Talk:Karlheinz Stockhausen/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Stimmung

Cam, luckily for me the poetry is in German. Hyacinth 20:39, 14 May 2004 (UTC)

It exhibits a preoccupation with certain bodily fluids and the bits which produce them. I think it's meant to be erotic. Maybe in a live performance in the right environment it works, but listening to it on a CD at home, I'm just worried th neighbours might hear. Interesting piece, though. --Camembert

suggestion

Someone should look into the whole business concerning Stockhausen's publishing house. I think that the publishing house is part of the Stockhausen foundation and that the recording company is part of the publishing house. In that respect it is not enough to say that Stockhausen founded the record company "to make this music permanently available on compact disc". Rather, one should think of it as part of a concept, with which Stockhausen wants to make his life's work permanently available. Interesting in this respect is also, that Stockhausen bought back the rights for the publication of his pieces, both for scores and recordings ("Gaining access" sounds to passive, I think).

In general I think the article is very good!

quotes

I'm saddened the quote on BBC radio - whoever said it escapes me - isn't in the article. The one that goes, after a composer had heard any Stockhausen, he says "No, but I believe that I have trodden in some."

Sir Thomas Beecham said it. --Mandel

suggestion: images

Very interesting article! Thanks for writing it! Could anybody add some images? Musicmaster

There's now one. Hyacinth 20:47, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Nice

Where can I find information about his students? Thanks for posting. Melbrooks

Where can I find the official homepage of Stockhausen? I would appreciate a nice answer. --Koril 13:56, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Is this the one? [1] - Runcorn 17:16, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes it is, and this is where you can order his releases.

POV?

I removed this. Feel free to put it back if you like...

"It is also worth noting that in the broad scheme of electronic music one could make the argument that Stockhausen and his fellow musique concrete composers got a hold of a bunch of audio equipment that they did not even begin to understand, but managed to talk their way out of arguing whether they're music was good or not by saying it was avant garde art. Please see http://www.di.fm/edmguide/edmguide.html."

Adambisset 15:26, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

No, leave it out.--Runcorn 19:29, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Why is it not acceptable to raise questions about Stockhausen's place in the musical world? Many, many fine musicians feel that he is a perfect example of the emperor wearing no clothes.

Adding criticism is fine, but it must be sourced. You must give names and formal publications of those who have criticized Stockhausen. Saying just "many composers" or "many critics" violates WP:WEASEL. CRCulver 00:43, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

OK, fair enough. But is it OK to point out that some of the jargon used by Stockhausen and others when discussing his music (including in the article here) is meaningless? (For the record, I am a professional composer, have a doctorate in composition from Juilliard, and I teach at the University of Montreal. So if I don't understand it, it is NOT due to lack of training.) 64.229.129.200 20:35, 29 October 2006 (UTC) Alan Belkin

No, it's not okay. Making claims about Stockhausen based on your own views violates WP:NOR. Everything on WP must be cited from external sources. Surely there's formal scholarship out there that you could use, and since you have access to a university library I imagine it would be quite easy for you to put together some good additions here. CRCulver 21:01, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Furthermore, though this particular case cites a URL, the claims of technical incompetence are not found on that site. (Yes, I did look through that incredibly sloppy site *thoroughly*.) Jerome Kohl 01:37, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Furthermore, musicians' opinions on composers are of no validity. --194.82.45.23 20:23, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Do you have a source for that statement, or is it original research?--Runcorn 14:15, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

New Age

Category "New Age" musicians? Really? Is there any source that cites him as a member of this category, or even makes a plausible claim? Antandrus (talk) 22:09, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

I would have to go back to the book and check, but I think this connection is made in Wolfgang Martin Stroh's book, Handbuch New Age Musik: auf der Suche nach neuen musikalischen Erfahrungen (Regensburg: ConBrio Verlagsgesellschaft, 1994). Is it Wiki protocol to require a published source to authenticate a category (as it is for article content)? If not, then consider the New Grove definition of "New Age" in comparison with Stockhausen's music and public statements, especially from 1968 onward:

An ideology based on the belief in the ultimate cultural evolution of human societies through the transformation of individuals. . . . its manifestations involve a great variety of techniques, including sound and music. A particular link is invoked connecting music, meditation and mind.

