Talk:Licht

Numbers of performers

Where do the numbers of "performers" come from? The article now reads in part:

Samstag is an opera for 13 performers: 1 voice, 10 instrumentalists, 2 dancers, a symphonic band (or symphony orchestra), ballet or mimes, and male choir with organ.. (Lucifer's Dream), for bass voice and piano; Kathinkas Gesang ... for flute and six perdussionists; Luzifers Tanz .. for symphony band (or orchestra), bass voice, solo piccolo, solo piccolo trumpet, solo dancer, stilt-dancer, and dancer-mimes; and Luzifers Abschied ... for male choir, seven trombones, and organ.

Even "13 soloists" is hard to add up: around 8 plus 6 percussion and 7 trombones and (iirc) 12 choral basses... Sparafucil (talk) 00:33, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Excellent point. The description is probably taken word-for-word from the CD booklet, but there may be a typo or a translating error in there. The official description in German (from the composer's work-list, published by the Stockhausen-Verlag) refers to "13 musikalische Darsteller", who are then specified as "(1 Solo-Stimme, 10 Solo-Instrumentalisten, 2 Solo-Tänzer)". This would more accurately be translated as "musical actors", therefore (the English version of the catalog has "musical performers"), though qualifying the two solo dancers as "musicians" may be stretching things a bit. I'll attend to it—thanks for pointing it out.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 00:56, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

I can see the distinction between instruments on stage and non-acting players in the pit (or on risers). How about "roles", "protagonists", or maybe best even "players"? Sparafucil (talk) 07:55, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Any of those words might do as well as "performers" (which is the word actually appearing in the score prefaces, CD booklets, etc.), save only "protagonists", which in the context of the Licht operas is ordinarily applied to Michael, Eve, and Lucifer, and so might cause confusion. "Players" of course has two senses, that of actors and that of musicians, and the intention of combining these senses might be difficult to convey in English. What is wrong with "musical performers" followed by a parenthisized list, as it is now? I'll admit that actors, mimes, and dancers fit uneasily into this description.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 18:25, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

No, no, let's not risk confusion! ;-) By all means go with the original term then, but maybe thus: 13 "performers" ("musikalische Darsteller" in the double sense of 'players'). As things stand there's really a need for some explanation of both the term and the counting: which are the ten instruments... flute+piano+trumpet+trombone choir? (I only have Luzifers Traum at hand, which doesnt help.) Sparafucil (talk) 21:24, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I had thought about that. I have difficulty myself listing from memory the ten soloists from Samstag, but these should be looked up an enumerated for each opera, no question. I think that doing this should also resolve the problem with how to represent "musikalische Darsteller" in English.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 21:49, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Individual Pages

Has there been any discussion of creating individual pages for each opera? I think it would be very helpful. Trumpetrep (talk) 22:29, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

There has been no talk about this so far, but it does seem to me to be a good idea, at least eventually. After all, there are separate articles for Das Rheingold, Die Walküre, Siegfried, and Götterdämmerung, and not just one collective article for Wagner's Ring. Perhaps this might wait, however, until a little more information has been collected under each entry in this article, so that there is sufficient substance to create something better than just a stub for each of the constituent operas.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 23:26, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Urantia

"correct Kurtz's characterization of the not-mysterious figure and not particularly famous circumstances; note failed verification" I would disagree with both of these characterizations. A bearded man with long hair, 'bare legs, galoshes on his feet, a staff in his right hand and a book in his left" walking down the center aisle and asking in full voice, "Stockhausen, can I talk to you?" is awfully mysterious. Remarkable too. But the fact that this man has never been identified tips the balance towards mysterious. Not sure why this merited a change to 'remarkable'. I won't quibble with your characterization, but 'remarkable' comes up short as far as this man is concerned.

As for the fame of this incident, if Maconie felt the need to downplay the incident which is related by both Cott and Kurtz, I'd say that adds up to some genuine notoriety. Three major books on Stockhausen reference this event, and the importance of the Urantia book in Stockhausen's life from that point forward has been well-documented.

