Talk:Four Last Songs

Comment

According to http://www.richard-strauss.com/chrono.html the 4 L.Lieder are not final works (as stated in the beginning of the article). The following are:

• Malven for voice and piano (Koch), and
• Des Esels Schatten Comedy in six scenes (Adler) - which is last on the chronological list

4 L.L. may be "among" the final, but not final.

Ziga (talk) 13:48, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

I have checked the order of composition of the 4LL, Esels Schatten and Malven with Norman Del Mar's biography of Strauss, Vol. III. Esels was never completed by Strauss and the version eventually published was heavily edited and edited by someone else; most critics do not regard it as part of the Strauss canon. In any event, the completed bits and sketches for Esels predate the composition of the 4LL. The situation with Malven is more complicated. When DelMar wrote his biography, the existence of Malven was not known. It is stated (on the notes for the first recording of the song by Eva Marton) that Malven was written after the 4LL, and sent to Maria Jeritza. She kept it to herself and it was only after her death that the existence of the song became known.

My suggestion is that we remove the "dubious claim" tag and rephrase the statement that the 4LL are the last completed work of Strauss, and along with Malven, are indeed the last songs (or anything else) he wrote. Jim Wood (talk) 18:20, 19 May 2009 (UTC)Jim Wood

Recorded interpretations

This is useful for people who want to orientate themselves and/or compare existing recording —Preceding unsigned comment added by Remkojas (talk • contribs) 13:10, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree. Considering the number of existing recordings, there really ought to be a discography in the article (or as a spinoff from it). --GuillaumeTell 20:57, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

External links

The external links to the free recordings are not working on my computer. If this is a general problem it might be a good idea to delete them. Francesco Malipiero (talk) 15:29, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Opus number?

Can someone please add the Opus number(s) for these Four Last Songs? Thank you. Softlavender (talk) 00:52, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

• Nothing is stopping you, Softlavender, from finding the information and doing it yourself. Why make more work for someone else?--ColonelHenry (talk) 01:19, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
• @Softlavender: a quick google search or a look at List of compositions by Richard Strauss would have answered your question. but three weeks later you didn't bother, so I did it for you. smh.--ColonelHenry (talk) 03:30, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Timothy L. Jackson comment

I've removed the following, after reasoning that Strauss dictated to Flagstad that she should sing the specified four songs in their world premiere. If Strauss did not consider a composition he wrote 54 years previously was part of the set, why should we? Who is Timothy L. Jackson anyway, and why should his idiosyncratic opinion have any merit, much less in an encyclopedia? Anyway, below is the text I removed. Softlavender (talk) 11:21, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Timothy L. Jackson believes that the song "Ruhe, meine Seele!" should also join the four songs, as a prelude to "Im Abendrot". Jackson notes that Strauss orchestrated "Ruhe, meine Seele" – originally composed for voice and piano in 1894 – just after completing "Im Abendrot" and before completing the rest of the Four Last Songs, "Frühling", "Beim Schlafengehen" and "September". He therefore suggests that the five songs form a unified cycle, and reasons that "Ruhe, meine Seele!" should be performed as a prelude to "Im Abendrot".

I think you are right. Strauss had a wish, and although the songs were published after his death, the personal opinion about a possible fifth is undue weight in an article called Four Last Songs. It could be included in an article of Jackson. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:32, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

References

"There is no indication that Strauss conceived these songs as a unified set."

In addition to the above discussion ... why do we state that "There is no indication that Strauss conceived these songs as a unified set", when in fact Strauss sought Flagstad out to premiere the four songs as a set? Per the article in TIME, and the fact that she did so, with Furtwangler (by the way, the full TIME article is pay-per-view, but the relevant facts and quotation are quoted, and I have the full text of the article if anyone wants it). In any case, I think we should remove the statement as unsupported. Or at least tag it. Softlavender (talk) 13:31, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Image

I personally find this image on the newly added infobox very jarring. It's glare-y and over-exposed, and the sky looks like Spumoni. It also seems rather obviously to be a B&W image that has been (badly) colorized. I would prefer not having an image on the infobox to having that one. If there is consensus to have an image, I would prefer finding a much better one -- probably a black&white one. As a last resort, the image could be cropped to remove most of the sky. Opinions? Softlavender (talk)