A search on Amazon.com for books on "New Age music" turns up the collection of Stockhausen essays, translated by Tim Nevill, Towards a Cosmic Music (1994). Amongst Stockhausen's compositions, the most obvious candidates for classification as "New Age" are Stimmung, Sternklang, and the American Indian Songs ("In the sky I am walking") from Alphabet für Liège. However, a number of other compositions (or portions of them) could also plausibly fit: some of the Aus den sieben Tagen pieces (most notably "Goldstaub" and "Litanei 97"), Trans, Ylem, Tierkreis (at least, in many performances), Sirius, Atmen gibt das Leben, many portions of Licht (amongst others, the "Invisible Choirs" from Donnerstag, the "Greetings" from Montag and Dienstag, "Michaelion" from Mittwoch, the electronic music from Freitag, "Lichter-Wasser" and the "Sonntags Abschied" from Sonntag), and, more recently, Natürliche Dauern (the "Third Hour" of Klang). Jerome Kohl 17:40, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Any information in an article can be challenged if it is not properly sourced. A category provides information - there is no logical difference between adding a category about New Age and saying explicitly in the article that he is New Age.--Runcorn 20:58, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. How does one properly source a category, or is this something that should be added only if the article content makes an explicit, sourced reference? (BTW, I was not the person who added that category--I simply can see its plausibility for some of the composer's works.)--Jerome Kohl 18:52, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

If the category has been queried, either mention the fact in the article or add a reference that specifically addresses the point and flag it "Stockhausen is New Age".--Runcorn 22:40, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Notable students?

This list seems to have a lot of redlinks. If they are all notable, can someone produce articles on them explaining why they're notable?--Runcorn 17:06, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps "notable" is a contentious category. As the person who uplinked 25 of those 27 names, I suppose the burden is mainly on me to produce those articles. Or perhaps it would be better to change the section heading to something less liable to cause controversy, like simply "students"? This raises an issue with which I have been struggling for some months now, ever since I read further back on this Talk page a request for such a list. The names already posted are of composers who attended a regular course of composition study with Stockhausen, either at the Cologne Conservatory, the University of Pennsylvania, or the University of California Davis, or who studied privately with him in Cologne. I have another 75 or so names of people who attended intensive composition workshops under Stockhausen at Darmstadt or the Cologne Courses for New Music in the 1960s, another 40 composers who state in their resumés or press releases that they studied with Stockhausen in some capacity (in some cases, this amounts to nothing more than attending one of his Darmstadt lectures), and another 14 who are known to have attended his Darmstadt lectures, but who do not generally claim to have studied with him. All of these categories include names that are indisputably "notable", as well as names that may be "notable" perhaps only in their home countries, or only within certain circles. For example, many of the names which were totally unfamiliar to me turn out to be famous (or relatively famous) pop musicians, an area in which I have no expertise whatever. So, what are the criteria for inclusion? Put up the whole list of more than 150, and let the wikicommunity start trying to whittle it down? --Jerome Kohl 17:37, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

My advice, as someone who knows a lot less about Stockhausen than you do but maybe more about Wikipedia, is to make a list of people who have genuinely studied with him, not just attended a couple of lectures. See where the redlinks are. On the classical side, you will have a good idea whether they are worth articles; if not, omit them. If there are pop musicians you are unsure about, post their names here and on WP:VPM for comment.--Runcorn 21:45, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice, it is much appreciated. I'm not quite sure what you mean by "see where the redlinks are". I do see them, and have created two articles just today to help address the problem in this particular instance. My experience with Wikipedia is still very small, but I do know that there are in general a great many redlinks for people that I would regard as more notable than some others that have bluelinks. For comments from others who read this Talkpage on the redlink names presently in this section, would anyone care to tell me whether they think Alden Jenks, Will Johnson, Mark Riener, or Julian Woodruff are notable or not? (They were all in Stockhausen's Davis, California seminar in 1967, according to Jonathan Kramer's article, "Karlheinz in California", in Perspectives of New Music 36/1, pp. 247-61 and, though I have heard (vaguely) of Jenks and Johnson, the other two are not familiar names. --Jerome Kohl 22:51, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

