULTI. I hope this is helpful to you. --Smerus 05:43, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
I hope we can find resolution and avoid similar events in the future.Thank you User:Major Torp ( talk) 08:27, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
User:Major Torp ( talk) 16:06, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
One should take heed when the Wagner Cartel speaks on the topic of objectivity. Wagner's music took early on an quasi-religious overtone, and followers of his music were referred to as "disciples" who "made the pilgrimage" to the festival house in Bayreuth. Concert-goers were reported to have fainted at the performances as if under the influence of some religious fervor or ecstasy. User:Major Torp ( talk) 18:25, 7 November 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.192.40.14 ( talk)
Monsieurdl mon talk 19:46, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
User:Major Torp ( talk) 11:43, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
PS I guess under the regime of the Wagner Cartel, this could never be included User:Major Torp ( talk) 11:43, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
For Wagner, the pagan northern myths served several purposes in his operas. First, they gave the German people a nationalist identity. (Dr. Bradley J. Birzer, Professor of History at Hillsdale College http://www.isi.org/lectures/text/pdf/birzer.pdf)
Is this (See also) okey to add?
User:Major Torp ( talk) 10:57, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
Just a tired mans lapsus linguae. I will correct my text, even though I think it was readable. Will improve. Thank You User:Major Torp ( talk) 08:35, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
A bit of cooling of the heated debate is welcome. Inside a few days I will post concise bullet points on ideas and suggestions on the topic on developing this article. I hope that even the Wagner Project people will join in an open and democratic spirit, so as to calm down any fears of any "High Priests" among us. Thank you. User:Major Torp ( talk) 09:40, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
Taking a detour from the exhausting edit war. I am no expert but I know Wagner exclusively through Ride of the Valkyrie should that not be in the lead since that is his most popular piece? [1] I think if you meet the average person and wanted to say "do you know Wagner" you would have to play that piece, so that might merit a mention in the lead. I had to search pretty deep into the article to find out anything about it.-- Halqh حَلَقَة הלכהሐላቃህ ( talk) 06:12, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
I have created a new section because the above discussion was getting ridiculously long. I received a solicitation to review the issues going on here. I see that a number of trustworthy mensch have this in hand (Smerus, Antandrus, etc...), so I wish only to comment that the lede as it is written now is fine and needs no change. Eusebeus ( talk) 08:53, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
Instead of wasting time and space by fatuous sarcasm, you could just look up the WP guidelines - here they are, from WP:LEDE - (and by the way the Wagner article has about 80,000 characters) -
The appropriate length of the lead section depends on the total length of the article. As a general guideline, the lead should be no longer than four paragraphs. The following suggestion may be useful:
Article length | Lead length |
---|---|
Fewer than 15,000 characters | One or two paragraphs |
15,000–30,000 characters | Two or three paragraphs |
More than 30,000 characters | Three or four paragraphs |
Hope this is helpful and instructive.--Smerus 08:23, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
I have to say that I'm not an expert on Wagner. I joined this discussion because I feel that discussion in talk page is a good practice which contributes to article's success. I haven't experienced any edit wars and do not wish to be involved in any – I'm here just to express my opinion.
I think the two issues are separate, so I used a separate subsection for each topic.
In my opinion, the words common Germanic past should be included in the article. As I see it, romantic nationalism and symbols of Germanic past have influenced Wagner's music. The word supposedly might mislead readers who are not familiar with the terminology of social science. Such readers might think that a Germanic past did not exist. To avoid any misunderstanding, I suggest to choose one of the following options:
In my opinion, social class is an important part of people's identity and background. Therefore, the article should mention Wagner's social class. I think the best would be putting a general label, and then the details. Of course, the labeling should be based on reliable sources.
