This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
The Baden-Baden Lesson on Consent article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1 |
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||
|
This page got off to a bad start when DionysosProteus overwrote an article by Kleinzach after two days with a REDIRECT to an article DP had created some three months before; that article still was a stub consisting of one line. DP then included the material from KZ's page on this one and expanded it further.
Subsequently, an edit war broke out over the structure of the article. KZ reorganised the material, breaking up the single lead section into a lead and a section "Performance history"; this edit was summarily reverted by DP, reverted by KZ, reverted by DP again, reverted by KZ again with some additions regarding perfomance history (Clown scene controversy between PH and BB); that version again was summarily removed by PD, doubting the veracity of the reference. KZ reverted to his version, adding a specific instance of an already cited source.
KZ then changed the text "… by the German dramatist [BB] … Seven of its scenes were set to music by [PH]" to "… with a text by the German dramatist [BB]] … and music by [PH]". This edit was then reversed by PD, a reversal which also undid a number of intervening wholly uncontroversial edits.
I think WP:LEAD fully supports KZ's view on the structure of this article. The current lead is too long. It lends itself perfectly to "Lead" + "Performance history". Reverting actions by DP without giving consoderation to the elements of a previous edit feel like WP:OWN and lack WP:AGF. On one occasion, article improvements outside the scope of this dispute were irresponsibly caught up in the DP's revert action.
I assume KZ's source says what he claims. In that case, the disageement between BB and PH is important, and the fact that the work didn't get performed again until 1958 is poignant. KZ first thought this section had also been dropped in DP's most recent reversal; in fact, it had been placed into a different paragraph. KZ has since acknowledged that this passage has not been removed.
I find the original wording "Seven of its scenes were set to music by [PH]" rather baffling — doesn't the piece consist of exactly seven scenes? On the other hand, (and this is my impression from reading quite a lot of Brecht's works as well as reading secondary literature about Brecht and Hindemith — all of this is of course wholly WP:OR), the Lehrstück is more likely considered a Brecht piece than a Hindemith piece. As the sentence with the "seven scenes" seems disingenious to me, KZ's latest proposal on how to phrase that sentence seems appropriate. In fact, I can't see how any person could object to that wording.
Michael Bednarek ( talk) 09:29, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
Kleinzach, do not alter my section heading again. It is inappropriate for you to do so. The section heading accurately describes my objections to the suggestions given above and should not be altered. The authorship should be described in such a way that it is accurate. The description I gave in the article is supported by evidence. "Seven scenes or numbers from this work were set to music by Paul Hindemith [...]" is how Willett describes the contribution (1997, 22). DionysosProteus ( talk) 13:28, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
Ach, there are no sectionheader police. Anyway, I see nothing wrong with familiarity with primary sources (The play is only 9 pp!) and it wasnt the header that had the tendentious part! It was perfectly obvious that "original sources" was DP's, less obvious that Talk page section heading was prefixed to DP's post by KZ, and needlessly confusing that you both dont keep the talk history simple by observing the most recent at the bottom convention. Tendentiousness is deplorable in the article mainspace but WP would grind to a halt if it were banned from talk pages. Sparafucil ( talk) 03:52, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
It is difficult to take the suggestions above seriously when it is clear that other editors are not familiar with the work in question. The title of the piece is that given in the standard critical edition of Brecht's works in English, in line with Wikipedia guidelines. That translation is by Geoffrey Skelton, the author of the Grove article. Wikipedia guidelines state that the article should have the common English-language title. The piece consists of eleven scenes, hence the phrasing of H's contribution as music set to seven. I object to the wording because it is not specific. Go check the secondary sources and the primary work if you're uncertain. When I incorporated the material from the Lehrstück article, I provided a fair amount of new information along with detailed, in-line citations. The information in the Lehrstück article said:
This was wholly inaccurate, and is a good example of why we should not rely on a single secondary source. My revision read:
The source provided as evidence for the last of those sentences does not indicate that it was the clown scene in question. To add that information in without providing a source was misleading because it made it appear that the Willett source confirmed that. The Skelton article wasn't cited as evidence. As regards the structural arrangement, my objection is not against the use of a performance history section, but against the illogical splitting of material that clearly belongs together--the incorporation of the film wasn't an element of it's original performance? ditto for the programme's description? The intro is not too long according to WP:Lead. On the contrary, to arrange the material logically whilst using a performance history section would leave only three or four sentences in the intro. I don't doubt that when the article is expanded further, a performance history section would be desirable; I'm simply asking that the material is arranged logically. As regards the remaining points, the wikilinking and spelling corrections present no difficulty. The categories should remain as, like the opera categories, they are detailed in both. "Didactic play", like "alienation effect" doesn't tend to be used by contemporary scholars, preferring "teaching-" and/or "learning-". Those issues, though, belong on the genre's page. DionysosProteus ( talk) 15:07, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
...[the premiere] caused a major scandal at Baden-baden, thanks largely to the gratuitous and, on paper, laboriously unfunny scene for the three clowns. (This, according to Dr. Strobel, was the reason the festival had to shift the following year to Berlin.) Brecht then added further sections to his text, which he had not regarded as complete, but Hindemith refused to set them to music, with the result that each refused to let the work be performed except in his own version, and it became impossible to perform it publicly at all.