What I meant was that editors expert in Stockhausen should produce a list that includes only who should be there because they really were his students, then see what redlinks remain. I suspected that many of the redlinks would be deleted.--Runcorn 22:45, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I see what you mean now. It is remarkably difficult to sort this sort of thing out in some cases, since gaining access to conservatory and university student records is not really possible, for confidentiality reasons. Many individuals believe it will boost their standing to say they have studied with a celebrity, even if their contact was very tangential. Still, I take your point, and agree that at least a few of the redlinks will be deleted. There remains the serious question of just how "notable" is "notable"? For example, is being a professor of composition at an American university sufficient to count as "notable"? Does winning one international composition prize qualify? If so, then all but possibly two of the remaining redlinks should remain, and "go blue" in the end.--Jerome Kohl 23:03, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

How am I doing so far?--Jerome Kohl 09:17, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Looks fine to me!--Runcorn 18:04, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

I notice that an anonymous contributor has added Peter D. Pecere to the "notable students" list. I find nothing at all about him, apart from the fact that he joined the American Composers Alliance in 2005, and had an unnamed piece performed (or at least, scheduled to be performed, the online notice mentioned but did not name "two casualties" on that program) recently at a regional conference of the (American) Society of Composers. Unless someone can explain how he qualifies as "notable" (as well as when and where he studied with Stockhausen—see above), I propose his name be removed from the list, as has been done with several redlinked names in the past.--Jerome Kohl 19:21, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

It has now been a month since the addition of Pecere to the list of "notable students". Because I have failed in several further attempts to learn anything further about him, and no one else has offered any evidence of his notability, I have removed his name.--Jerome Kohl 20:00, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

In the section "Stockhausen in popular culture" there's a reference to Richard Wright (Pink Floyd keyboardist) of being one of his students. Why is Wright not mentioned among the Notable Students instead? Also, do you know anything more specific about what kind of relationship he had with Stockhausen? Did he just attend a few lectures/workshops, or did he study privately with him (doubtful)? -- Ettorepasquini 21:19, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

This unverified claim has now been removed, since no one has come forward with any sort of documentation after nine months. I note that the Wikipedia article on Wright states only that he studied at Haberdashers' Aske's School and the Regent Street Polytechnic College of Architecture, making no claim that Stockhausen ever taught at either of those institutions.--Jerome Kohl 18:13, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Re: "Or perhaps it would be better to change the section heading to something less liable to cause controversy, like simply "students"?":

If they aren't notable, why have them? The list as it stands now is just ridiculously long. Wikipedia is not supposed to be a telephone book. We should mention at most five or so or his most famous students--if we're going to mention any at all--, and they should be mentioned (if at all) within the body of the article, as part of a complete English sentence or two. TheScotch (talk) 09:48, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

It would be helpful to have nominations here for the five or so most famous or noteworthy Stockhausen students. If enough editors submit candidates, it may be possible simply to leave those five or so that are common to the most sets of nominations. Otherwise I'll be left to my own devices. TheScotch (talk) 09:17, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Notability is of course Wikipedia policy. However, I don't see anything there about specific limits on numbers. Stockhausen was arguably the most influential composer of the second half of the twentieth century. Doubtless this influence extended to many non-notables, as well as to non-students, but it strains credibility to restrict this list to only the five judged to be "most notable", when it includes so many well-known figures.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 21:02, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

