Talk:Moses und Aron

Comment

Isn't the whole first section ripped directly out of the liner notes to the Boulez 1996 recording?!?

Please don't leave anonymous messages! Always sign! - Kleinzach 22:10, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

I can confirm this, because I just read the two back-to-back. Nearly the entire "History of composition" section is cribbed from an essay by Moshe Lazar entitled "Schoenberg's Journey to His Roots," which appears in the liner notes to the aforementioned Boulez recording. Isn't this a copyright violation? I have no clue about Wikipedia's procedure/practice in these situations, so I'll leave it to you folks. --ArbutusWD —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.234.12.251 (talk) 02:09, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Rote Blick Image -- why?

Much as I love it, I don't think Schoenberg's painting "Der Rote Blick" really has much direct relevance to Moses und Aron; it should probably be removed from this article, unless anyone has objections. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.1.156.241 (talk) 02:24, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Recordings

I changed the recordings section to a list because lists are easier to read. I eliminated mention of which company originally issued them because this always changes through merges and through corporate evolution. There was one live performance mentioned and I eliminated that since it's not commercially available. -- kosboot (talk) 15:18, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Tone row

I've read that the opera is based on a single tone row, which is heard as the one line sung by Moses ("Reinige dein Denken..." The row itself has some interesting characteristics. Perhaps someone can show that in musical notation and explain how it works throughout the opera. -- kosboot (talk) 22:36, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

'Aaron'...?!?

The trouble with rendering 'Moses und Aron' as 'Moses and Aaron' and claiming that 'Aaron' is 'the English version of Aron' or some such, is that 'Aron' isn't actually the German version of anything: Schoenberg made a conscious creative decision to simplify and shorten the spelling he found in Luther's Bible -- whence *we don't have the right to change it back*. Since 'Aron' is thus *part of the work*, it follows that to refer to Schoenberg's Aron as 'Aaron' is as deplorably high-handed and ignorant as it would be to refer to Wagner's Wotan as 'Odin' and Berg's Wozzeck as 'Woyzeck', and for precisely equivalent reasons. So let's keep Schoenberg's spelling, please: an ignorant editor's busy-work should not trump the facts of the case, even if he does work at the New Grove. Pfistermeister (talk) 19:52, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Both New Grove and The Viking Opera Guide translate the title as Moses and Aaron (while explaining Schoenberg's superstitious reasons for the shortened name). The Biblical character's name in English is Aaron, so Luther's translation is irrelevant here. --Folantin (talk) 20:05, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm afraid none of that is good enough. (i) Grove is not infallible or unchallengeable; (ii) The 'Viking Opera Guide' is hardly a heavyweight source; (iii) an operatic character is whatever the libretto and score call him, not what some English translation of a religious text that is never actually quoted calls him. What is more, what you refer to as Schoenberg's 'superstitious reasons' are *mere speculation* -- but even if they weren't, *what right would you have to put back the discarded letter*...? Leave Schoenberg's text alone, please. Pfistermeister (talk) 20:29, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

So are we no longer now looking to New Grove for style as I had thought? Theshoveljockey (talk) 20:31, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

By all means look to Grove for style. But substance trumps style -- and on this point of substance, Grove is simply wrong. There is actually a sad and silly history of English editors thoughtlessly assuming that 'Aron' is the normal German equivalent of 'Aaron' and silently putting in the letter that Schoenberg took out. But it is still wrong; there are articles that explain why it is wrong; and there are specialist sources in English that preserve 'Aron', and give their reasons. Pfistermeister (talk) 21:26, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Also, do we need to change all references to Macbeth to Macbetto, etc.? Theshoveljockey (talk) 20:36, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Your rhetorical question has no merit. 'Macbetto' is not the composer's personal variant spelling. If it were, we'd be wrong to reinstate the form he changed, and equally wrong to make it 'Macbeth'. Discussion of this topic requires rather better logic than you are employing. Pfistermeister (talk) 21:26, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

(ec) Pfistermeister's reasons are totally specious. Both Grove and Viking are reliable sources, in spite of his cavils. Also, Hans Keller and George Steiner (among others) refer to the opera as Moses and Aaron in English. I'm sure Pfistermeister can come up with other sources which translate the title as Moses and Aron and I'd be interested to see them. No doubt such translations are out there but I'm equally certain this is no more than a matter of personal preference rather than an issue of world-shattering importance. We should go with Grove. However, if Pfistermeister insists on keeping the translation on this page as Moses and Aron, could you at least avoid linking to a disambiguation page for "Aron". Cheers.--Folantin (talk) 20:44, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree, but Pfistermeister seems to feel strongly about this and I don't want to get into an edit war today. I will probably revert this again or somebody should. I mean, if we don't accept New Grove then what do we accept? The reason we go to style guides is to maintain consistency: I have many times (including my current job) worked under style guidelines that I do not entirely agree with, but you do it anyway. Obviously "an operatic character is whatever the libretto and score call him" is an unworkable concept or else we need to start working on our Cyrillic skills, etc. Theshoveljockey (talk) 20:54, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

I've already changed it to Moses and Aaron. We have reliable sources for this spelling. --Folantin (talk) 20:57, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Also, I've just remembered coming across this [1]. --Folantin (talk) 22:34, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Category:Unfinished compositions completed by others

Re this revert: The article says

• Zoltán Kocsis (Hungarian conductor, composer and pianist) had received permission from Schoenberg's heirs in 2009 to complete the last act, and his version was to be premiered in Budapest on 16 January 2010.

If that doesn't amount to an unfinished composition completed by another, what is it? -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 11:17, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

We should probably bring this up on WP:OPERA and/or WP:Music. Although he never set the 3rd act, the opera as it is almost always performed is perceived as "complete." Was the setting by Kocsis ever completed? I'm trying to think of works which are basically complete but to which other composers have appended something, and I'm coming up empty at the moment. I'll bring it up on WP:Opera. -- kosboot (talk) 17:31, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Someone in WP:OPERA weighed in. Doesn't feel right to me (one could consider all those orchestrations "completions") but in deference I'll put it back. -- kosboot (talk) 13:28, 17 May 2012 (UTC)