Sapere aude22 ( talk) 15:16, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
This concern reflects the current resurrection of Marx’s ideas. We can credit the untiring efforts of academics around the world for this resurgence. The only problem that we have is that the word “class” is vague and ambiguous. Where, for example, does lower class end and middle class begin? Possibly the word "class" may designate a concept that has no relation to experience. Lestrade ( talk) 10:57, 14 April 2012 (UTC)Lestrade
So there are at least two "middle classes" here. One for Wagner in c. 1870 and one in our time, 2012. There are countless others, also. For example, there is a middle class in 1789 and there is one in 1971. This goes on to infinity. Where are the demarcations between lower, lower-middle, middle-lower, and middle class? A problem for Marxists. If a man earned 12,000 pupniks per year, he was middle class. If he earned 11,999, he was lower class. If Richard Wagner shined his shoes before coming to dinner, he was middle class. This illustrates the hopeless vagueness of social class distinctions. In order to discuss Wagner’s class, this vagueness must be taken into consideration. Lestrade ( talk) 13:17, 15 April 2012 (UTC)Lestrade
If we are to discuss Wagner in terms of Marx, then it is absolutely necessary to include a consideration of Wagner’s social class. In his Communist Manifesto, Marx wrote that: “the history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggles. ( Bottomore, Tom, ed., A Dictionary of Marxist Thought, Cambridge, Harvard University Press, 1983, p. 75.) Also, we must be sensitive to Wagner’s many political struggles. Now that Communism and Socialism are becoming the popular choice of all people on earth, thanks to the influence of the entertainment industry and to academia, we cannot ignore this aspect of Wagner’s life. Lestrade ( talk) 15:38, 15 April 2012 (UTC)Lestrade
Class distinctions, then, are not as vague as I had thought. If we add up police clerk, police actuary, chief of police, civil servant, theologian, and master baker, we arrive at “the absolute pinnacle of lower-middle-class, bordering on upper-middle (by the standards of the times).” It seems pretty straight-forward. Wagner’s class background, then, can be determined with almost scientific accuracy. Is there anything that he could have done to drag himself down from that class pinnacle to the lower depths of low class poverty, imprisonment, and dishonor? His arrangement with Baroness Cosima von Bülow was somewhat irregular. Lestrade ( talk) 16:58, 15 April 2012 (UTC)Lestrade
All this stuff, so far from defining the situation with 'scientific accuracy', is basically waffle and WP:OR. Come up with a recognised, citable, source for dealing with W's 'class', and then you are welcome to put something in the article, of course. -- Smerus ( talk) 14:42, 16 April 2012 (UTC)-
Just for the record, I am not a Marxist, in spite of one user's repeated attempts to characterize me as such. I read The Economist, The Financial Times, and The Wall Street Journal, and have a soft spot in my heart for Austrian-school economics. Furthermore, I am, and have been from the beginning, on the same side of the argument as said user. I was merely, after stating my own position, trying to characterize as fairly as possible the other side's point of view, as one is expected to do in civil discussions. Zyxwv99 ( talk) 14:32, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
I would have thought the way Wagner was used in both films "A Dangerous Method" and "Melancholia" was sufficiently more than just dramatic accompaniment and thus could be said to be demonstrating Wagner's influence on film, especially when compared to Excalibur and Apocalypse Now. hence these comments should be reinstated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.210.120.198 ( talk) 04:00, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
the LA times article given as a ref reports on an interview with Howard Shore who states that he used the music of Siegfried and that the Wagner influence pervades the whole film, which is about early psychoanalytic practice, itself influenced by earlier writings of Wagner, see influence on philosophy section above. (A Dangerous Method) Thus Wagner affected the structure of the film. Any Wagner lover would recognise several Ring motifs used in appropriate psychological points in the drama. In the case of Melancholia the use of Tristan is all pervasive in a film about depression and the end of the world, also supported by the ref imoh. Thus much in these films relates specifically to Wagner. Also see WP entries on the films themselves. Amfortasj ( talk) 10:31, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
This is still too detailed/overweight for an article on Richard Wagner. Using W's music does not per se demonstrate his influence. You may be on stronger ground with 'A Dangerous Method', but you would need to show exactly how 'Wagner affected the structure of the film.' Why not use this info instead in the articles on Siegfried (opera) or Tristan und Isolde, and/or in the film articles, where they properly belong?-- Smerus ( talk) 10:39, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
ok but on that argument, the material on Excalibur and Apocalypse now should also be removed. Amfortasj ( talk) 10:47, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
But so do ADM and M even more so, and in a more psycho dramatic way. why not at least include them in list "Some films have used Wagner (eg AN E ADM, M). ADm and M imo are both important films not just any films. Amfortasj ( talk) 23:29, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
Does anyone know what exactly his father did for a living? Polizei aktuarius or police clerk is a bit vague. Some sources give Secretary of Police Headquarters, others Secretary of the Municipal Court. Zyxwv99 ( talk) 21:17, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