References
Developing the (now minimal) synopsis would be a way forward with this - a synopsis of both the original version and of the later Brecht one. The present short list doesn't correspond closely with the introduction. We need to explain where the Clown Scene goes, where the film is used etc. Does anyone have any good information about either version? -- Klein zach 00:00, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
The role of the speaker is given as "Gerda Müller- Scherchen". The Scherchen link goes to Hermann Scherchen. I'm not clear what this means. Does anybody know? Perhaps Scherchen's wife? -- Klein zach 00:08, 21 January 2009 (UTC) Good guess- they were married briefly. She is a notable person in her own right; see: Gerda Müller Sparafucil ( talk) 08:43, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
While re-editing the article I removed the following because I wasnt sure whether "This" refered to the scene in Brecht's play or the scandalized audience at the premiere (which included Gide as well as Hauptmann!). :This scene was later reworked by Heiner Müller in his Heartplay (1981). [1] Of course it should go back in; and article on Heartplay would be most welcome! Sparafucil ( talk) 12:25, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
References
I note the difference between Sparafucil's new version (which takes us forward on a number of points) and DionysosProteus's later revision, see [4]. In particular I see Sparafucil's reference to 'Gebrauchsmusik' ('functional' or 'applied music') has been replaced by DionysosProteus with 'Gemeinschaftsmusik' ('community' or 'amateur music'). Perhaps we can have an explanation? NB Skelton refers to 'Gebrauchsmusik' in the Grove (Opera) article on Lehrstück and has an article on it in Grove (Music). WP doesn't have an article (unfortunately) but there is a substantial section about it in Rise and Fall of the City of Mahagonny#Musical_and_Dramatic_Elements. -- Klein zach 00:33, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
I've started to edit this related article and would appreciate contributions from editors here. In particular, I'm wondering whether this should be described as a radio cantata. Thank you. -- Klein zach 01:44, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
This edit removed Carl Koch (husband of Lotte Reiniger) as director of the film as added here. However, these sources seem to indicate otherwise: Der Tod, Deutschland 1929, Experimentalfilm, Brockmann, Stephen; Mayer, Mathias; Hillesheim, Jürgen (ed). 2008. Ende, Grenze, Schluss?: Brecht und der Tod. p. 114. The latter also suggests Danse Macabre as a translation of the film's title and points to the fundamental difference and confusion between the Lehrstück by Hindemith/Brecht and its revision by Brecht to Badener Lehrstück vom Einverständnis — murkier and murkier. Michael Bednarek ( talk) 06:55, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
I've restored Carl Koch and a few other bits DP reverted.
Oh, I dont seem to have been as clear as I wished; #1 was a plea for references in the form of "Editor's commentary in Brecht 1997" or "Brecht's essay On Opera (originally published as an afterword to the score of Mahagony), cited in Brecht 1997". #2 This last is in Brecht: Writings on Theatre and, to my recollection (it's mislaid at the moment) on page 40 Willett uses the untranslated word "Gebrauchsmusik" (in a note that follows on page 42 he does say "Brecht is confusing [Gebrauchsmusik] with its companion doctrine of Gemeinschaftsmusik"). #3, the section admittedly needs more work. Can you contribute data on Brecht's publication? "Experiments" sounds like a machine translation of "Essays";-) The googlebooks essay on the dance of death has a footnote blaming bb for deliberately sowing confusion in a 1937 autobiographical contribution to the periodical Das Wort when he stated that H wrote no music to BBLvE but only to Lehrstück. Does Willett have more to say on this? #4 You're right about "however", i was still thinking along lines of H only set 7 scenes... #5 the Valeska Gert article didnt exist in English before, so it seemed important to identify her.