The problem is that this sort of endless (and mere) listing clutters articles. Good writing is selective; it doesn't throw as much random information at the screen as it possibly can. I've only heard of a few of these persons, and I very much doubt anyone else has either. Which ones individual musically literate editors may have heard of will likely vary, but if enough editors submit candidates, we should be able to whittle away the special circumstances (that is, that they may have themselves studied with or be related to one or two, and so on). TheScotch (talk) 18:37, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm not at all clear what you mean by "they may have themselves studied with or be related to one or two". We have already had a dearth of input on this subject (see the very long discussion above, dating back to Runcorn's request for notability verification, from November 2006), which makes it unlikely that more than one or two other editors is likely now to come forward with opinions on relative notability. In turn, this raises the WP:NPOV issue. That said, it does appear that at least a few of the names on this list are self-nominated, or have been appointed by others, perhaps on the basis of a Wikipedia article about them (since almost all are now bluelinks). This may provide a point of departure for your proposal to whittle down the list. If any of these persons do not meet the criteria for WP:N, then clearly they do not belong here, nor, I imagine, should their vanity articles remain on Wikipedia.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 19:04, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Re: "I'm not at all clear what you mean by 'they may have themselves studied with or be related to one or two'.":

These are probably bad examples because they may suggest that the former Stockhausen students in question are not notable enough to be worth their own wikipedia articles, which is largely irrelevant to my concern. My concern is simply that the list as it stands is so long that it's cluttering the article. I picked the number five arbitrarily; what I would actually like is a number that fits comfortably into a sentence (an actual proper English sentence) that begins, "Stockhausen's students include...."--or a similar construction.

My "special circumstances" simply means that a given editor may have heard of some of these computers as a matter of pure fortuity; he may have only happened upon them. This is in contradistinction to La Monte Young, for example, with whom pretty much every musically literate person is presumably more or less familiar.

Re: "....which makes it unlikely that more than one or two other editors is likely now to come forward with opinions on relative notability":

Well, if no one does, I may "be bold" and pick the few myself that seem to me to be most famous. TheScotch (talk) 20:13, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Because there are now only bluelinks on the list, I suggest that you read the linked articles, many of which were written or expanded by myself, following Runcorn's advice. They should give some idea of the relative notability (not "fame" or "celebrity", BTW, which is quite a different thing). You will discover in doing so that by no means are all of these people notable as composers, or even in the field of music (three are best known as painters, though two of those are also composers). Some are extremely prominent in their own countries, while others are known more widely, but less well in any one particular place. I think you will find it difficult to objectively narrow this list even to ten names, let alone the number five you suggest. In fact, glancing over the list now, I count 23 names that seem to me just about equally notable, at the top end of the scale, out of the 67 presently there, and you will probably come up with at three that are not part of this group, and tell me they are more notable. A year or so ago I asked Runcorn what the criteria ought to be for notability, in the hope of avoiding the kind of "well, my feelings are just the opposite of yours" confrontation that may be shaping up here.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 22:29, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

I wrote my note below prior to seeing the note above from Jerome, so I wanted to add a response that I agree with his concern, that notability criteria are difficult to come to agreement about. I suggest we just leave it at the criteria of - if they are notable enough for an article (blue link), and in that article it shows that they actually were a student of his, then they can stay on the list. That way, it's objective and easy to decide. If notability is questionable, then that would also apply to their article itself and there is a formal process for that. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 00:51, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't have a strong position on this, but I'd like to point out a some issues that may come up with your suggestion:

• all of the students have blue links, so they are notable enough for Wikipedia articles
• determining relative notability or importance of the students could be seen as WP:OR, unless the choices are referenced.
• generally with music articles, the "notable artists" or similar sections attract less active editors who like to mosey around and add an name or link here and there. That's not a problem in itself, but you may find that if you prune the list, you might see it grow again right away.
• at least as it is now, we have a consensus on this page to only include names that have Wikiarticles; if some are removed, what will be the criteria?