"This must be the wrong page. The only thing on referring to the Urantia Book is footnote 1 to chapter 11, citing Clyde Bedell's Concordex, and giving a description of the Urantia Book itself. There is no statement about any of the events in Licht being taken from this book." No, it's the right page. The note describes the incarnation of Christ-Michael on Urantia, which is depicted in Michaels Reise. This is just one of many events and themes from the Urantia book which are represented in LICHT. It's important to establish that these are the characters from the Urantia mythology, as we learned from Thomas Ulrich this summer. Much more work needs to be done with fleshing out all the parallels, but certainly, in an introduction to the cycle, it's important to note that these are not the Biblical Michael, Eve and Lucifer, they are Urantian.Trumpetrep (talk) 02:29, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

With respect to the characterizations, "mysterious" is an interpretation of the description given by Kurtz, not an objective paraphrase of what Kurtz says, which is "a remarkable figure" (and this is why I replaced the word "mysterious" with "remarkable"). Would you prefer quotation marks around the word, or perhaps a slightly longer quotation? My own personal interpretation of such behaviour might be "embarrassing" or "brash", certainly not "mysterious", but Wikipedia regards this as original research. Next, who says this man has never been identified? His name was Andrew, according to Bandur, citing either Kurtz or Gregg Wager (or both), and the price of the book was $20.. Perhaps someone else has a surname, present address, telephone number, email, etc.

If you want to document multiple reports, then you should cite them, instead of making a POV statement without support. While you are at it, you should add in the Wager and Kurtz (not the Stockhausen biography, I think, but rather the longer interview) cited by Bandur.

On p. 246 of Kurtz, I still do not see any statement about anything at all appearing in Licht. What you are doing by asserting that, for example, "the incarnation of Christ-Michael on Urantia … is depicted in Michaels Reise" is called, in Wikipedia-speak, "improper synthesis" (see, for example, Wikipedia:RS#Academic_consensus). That footnote also says "On the traditions concerning the Archangel Michael in pre-Christian and Christian times, see Nora von Stein-Baditz, Aus Michaels Wirken (Stuttgart, 1967), especially the essay of the same name by Ita Wegman, pp. 11–30." Why would it not be equally logical to conclude, therefore, that Stockhausen based, say, Michaels Reise um die Erde on pre-Christian themes, or perhaps "from vatious cultures and esoteric traditions" (oops, that is a direct quote from Kurtz, from the point in the text just before the footnote)? More particularly, in what way does this footnote support your present claim that the Urantia Michael, Eve, and Lucifer "are not the Biblical Michael, Eve and Lucifer"? Have you actually read the Urantia Book? Does it or any other source state that the Michael, Eve, and Lucifer in it have nothing to do with the Biblical Michael, Eve, and Lucifer?—Jerome Kohl (talk) 03:40, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

I suppose this would all go towards the larger issue of fully documenting the Urantia parallels, which is a task quite beyond an introductory paragraph about the cycle. Yes, I've read my fair share of the Urantia book, and as Thomas Ulrich pointed out, it's not that these characters blot out the Christian theology, but they are superimposed on top of it. For instance, the book refers to Michael by name in the entire run-up to his time on Earth. From the 121st Paper onward, he is referred to as 'Jesus'. Here, the narratives of the Bible and the Urantia book intertwine. The Urantia book coyly postures itself as a fifth gospel, and tells the story of Jesus as we know it with countless embellishments. The Reise is a central part of the tale, occurring in paper 129, during the 28th & 29th year of Michael's time on Earth. It is integral to the completion of his mission. The narrative arc of incarnation, fellowship with man, crucifixion, and ascension into Heaven which is told in Michaels Reise is clearly the Biblical story of Jesus. The fact that it is happening to Michael makes it Urantian.

So too the story of Eve derives from Urantia's super-narrative, not from the Bible's much narrower one. The congress of Eve and Cano, depicted in Freitag, is taken directly from paper 75 of the Urantia book.

Lucifer never appears in the Bible as a character...and so forth.