Hello. I have been considering getting this article up to FA status and have it put on TFA on the 200th anniversary of his birth (22 May 1813) or the 130th anniversary of his death (February 13, 1883). Right now, the article looks good, but the lead section may need to include the history of his early life and death, as it needs to summarize the article as a whole. All are welcome to assist in this process. Thanks, Lord Sjones23 ( talk - contributions) 17:23, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
The idea, to meet the 200th anniversary, is excellent. I don't think the lead particularly needs info about his early life and death (apart from dates) - neither are central to his importance. Before any tinkering about I would like to solicit the opinions (if any) of others on the Wagner project as to exactly what they feel may need to be done.-- Smerus ( talk) 08:22, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
Can someone, or someones, look at the rules and be specific about what might need to be changed/added/tidied up to make this FA? My feeling is that it is generally OK as regards content, but there may be technical things to be done. They could be more relevant to FA status than adding information.-- Smerus ( talk) 07:22, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
Bearing all the above in mind, if no one has specific issues which they strongly feel need to be addressed in the article, why not put forward the article as it is for a FA review? It has been stable since getting GA and now that the external links issue has been remedied it may very well qualify. If not we can see what comments are made in review and remedy them and resubmit.-- Smerus ( talk) 22:14, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
Here are some helpful comments by User:Brianboulton:
In conjunction with the comments of User:Peter cohen above they give I think appropriate starting points for preparing the article. There are elements of both addition and removal. I would propose that we start by adding before we remove, so that we can get a clear idea of the scope involved. I will begin by looking at the biography section in the near future. I would hope to have the article ready by the end of 2012 so that we can propose it for FA status for May 2013 on RW's birthday. -- Smerus ( talk) 09:16, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
Because of the comments above, I started looking at the Bayreuth section to decide how I might want to expand it and the first thing that struck me was that some of the events described (e.g. the premiere of Rheingold) predate some in the previous section and the Wagner's move to Bayreuth.
The question arises how much do we want to organise things chronologically and how much thematically?-- Peter cohen ( talk) 21:01, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
The recent edits largely address the questions that I raised a few weeks ago on my talkpage. Some of the prose is a bit tortured, e.g. "The Festspielhaus finally opened on 13 August 1876 with Das Rheingold, now taking its place as the first evening of the premiere of the complete Ring cycle", and "Wagner was responsible for several theatrical innovations developed at the Festspielhaus, (for the design of which he appropriated some of the ideas of his former colleague, Gottfried Semper, which he had solicited for a proposed new opera house at Munich)." I am prepared to do a general copyedit if you think that will help.
I have also carried out a full review of the images on the page.
Brianboulton ( talk) 17:41, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
I can't help thinking that someone has been a little overenthusiastic with the images recently added to the latter sections of the article. I suppose the Betz image can be justified, just about, though I would add to the caption that he also played Wotan in the first Ring cycle at Bayreuth. But what's Mahler doing here? His single intemperate comment to Alma isn't worth an image (nor in all honesty would I bother with the comment). Nor do I think Baudelaire and Hanslinck have significant enough connections to justify images. After all, if you're not showing Liszt or von Bulow, who had strong musical and personal connections with Wagner, why bother with the also-rans? (Note: this is not a suggestion that you should add Liszt and Bulow images!) Not every section has to have an image, and sometimes, excessive image clutter detracts from the text itself. I recommend a bit of a rethink here. Brianboulton ( talk) 15:13, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
Noted! - will consider - -- Smerus ( talk) 16:33, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
Anyone have time to repair the vandalism on the images of Betz and Baudelaire? Lestrade ( talk) 21:26, 2 November 2012 (UTC)Lestrade
I have no idea what "cock-ups with the alt parameter" means but I thank you for repairing the damage. Lestrade ( talk) 12:20, 3 November 2012 (UTC)Lestrade
As far as I can see, the formatting of the sources is inconsistent. Here are the inconsistencies that I noticed:
"Prose works by Wagner":
In one case there's a comma after the name, in the next there is nothing after it, and in the third there is a colon after it. The translation information could also be standardised.
In some cases there's "vol.", but in others there's "Vol.". The same is true for "No./no."
Another issue:
In some cases there's the following:
And in others, there's this:
I don't know what the preferences here are, so I'll leave it as it is. Toccata quarta ( talk) 10:19, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
User:Brianboulton remarked that the lead might be overdetailed. Since work on the body appears to have become less frequent, here's my proposal (per WP:LEADFOLLOWSBODY). I reorganised it thematically and condensed/changed some passages.
I accept that I ended up with three instead of four paragraphs, but I think it makes sense this way. Comments? Toccata quarta ( talk) 19:51, 3 November 2012 (UTC)