I recommend either leaving it as-is, or, if you feel it's important to make it smaller, perhaps include only names that can be referenced with a footnote (that would add a lot of footnotes though, and much of that info is probably in the individual articles already). --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 22:03, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Re: "the "notable artists" or similar sections attract less active editors who like to mosey around and add an name or link here and there.:

My wikipedia experience suggests that framing this in an actual English sentence will significantly reduce the likelihood of this sort of thing. Dangling lists invite additions ad infinitum.

Re: "you will probably come up with at three that are not part of this group, and tell me they are more notable.:

Oh, a restriction to three would not be at all a bad thing.

"Re: A year or so ago I asked Runcorn what the criteria ought to be for notability, in the hope of avoiding the kind of 'well, my feelings are just the opposite of yours' confrontation that may be shaping up here'":

I think you're contradicting yourself. First you suggest that no one cares enough to submit nominations, and now you suggest that reducing the list will provoke a bloody battle. I think (probably tonight after Christmas shopping) I'll see which of these names have their own Grove entries. That should prove telling. TheScotch (talk) 18:53, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

There is no contradiction, but perhaps I can clarify: If there is an insufficient number of editors involved (say, just two), and they disagree, consensus is impossible to achieve. (Even if they do agree, it is doubtful whether such a small number can be construed as a consensus.) As for New Grove, that is a good start, though of course you are not likely to find notable painters in it, for example. I think I can save you some trouble. Forty-eight of the names in that list (that is a little more than twice the number I named as "equally notable") each have their own article in New Grove:

Amacher, Amy, Barlow (spelled Klarenz Barlow in New Grove), Biel, Boehmer, Buckinx, Cardew, Chatman, Davies, Decoust, Éloy, Eötvös, Fritsch, Gagneux, Gehlhaar, Gilboa, Grisey, Hassell, Höller, Huber, Kramer, Lachenmann, Laporte, McLeod, Maconie, Maiguashca, Mariétan, Marco, Méfano, Miereanu, Mizelle, Nunes, Peixinho, Pongrácz, Rihm, Schwertsik, Shapiro, Smalley, Souster, Sveinsson, Szathmáry, I. Tcherepnin, S. Tcherepnin, Tremblay, Vivier, Volans, Young, Zender

In addition, Constanten is found in the article on the Grateful Dead, while Holger Czukay (aka Holger Schüring) and Irmin Schmidt are found in the article on Can. Bahk is in the article “Korea” in the New Grove Dictionary of Opera. —Jerome Kohl (talk) 00:18, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Jerome, the list of notable students is worthy If they're notable enough to have a blue link, and they were actually a student of KS, then they're worthy of having their name in the article. What's the problem with that? I don't think any of them should be removed unless it's determined that they did not study with KS or their links turn red. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 05:48, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Re: "...they're worthy of having their name in the article. What's the problem with that?":

It seems to me I've answered this question at least twice before. Inclusion is not an honor to be bestowed on the "worthy"; it needs to serve the article--it needs to convey valuable information about Stockhausen himself, and it needs to do so in a way that comports with good, uncluttered, compact prose. Dangling lists are--and ought to be--generally frowned upon in wikipedia. TheScotch (talk) 11:16, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

(ec) For readers interested in researching Stockhausen, the achievements of his students are relevant information and serves the article well. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 18:20, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Unsourced statements

I have just reverted this article from an edit by an apparently well-meaning but anonymous contributor, who removed (amongst other things and without stating any reason for the changes) one source reference from an article already tagged for having unsourced statements. As it happens, I was responsible for adding all of the material deleted in this edit, but I am not personally invested in any of it, apart from the correction of the long-standing mistake of presenting "Burg Mödrath" as if it were the name of a town (it is in fact a building). If this anonymous editor has reasons for the other deletions ("too much information", "irrelevant data", "incorrect statements", etc.) he/she should mention them here, where I would be happy to discuss them.--Jerome Kohl 17:40, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Better photo request