But your point is taken. Aside from Thomas Ulrich's lecture, where he clearly stated that the characters of LICHT derive from the Urantia book (which I assume is not a citable reference here), has anyone else published this conclusion? As I said, there's a great deal of work to be done on this particular front, not to mention the textual analysis of LICHT in general. The parallels are inescapable, and it does seem clear enough that one can state on Wikipedia that these characters derive from the Urantia book directly, and the Bible indirectly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Trumpetrep (talk • contribs) 04:37, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps Bandur is the fellow to cite? My German is sketchy at best, but it seems to be what he's talking about here: Die Protagonisten Michael und Luzifer sind hier wie dort die archetypischen Gegenspieler bei der Erschaffung der Erde und dem Experiment, aus Materie Geist zu machen, lassen sich aber sicherlich durchaus ohne Widersprüche auch aus Grundkonstellationen der christlichen Tradition ableiten. Allerdings wirkt sich in Stockhausens sprachlicher Vermittlung der Anlage von LICHT das spezifische Vokabular und der Erzählton des Urantia Book so auffallend aus, daß vermutet werden kann, daß diese Schrift hinsichtlich der Gesamtanlage von LICHT impulsgebend gewesen ist oder zumindest Stockhausens unterschiedliche Überlegungen thematisch gebündelt und in einen geeignet erscheinenden Bezugsrahmen für einen "Mythos von heute" gefaßt hat. Als Beispiel dafür seien neben den schon erwähn. Trumpetrep (talk) 04:52, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Bandur's article is certainly the best source on the subject that has been published to date. The paragraph you cite is from the middle of the relevant material, none of which, however, supports the claim that any scene in Licht actually represents some event described in the Urantia Book. Rather, he points to particular words and expressions (“Nebadon", "Satania", "Creator Angel", "Sons of Paradise", " local universe"), the description of Michael and Lucifer as "brothers", and a vague "narrative tone" that demonstrate connections with the Urantia Book. At the same time he warns, in your quoted paragraph, that "The protagonists Michael and Lucifer … can undoubtedly also be derived without any contradiction whatever from the fundamental constellations of the Christian tradition." In connection with your perfectly correct observation that "Lucifer never appears in the Bible as a character", note that Bandur refers not to the Bible as such, but to the Christian tradition, which includes authors such as Tertullian (Contra Marrionem, v. 11, 17) and Origen (Ezekiel Opera, iii. 356), who identify Helel, the fallen star of Isaiah 14:2 (translated by St. Jerome as "Lucifer"), as well as the serpent of Revelation 12:5, with Satan. Other authors, also belonging to the "Christian tradition", have regarded Lucifer and Satan as separate entities, long before the existence of the Urantia Book, which of course draws on this tradition.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 19:29, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Don't overt connections like the union of Eve and Cano, which to my knowledge appears nowhere but in the Urantia book, count for something? Similarly, the incarnation of Michael on the planet Earth is also in direct contradiction to the 'fundamental constellation' of the Christian tradition. These variations on the Christian mythology are purely Urantian. By what method must one prove the connection for it be valid in your opinion? Trumpetrep (talk) 21:22, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

"Cano", father of Cain in Paper 75, chapters 3–5 of the Urantia Book, is almost certainly the source of the name "Kaino" in Freitag aus Licht, and his seduction of Eve there undeniably resonates with the story in real-scenes 1, 5, and 6 of Freitag. However, the differences are also very great—for example, the agent of temptation in the UB, Serapatatia (a name obviously meant to suggest "serpent"), is an "altogether honest and wholly sincere" dupe, and not Cano's father—by contrast to Ludon in Freitag who is both Kaino's father and some kind of manifestation of Lucifer. (Neither is the name "Ludon" or anything similar to it found in the UB—my best guess is that it is the first syllable of "Lucifer" compounded with "Adon", either the name of the Phoenician dying-and-rising god, or simply the Hebrew word meaning "lord", "master", and an epithet of God, especially when used in the emphatic plural, "adonai"). In fact, apart from the close similarity of names Cano/Kaino, and the seduction of Eve, there is nothing in the UB story carried over into Stockhausen's opera. These "overt connections" include the names and terms mentioned by Bandur, which are found in Donnerstag (mainly in act 3, scene 2, Vision, which, in my view, has the strongest connection to the Urantia Book in all of Licht—but this would be "original research"), and absolutely justify Kurtz's inclusion of the Urantia Book among the many sources of material for Licht. But to claim that whole scenes or acts of the Licht operas are dramatizations of parts of the Urantia Book is, on the strength of what I have read, insupportable.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 22:27, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