Sparafucil (
talk)
09:18, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
The Baden-Baden Lesson on Consent article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1 |
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||
|
This page got off to a bad start when DionysosProteus overwrote an article by Kleinzach after two days with a REDIRECT to an article DP had created some three months before; that article still was a stub consisting of one line. DP then included the material from KZ's page on this one and expanded it further.
Subsequently, an edit war broke out over the structure of the article. KZ reorganised the material, breaking up the single lead section into a lead and a section "Performance history"; this edit was summarily reverted by DP, reverted by KZ, reverted by DP again, reverted by KZ again with some additions regarding perfomance history (Clown scene controversy between PH and BB); that version again was summarily removed by PD, doubting the veracity of the reference. KZ reverted to his version, adding a specific instance of an already cited source.
KZ then changed the text "… by the German dramatist [BB] … Seven of its scenes were set to music by [PH]" to "… with a text by the German dramatist [BB]] … and music by [PH]". This edit was then reversed by PD, a reversal which also undid a number of intervening wholly uncontroversial edits.
I think WP:LEAD fully supports KZ's view on the structure of this article. The current lead is too long. It lends itself perfectly to "Lead" + "Performance history". Reverting actions by DP without giving consoderation to the elements of a previous edit feel like WP:OWN and lack WP:AGF. On one occasion, article improvements outside the scope of this dispute were irresponsibly caught up in the DP's revert action.
I assume KZ's source says what he claims. In that case, the disageement between BB and PH is important, and the fact that the work didn't get performed again until 1958 is poignant. KZ first thought this section had also been dropped in DP's most recent reversal; in fact, it had been placed into a different paragraph. KZ has since acknowledged that this passage has not been removed.
I find the original wording "Seven of its scenes were set to music by [PH]" rather baffling — doesn't the piece consist of exactly seven scenes? On the other hand, (and this is my impression from reading quite a lot of Brecht's works as well as reading secondary literature about Brecht and Hindemith — all of this is of course wholly WP:OR), the Lehrstück is more likely considered a Brecht piece than a Hindemith piece. As the sentence with the "seven scenes" seems disingenious to me, KZ's latest proposal on how to phrase that sentence seems appropriate. In fact, I can't see how any person could object to that wording.
Michael Bednarek ( talk) 09:29, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
Kleinzach, do not alter my section heading again. It is inappropriate for you to do so. The section heading accurately describes my objections to the suggestions given above and should not be altered. The authorship should be described in such a way that it is accurate. The description I gave in the article is supported by evidence. "Seven scenes or numbers from this work were set to music by Paul Hindemith [...]" is how Willett describes the contribution (1997, 22). DionysosProteus ( talk) 13:28, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
Ach, there are no sectionheader police. Anyway, I see nothing wrong with familiarity with primary sources (The play is only 9 pp!) and it wasnt the header that had the tendentious part! It was perfectly obvious that "original sources" was DP's, less obvious that Talk page section heading was prefixed to DP's post by KZ, and needlessly confusing that you both dont keep the talk history simple by observing the most recent at the bottom convention. Tendentiousness is deplorable in the article mainspace but WP would grind to a halt if it were banned from talk pages. Sparafucil ( talk) 03:52, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
It is difficult to take the suggestions above seriously when it is clear that other editors are not familiar with the work in question. The title of the piece is that given in the standard critical edition of Brecht's works in English, in line with Wikipedia guidelines. That translation is by Geoffrey Skelton, the author of the Grove article. Wikipedia guidelines state that the article should have the common English-language title. The piece consists of eleven scenes, hence the phrasing of H's contribution as music set to seven. I object to the wording because it is not specific. Go check the secondary sources and the primary work if you're uncertain. When I incorporated the material from the Lehrstück article, I provided a fair amount of new information along with detailed, in-line citations. The information in the Lehrstück article said:
This was wholly inaccurate, and is a good example of why we should not rely on a single secondary source. My revision read:
The source provided as evidence for the last of those sentences does not indicate that it was the clown scene in question. To add that information in without providing a source was misleading because it made it appear that the Willett source confirmed that. The Skelton article wasn't cited as evidence. As regards the structural arrangement, my objection is not against the use of a performance history section, but against the illogical splitting of material that clearly belongs together--the incorporation of the film wasn't an element of it's original performance? ditto for the programme's description? The intro is not too long according to WP:Lead. On the contrary, to arrange the material logically whilst using a performance history section would leave only three or four sentences in the intro. I don't doubt that when the article is expanded further, a performance history section would be desirable; I'm simply asking that the material is arranged logically. As regards the remaining points, the wikilinking and spelling corrections present no difficulty. The categories should remain as, like the opera categories, they are detailed in both. "Didactic play", like "alienation effect" doesn't tend to be used by contemporary scholars, preferring "teaching-" and/or "learning-". Those issues, though, belong on the genre's page. DionysosProteus ( talk) 15:07, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
...[the premiere] caused a major scandal at Baden-baden, thanks largely to the gratuitous and, on paper, laboriously unfunny scene for the three clowns. (This, according to Dr. Strobel, was the reason the festival had to shift the following year to Berlin.) Brecht then added further sections to his text, which he had not regarded as complete, but Hindemith refused to set them to music, with the result that each refused to let the work be performed except in his own version, and it became impossible to perform it publicly at all.