Can we get a better photo - that sideways shot is pretty bad. -asmadeus 00:54, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't have a better photo to offer, but I agree completely. Not only is it badly exposed, but Wikipedia guidelines specify that a portrait with the subject looking to the right should be placed at the left of the page (gazing into the center, instead of out beyond the margins). I repeatedly fixed this, but other people kept putting it back at the right. When the infobox was added, I could find no way of moving it back to the left, so I gave up.--Jerome Kohl 15:46, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

It's often very difficult to get a photo with no copyright problems.--Runcorn 21:49, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

You are right. Social websites could be a source of good stuff. E.g. I did a quick search on flickr.com and I found 5 photos. Three of them are "All right Reserved": 1st photo 2nd 3rd. I like the 2nd. There are 2 additional photos which are Creative Commons licenses, so there should be no problem using them... however they are sort of weird. Here they are anyway: 4th 5th. Go ahead and do more searches: once we agree on one we can just contact the author and find out. --Ettorepasquini 01:53, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

There is something very fishy about photos 4 and 5, because they are said to have been taken on August 25 and October 22, 2005, but are clearly snaps made of poster photos dating originally from the 1960s (Stockhausen is about 40 year old in the photos; in 2005 he was 77). I have seen both of these photos before (I think perhaps in Karl Heinz Wörner's book on Stockhausen), and it seems highly unlikely that they are free of copyright. My attempt to connect to the "some restrictions" link on the second photo resulted in an error message, which is not an encouraging sign.--Jerome Kohl 16:00, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Selected discography

Could someone who knows this subject please compile a selected discography? Maybe as a separate article. I would be grateful thanks. SmokeyTheCat 08:31, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

I have added an External Link to Bernard Pulham's excellent online discography (I was surprised to discover this was not already present in the article). This is the furthest possible extreme from a selective discography, so perhaps there is still useful work to be done, but it's a start.--Jerome Kohl 16:06, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Date of Stockhausen's death

I heard on the six o'clock news on Radio Four tonight (that would be, between 6 and 6: 30 in the evening, Greenwich Mean Time) that Stockhausen had died - and it is December 7 - but this article says he died on December 5 2007. Why this discrepancy? I live in the United Kingdom, if that helps. ACEOREVIVED (talk) 20:20, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

I'd say his death was announced today by the Stockhausen foundation, but he died two days ago. BTW, do we really need NINE footnotes to prove his death? -- megA (talk) 20:51, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Initially, it seemed best to provide duplicates for confirmation. The BBC, for example, were reluctant to announce until they had confirmation from other news sources, while many of those sources were waiting for the BBC. Now, it does seem pointless, and they can be removed, perhaps moving one or two to External links. As for the discrepancy in date, yes, it was a matter of getting a press release written and distributed.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 01:17, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

keep out the trivia

just about to ask someone to remove "popular culture" and someone did it thx :)

it really cheapened the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.105.65.139 (talk) 13:25, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Some of it was cute, but I agree. Many of the pulp-fiction swipes still present under the guise of "Literature" could be deleted on the same grounds, don't you think?—Jerome Kohl (talk) 23:16, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I do. TheScotch (talk) 12:17, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. Some of it can be salvaged, and there is no consensus here for a wholesale deletion. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 18:08, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

I also like seeing the pop culture stories. I don't think it cheapens the article to point out that Stockhausen was on the cover of a Beatles album or whatever. It shows that his work has been noticed widely, not just in academic circles. Maybe the problem is more in the list-like fashion the section was written and if it were written more as a description of his affect on pop culture, with examples and some references, that would increase the quality of its presentation. I would dive in and do it if I had the time, but all I'm able to offer for now is the suggestion. In the meantime, why not undelete the section and put a template at the top of it asking for it to be "prosified" or "wikified" or whatever the appropriate term would be?--Jack-A-Roe (talk) 19:47, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm in favor of either wholesale deletion or of putting the "trivia" template on it and removing everything that seems to have little or no chance of eventually being included in the actual article — & I think that would be almost all of it. SethTisue (talk) 20:03, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Re: "there is no consensus here for a wholesale deletion":