I suppose we'll have to agree to disagree until a more thorough working out is done by someone, but to me, it's quite clear that Stockhausen's characters derive from the Urantia book. Pointing that out is akin to pointing out that the sky is blue (to use your improper synthesis example). I'm curious why you didn't disagree with Thomas Ulrich when he stated that the protagonists of LICHT are the characters from the Urantia book. It's quite clear when a term like "Nebadon" or Urantia crops up in a libretto that Stockhausen isn't setting the Betty Crocker Cookbook. Is there a personal skepticism on your part that makes it hard to accept the connection? At the very least, one should be able to assert, without needing to cite someone else's research that the LICHT cycle draws heavily on the Urantia book. Perhaps a step back from my original assertion, but that point is undeniable. Why even the crystal imagery in INVASION draws directly from the descriptions of Edentia in Paper 43! The entire concept of Lucifer trying to thwart Michael at every turn is also unique to the Urantia book. I must confess that I find it just as insupportable to suggest that Michaels Reise is anything but a dramatization of the journey Michael undertakes in his 28th and 29th years. His journey around the world in the Urantia book is explicitly described as the means by which he realized his mission, making it possible for him to return to Heaven. This is not a Biblical concept at all. One could assert, as you appear to, that Stockhausen made it up out of whole cloth, but when the same exact narrative is present in a book he references repeatedly throughout LICHT (and which held a massive personal significance for him), to continue to insist that he's not dramatizing it seems to me, well, as you say, insupportable.

I do understand that Wikipedia is not the place for original research, and I appreciate your attention to the fine issues of style here. A more patient man than me will have to sort out all the Urantia stuff, as my eyes tend to glaze over after a few paragraphs of the nonsense.Trumpetrep (talk) 02:56, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Didn't I just get done agreeing with you that Cano/Kaino has got to come from the Urantia Book? It is also true that Michael, Eve, and Lucifer are all figures found in the Urantia Book—the problem is that, unlike Cano—they are not unique to that source. Certain attributes, such as the brother relationship of Michael and Lucifer, on the other hand, are more strongly suggestive, but don't forget that this same relationship pertains to the equivalent (though differently named) archangels (called Ainur), Manwë (=Michael) and Melkor (=Lucifer) in Tolkien's Silmarillion (and there is also the Urantia Book's Lucifer/Satan relationship in that of Melkor/Sauron, the Lucifer Rebellion, etc. in Tolkien's mythology). So, was Stockhausen familiar with Tolkien's writings? I did ask him once, but there is no point in saying what his answer was, since that would be "original research". However, it is well-known that Tolkien modelled his mythology closely on the Christian tradition, and it certainly predates the publication of the Urantia Book by many years. That Christian tradition also includes involvement with certain heresies, some of which (Gnosticism and Manichaeism, for example) are based on that dualism which the Michael/Lucifer, Manwë/Melkor, Christ/Antichrist pairings represent (which I think refutes your claim that "The entire concept of Lucifer trying to thwart Michael at every turn is also unique to the Urantia book"). Given that Stockhausen intensively read the writings of Helena Blavatsky, he would have been well-acquainted with … (Oops! More original research, cancel that). But I think you see what I am getting at. Because the characters Michael, Lucifer, and Eve, as well as their particular relationships in the Urantia Book, are not original to that book, even if we agree that Stockhausen was familiar with it (and I certainly would not deny this), in order to establish direct connections (as opposed to the eclectic method suggested by Kurtz and others) we have to have unique elements, such as the name "Michael of Nebadon" cited by Bandur, or events/storylines ("the same exact narrative", as you put it) found in the Urantia Book but not elsewhere. Since you mention once again Michaels Reise in connection with paper 129 of the Urantia Book, I suggest you take a look at Pascal Bruno's article on Donnerstag (Perspectives of New Music, 37, no. 1:133–56), in which he traces very different origins for this story, including the Book of Enoch and narratives from the Vedic traditions. Bruno never once mentions the Urantia Book, of which he may have been unaware, but has little difficulty in accounting for the events especially of Michaels Reise and Festival.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 05:30, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Postscript to the above: I have just been made aware of an essay by Joscelyn Godwin on the relationship between Gnosticism and Donnerstag. I have not yet read this article, but have added it to the Bibliography of this article on the strength of the title and reputation of the author. It seems pertinent to this discussion, also.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 19:57, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: moved to Licht. Favonian (talk) 11:33, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