References
Developing the (now minimal) synopsis would be a way forward with this - a synopsis of both the original version and of the later Brecht one. The present short list doesn't correspond closely with the introduction. We need to explain where the Clown Scene goes, where the film is used etc. Does anyone have any good information about either version? -- Klein zach 00:00, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
The role of the speaker is given as "Gerda Müller- Scherchen". The Scherchen link goes to Hermann Scherchen. I'm not clear what this means. Does anybody know? Perhaps Scherchen's wife? -- Klein zach 00:08, 21 January 2009 (UTC) Good guess- they were married briefly. She is a notable person in her own right; see: Gerda Müller Sparafucil ( talk) 08:43, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
While re-editing the article I removed the following because I wasnt sure whether "This" refered to the scene in Brecht's play or the scandalized audience at the premiere (which included Gide as well as Hauptmann!). :This scene was later reworked by Heiner Müller in his Heartplay (1981). [1] Of course it should go back in; and article on Heartplay would be most welcome! Sparafucil ( talk) 12:25, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
References
I note the difference between Sparafucil's new version (which takes us forward on a number of points) and DionysosProteus's later revision, see [4]. In particular I see Sparafucil's reference to 'Gebrauchsmusik' ('functional' or 'applied music') has been replaced by DionysosProteus with 'Gemeinschaftsmusik' ('community' or 'amateur music'). Perhaps we can have an explanation? NB Skelton refers to 'Gebrauchsmusik' in the Grove (Opera) article on Lehrstück and has an article on it in Grove (Music). WP doesn't have an article (unfortunately) but there is a substantial section about it in Rise and Fall of the City of Mahagonny#Musical_and_Dramatic_Elements. -- Klein zach 00:33, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
I've started to edit this related article and would appreciate contributions from editors here. In particular, I'm wondering whether this should be described as a radio cantata. Thank you. -- Klein zach 01:44, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
This edit removed Carl Koch (husband of Lotte Reiniger) as director of the film as added here. However, these sources seem to indicate otherwise: Der Tod, Deutschland 1929, Experimentalfilm, Brockmann, Stephen; Mayer, Mathias; Hillesheim, Jürgen (ed). 2008. Ende, Grenze, Schluss?: Brecht und der Tod. p. 114. The latter also suggests Danse Macabre as a translation of the film's title and points to the fundamental difference and confusion between the Lehrstück by Hindemith/Brecht and its revision by Brecht to Badener Lehrstück vom Einverständnis — murkier and murkier. Michael Bednarek ( talk) 06:55, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
I've restored Carl Koch and a few other bits DP reverted.
Oh, I dont seem to have been as clear as I wished; #1 was a plea for references in the form of "Editor's commentary in Brecht 1997" or "Brecht's essay On Opera (originally published as an afterword to the score of Mahagony), cited in Brecht 1997". #2 This last is in Brecht: Writings on Theatre and, to my recollection (it's mislaid at the moment) on page 40 Willett uses the untranslated word "Gebrauchsmusik" (in a note that follows on page 42 he does say "Brecht is confusing [Gebrauchsmusik] with its companion doctrine of Gemeinschaftsmusik"). #3, the section admittedly needs more work. Can you contribute data on Brecht's publication? "Experiments" sounds like a machine translation of "Essays";-) The googlebooks essay on the dance of death has a footnote blaming bb for deliberately sowing confusion in a 1937 autobiographical contribution to the periodical Das Wort when he stated that H wrote no music to BBLvE but only to Lehrstück. Does Willett have more to say on this? #4 You're right about "however", i was still thinking along lines of H only set 7 scenes... #5 the Valeska Gert article didnt exist in English before, so it seemed important to identify her.
Sparafucil (
talk)
09:18, 27 January 2009 (UTC)