There certainly was until you chimed in. In any case, wikipedia policy discourages trivia sections. If any bits of a trivia section are worth preserving that much of it should be placed within the body of the article. I agree with Seth that, however, that none or very little of this one is worth preserving. Also: Disguising a trivia section with a euphemistic title is a disreputable practice. (Note that I'm not repeating myself here; my other comment--"Yes, I do."--referred to the "pulp-fiction swipes".) TheScotch (talk) 09:07, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Stockhausen in literature

Let's return to this section. It was proposed above that at least some of it should be eliminated on the ground that this section is also essentially a collection of trivia (if a more specialized one). I seconded that proposition but did not elaborate. Let me clearer now: I think the section as a section should be cut, and if any of the current content is deemed worth retaining, it can be incorporated into the article. TheScotch (talk) 19:02, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Does anyone object? TheScotch (talk) 12:11, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Not me. I don't see anything there worth saving. SethTisue (talk) 15:21, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Concur. I'm already on record as being in favor of deletion. Some of this "literature" is frankly of less literary merit that most of the material in the already-deleted Trivia section. Nevertheless, the point has been made that the sheer numbers of these trivial references demonstrate how pervasive Stockhausen has been in public consciousness, and it would be therefore worth considering inserting a sentence somewhere in the main text abnout this fact—the main trick being finding a single source (or at least, a manageably small number) to verify this fact.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 16:44, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, a quick check reveals that there are already two or three paragraphs (depending how you count) in the "Influence" section of the article about Stockhausen pervading the public consciousness as it were, so we seem to me fairly safe on that account (whether or not, as I suspect, these paragraphs want a bit of tightening). TheScotch (talk) 10:05, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

I moved a couple particularly appropriate examples from the literature section into a new paragraph in the influences section. With that change in place, I would concur if the remaining list of items in the literature section were removed. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 11:01, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Done. TheScotch (talk) 11:38, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Footnotes

I removed a "no footnotes" tag, as the article is (was) meticulously cited using Harvard referencing (I think by User:Jerome Kohl). Right now, the footnotes style coexists with the Harvard system but I'm too lazy to fix that... --Atavi (talk) 18:38, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

I've reverted two of the three footnote references to Harvard format, which is a lot easier than reformatting the 70+ in-text reference citations as footnotes. (It would be several magnitudes more work converting the refs to a full-footnote system, which some recent edits seem pointed toward.) The one remaining footnote (in the renamed "Footnotes" section contains an in extenso citation of the original German of material cited in English translation in the article. This seems a bit excessive for an Encyclopedia article, but the contentiousness of the material may justify it. This material was once deleted under Wikipedia BLP policy, but seems to have been quickly reinserted upon the news of the composer's death. Should this be debated all over again?—Jerome Kohl (talk) 23:13, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Given that the 9/11 quotation can hardly be avoided in this article, and that nearly all references to it (at least in English) are inaccurate or out-of-context, it is surely better to give the full picture. Since I was unable to find a published English translation of his complete remark (which itself tells you something) I attempted my own: however my German is pititable and anyone is welcome to improve it. According to WP:V, where an unpublished translation is used in a Wikipedia article, the original language form must also be included. Grover cleveland (talk) 00:07, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but WP:V says only "there should be clear citation of the foreign-language original, so that readers can check what the original source said and the accuracy of the translation," not that the entire foreign-language original needs to be quoted! Surely the citation of the source in MusikTexte should be sufficient, and if not that alone, then adding the weblink as well should be adequate.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 19:29, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Interesting ... I had always interpreted "citation of the foreign-language original" to mean something like "footnote containing the content of the foreign-language original". If it simply means "reference to a place where the foreign-language original may be found", then the policy on translated quotations is effectively meaningless, since such a reference would be required anyway for general verifiability. I realize that this article seems to be a footnote-free zone, but I would think it would comport with the spirit, as well as the letter, of WP:V if the original German text were to be restored somehow. Cheers. Grover cleveland (talk) 17:05, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