---

I think the recent move of this page from Licht to Licht (opera) and the accompanying cut/paste of Licht (surname) to Licht was unnecessary and confusing. It created several dozen links now pointing to the wrong page, and because the new page is not categorised as a disambiguation page, it's not obvious to bots or readers that those links are wrong. A less disruptive solution would have been to create a page Licht (disambiguation) and a hatnote on the opera article to it. I suggest to revert the move and manage ambiguities through Licht (disambiguation). -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 11:36, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Not only that, the parenthesized element is inaccurate. Licht is not an opera, but an opera cycle, consisting of seven operas. Reverting and adding a disambiguation page seems the only possible answer.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 16:34, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Licht (opera) → Licht – See above. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 04:13, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

• Support per Jerome Kohl and Michael Bednarek - Licht is obviously the WP:PRIMARY, the question "what is Licht?" immediately means the opera-cycle. "Who is [Mr/Mrs] Licht?" gives no-one. Move Licht (opera) back to Licht. In ictu oculi (talk) 00:13, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Linking inline and full citations, and EXT

Wikipedia:Parenthetical referencing#Linking inline and full citations is recommended - maybe other editors are more likely to notice them ;) Also, the inline EXT e.g. The Licht Superformula is discouraged and should be converted to either EXT or refs. Cheers, Widefox; talk 08:19, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Yes, thank you for the reminder. I have been waiting now for about three years for the relevant templates to be adapted to the open-year format of Chicago Style, so that such links can be made in this article and about a hundred others. Perhaps it is time to post an urgent request on the template's Talk page (though past experience with such things suggests it will only be ignored). Thanks also for mentioning the EXT problem. I put this link in several years ago, before I had learned of this policy. It can be placed in the refs, though an author-date inline citation to it may be a bit strange.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 15:51, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Complete premiere

The Holland Festival plans to perform the world premiere of Licht in 2019 directed by Pierre Audi: Holland Festival – Beleid en activiteiten 2017–2020, pp. 8 & 9; Amsterdamse Kunstraad: Zo mooi anders – Advies ter voorbereiding van het Amsterdamse Kunstenplan 2017–2010, p. 77. Both publications seem undated, but according to their metadata, the former documents seems to have been prepared in February 2016, the latter in June 2016. Alex Ross just tweeted that he received an invitation from the festival to some kind of presentation on 20 December. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 14:51, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Rumours about this have been circulating for some time. While at least three previous announcements have been made, they all fell through, but the Holland Festival is not the kind of organization that often fails to fulfill a formally announced project, however ambitious it might be. We can keep our fingers crossed!—Jerome Kohl (talk) 18:39, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

It looks like it's not a complete performance, but they have a dedicated website and announced ticket sales. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 12:54, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

The ticket page has now dates (31 May – 10 June), a venue (the gasometer at the Westergasfabriek), and performance details (part1, part2, part3). -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 12:51, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Licht. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050904100330/http://home.wanadoo.nl/~alcedo.coenen/articles/licht.htm to http://home.wanadoo.nl/~alcedo.coenen/articles/licht.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:58, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Rename

This should be renamed, and Licht should go to the dab page. --2604:2000:E010:1100:11B:89F6:DCAF:9376 (talk) 17:42, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

What has changed since the 2012 discussion archived above on this Talk page?—Jerome Kohl (talk) 00:17, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

Talk:Licht#Requested move. Hyacinth (talk) 23:59, 25 June 2018 (UTC)