<unrelated discussion moved to section below> ... indeed the picture is ghastly. Croppping it would make the face of the composer even more like a discoloured meringue.--Smerus (talk) 01:41, 10 December 2015 (UTC); redacted by Softlavender (talk) 04:28, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

OK, let's separate out the discussion of the infobox (seemingly always a contentious subject) and the image, if we could. May I start a separate thread and move part of your comment to the appropriate section (or you can do that after I make the new section)? I really want to discuss only the image in this one thread. Softlavender (talk) 01:54, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Comme tu veux. I'm really not interested in discussing the infobox further, I've made my point! If others have views on it they can respond in your new section and I may respond to their comments. I agree with you that the picture degrades the article, I believe the infobox does too (certainly in its current state).--Smerus (talk) 03:11, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Infobox

This thread is for discussion the infobox per se, which was added 9 December 2015: [1]. To comment on the image, please use the thread above. Softlavender (talk) 01:58, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

The whole Infobox is an abortion in fact, (and I think for courtesy at least its introduction should have been the subject of a discussion on talk page first). What is the point, in what is supposed to be a concise summary (if it has any value at all) of putting the three different opus classifications on separate lines? Or spreading its premiere over five lines? Or claiming (in what is supposed to be a guide for the uninitiated) that 'Vier letzte Lieder' is the work's 'other name', when it is in fact its 'German title' (this is in fact extremely misleading). I ... argue in favour of making the whole thing (if it is retained) less sprawling: its only justification could be as a concise and accurate thumbnail guide and it fails on both these counts. --Smerus (talk) 01:41, 10 December 2015 (UTC); moved in part from the above thread by Softlavender (talk) 04:26, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Open to discussion:

• An infobox (any infobox) doesn't attempt to be a concise summary (the lead does that) but a paired collection of parameters and values. The model for this one was Wesendonck Lieder.

And a very bad model too, with a disproportionate picture and a misleading text, alleging without any authority that the work is known in Enlgish as 'Wesendonck Songs'. I have corrected it. Article is feeble too, full of WP:OR, I will revise it some time.--Smerus (talk) 01:32, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

• If you put three catalogue entries in one line it looks even more confusing to me, but we can drop the parameter entirely.
• The premieres in detail are part of the infoboxes of Bruckner's symphonies from 2007. It doesn't seem "too much" in this case, looking at the prominence of performers and location. For Bach cantatas, I least just date and location.
• The title is a problem because it was published in English with the title chosen by the London publisher, - the German title is no original title in this case, - help welcome. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:32, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

No problem or help needed here, see WP:COMMONTITLE which applies for both German and English titles.--Smerus (talk) 01:32, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Admittedly looks less horrible now - but the pic is stil a pain.--Smerus (talk) 12:51, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

I've removed the image for now, per the various consensuses here and at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Classical music. Shrinking the infobox made the image even more of a problem. If it gets made into black&white, or otherwise suitably improved, we can add it back in. Softlavender (talk) 13:17, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

I tried the soprano whom Strauss had in mind, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:26, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

I have to agree with Smerus at this point that these additions to the article need to ideally be discussed on the talk page here beforehand. A random photograph of Flagstad doesn't seem appropriate to me as we don't put random unrelated photographs of performers (even premiere performers) in the infoboxes of short solo vocal compositions (that I am aware of), at least not without careful talk-page agreement. Plus the caption was very overlong. Please post your options here first, and gain a consensus. Thanks. Softlavender (talk) 14:41, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

The caption was long to explain why in this unusual case, fullfilling a last wish of the composer, an image of the singer maybe relevant. Compare the long caption of the first symphony by Sibelius, if I remember right by Smerus. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:47, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Gerda, please do not misrepresent me. The Sibelius 1 article contains a pic in a version which I offered as an alternative to the traditional infobox, and has been left there. As far as I am concerned it could be turned into a normal pic with caption in the lead, and in fact I may well do this. The other Sibelius symphonies btw (for reference as a model) have simply a pic of Sibelius, key, catalogue and date. I cannot think why information about the premiere belongs in a concise summary; I m not aware of this in other infoboxes.--Smerus (talk) 01:32, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