The policy is not meaningless, because it does not require citing the original-language source when a reliable translation is referenced. In this case, there is no reliable translation, so the original source must be cited (note: this does not mean "quoted"). Since the German text is hyperlinked anyway, what is the point of having a second way of going to it with one click? As it happens, there is another problem: since the now-deleted footnote contained only the sections actually translated, whenever a sentence or phrase is added to or deleted from the translation, this must be done in the footnote as well. Then there is the question of original context, which happens to be a huge issue here.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 20:17, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm still not totally convinced, but it's not something worth fighting over :) Grover cleveland (talk) 15:33, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

9/11 quote translation

Is this an official translation? Because there is one (minor) error in it: "Daß also Geister in einem Akt etwas vollbringen..." is translated as "The spirit achieves in one act..." whereas the correct translation would be "The fact that spirits achieve in one act...". And I think the conclusion Stockhausen draws out of it should be in there, too: "Compared to this, we are nothing, as composers." -- megA (talk) 19:14, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

No: as I explain above, no published translation of the entire excerpt could be found. Please improve and correct as necessary. Cheers. Grover cleveland (talk) 08:20, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

I'll try, although it's a bit incoherent. It's Stockhausen, after all... -- megA (talk) 10:31, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

I made the quote a little longer, on basis of the German wikipedia. Before he seemed to justify the attacks in some way, which he never did. The last sentence might be a little weird, I translated it directly from German:

"to kick the bucket" seems to be colloquial for "to die" - in German he used "abkratzen" which is also colloquial and slightly derogatory. If you have a better translation go for it.

the weird grammar is also weird and wrong in German. Hope it is understandable in English.

please correct, my mother tongue is German! --Kricket (talk) 14:25, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm confused, I looked at the German article and it says "Ihr könntet dabei draufgehen", not "abkratzen"...? SethTisue (talk) 15:07, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

According to the source this quote is based on (pdf file of the transcript), it is "draufgehen". I have never heard the version with "abkratzen" before. A check for vandalism on the German article seems necessary. -- megA (talk) 11:09, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I am sorry. No vandalism in German wp and he did say draufgehen. Looks like I should better have been in bed yesterday. But "draufgehen" is also slightly condescending. I would not call "killed" an exact translation, but then again my English is not perfect. If you don't have a much better idea I say leave it as it is! --Kricket (talk) 16:42, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Maybe "die as a result"? I used the passive voice to try to capture the "dabei", but maybe explicitly saying "as a result" would be better. SethTisue (talk) 17:19, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

[2] here is a link to a dictionary. to fall apart sounds OK if it really means "to die" and not something else and is fairly common. Otherwise I would recommend leaving it as it is. It is not such an important issue. --Kricket (talk) 19:13, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Reputation

The reputation of a musician is not just his influences on other music, but his influence on people generally. The more notable the musician, the more distinctive the music, the greater this is likely to be. Thus, significant references to his work in other significant works in other art forms, or even the awareness of his work as being distinctive and as likely to be known to a popular audience as distinctive, is e relevant content. I've restored a section of it. It should probably be re-edited as paragraphs. This sort of material is not considered trivia. DGG (talk) 21:44, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

I made some edits just now so the article now asserts that Stockhausen's name, if not his music, was known to a popular audience. (I use the past tense because I'm not sure how true that is today.) Perhaps some of the removed "trivia" could be mentioned in this context. Let's not let it get too detailed and lengthy though; a handful of representative examples is enough to get the point across. SethTisue (talk) 00:23, 16 December 2007 (UTC)