We are talking about this version, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:52, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Direct (non-diff) link: [2]. Softlavender (talk) 15:07, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

I personally find the image of Flagstad jarring and confusing. It's not the composer. It's not an image of the premiere (or even any performance). It's a photograph of a prim woman wearing pearls and earrings. It does not suggest these supernal and reflective end-of-life songs in any way, and seems to initially confuse the reader into thinking they are probably on the wrong page. That's my current opinion, anyway. Need to get a consensus before using it. Softlavender (talk) 15:07, 10 December 2015 (UTC); edited 01:48, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

I absolutely agree with Softlavender. And I cannot see any justification for loading the infobox with detailed information about the work's premiere. Those who are interested can read this in the lead immediately to the left. I am not aware of this being a common usage for classical music infoboxes except for operas where the premiere staging is sometimes stated. I know Gerda has a penchant for stuffing as much bumf in the top right of an article as she can get away with, but that in itself is not a rationale.--Smerus (talk) 01:43, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

You don't know me. Smerus, in estimated 95% of infoboxes I don't fill premiere data. In opera, there is not even a parameter for performers and director, only for the location. Here, I thought it was relevant because fulfilling a wish by the composer. You don't me, Softlavender, because I don't see pearls, I see the expressive face of woman. Do what you wish. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:35, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

• If we thought composer's wishes were important or relevant in compiling infoboxes, then those for Wagner operas would probably be longer than the article. But even if this were the case, the only relevant citation in the article indicates that Strauss offered the songs to Flagstad. There is no evidence that he further requested Furtwangler, the Albert Hall, and the Philharmonia Orchestra. Unless Gerda can present evidence that this was the case, and can in addition justify something in infobox procedures that would make appropriate the inclusion of composer's comments or wishes about their works, I propose that the information about the premiere be deleted from the infobox.--Smerus (talk) 14:48, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you are currently proposing the deletion of, as there is nothing in the current infobox [3] that mentions the composer's comments or wishes. The parameters on the premiere have been filled out as the Template:Infobox musical composition allows without restriction. Softlavender (talk) 05:23, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

If it were up to me, I would delete all the premiere information. Gerda justified it only on the basis that Strauss like Flagstad. Your justification (that it is in the infobox standards for musical compositions) however holds water. So if I am the only objector, leave it as it currently stands, unless and until you can find a decent pic of the composer.--Smerus (talk) 12:00, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

I'm OK with the premiere info being there. I think it's particularly interesting because of the immense stature of the performer and the conductor, and also because it was at the Albert Hall and with the Philharmonia rather than on German soil, and also because it was two years after they were composed. I think all those interesting points are nice to be reflected in the infobox. Softlavender (talk) 15:03, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

Copyright

The article contains translations of the four texts into English by Christina Egan. These translations are not sourced. If they cannot be shown to be free of copyright, they should be deleted. Furthermore Herman Hesse died 1962, and the German of his poems is therefore also copyright. Can someone comment on whether use of his words is permissible here? I think not, according to text section of WP:NFCCEG. Unless someone can demonstrate otherwise, therefore, only the German of the Eichendorff poem is eligible in this article.--Smerus (talk) 08:57, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

• I see that the German WP article notes that Hesse is copyright unitl 2032 and does not reprint his texts. They only have the Eichendorff, in German. I am going to edit this article accordingly on this basis and my comments above.--Smerus (talk) 09:34, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Christina Egan wrote those second-column Hesse translations herself. There was never an attribution for the Eichendorf translation, but it has been tweaked from its first incarnation (3 April 2007) by various editors over the past nine years and at this point is a joint wiki effort. Unless there's proof it is a copyright violation, I don't see any reason to delete the translation, and I see every reason to retain an English translation if we are going to have the German lyrics on En-Wiki. Softlavender (talk) 09:52, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

If thast is the case, then I will makle a couple of corrections for accuracy and fluency.--Smerus (talk) 11:00, 14 December 2015 (UTC)