Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Richard Wagner/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

Hello

Welcome to the Richard Wagner Wikiproject. Please add comments or discuss ideas for improving articles related to RW here.--Dogbertd 12:40, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

And hello to you. I've updated and expanded Wieland Wagner relatively recently and created Karl Ridderbusch. Both are members of Category:Wagnerites which might deserve a mention on the project page. When I joined WP:WPO I mentioned a load of operas for which I had the libretto and which I was going to work on. This included Die Feen. It was a little down my list, but I could pop it up if you want to see signs of activity.

BTW I shall shortly be sending a list of categories for a bot to stamp with the WPO tag. I intend to include Wagner's operas in there.

What else? There's a comment from me from before I joined Wiki in Talk:Der Ring des Nibelungen about the so-called Redemption through Love motif and the discussion in the article. I still feel that we should follow RW himself and call it the Glorification of Brünnhilde motif and get rid of the ignorant comments of GBS which fail to understand its significance.

Anyway, I have some work deadlines coming up so don't expect immediate action from me on these. But I do plan to look at them in June.--Peter cohen 13:34, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi Peter and Dogbertd -- I'd love to join you guys at some point. I love the work of Wagner, but right now I've got my hands full with Handel. Don't mind if I keep an eye out and pop in from time to time, though. Things here look like they're going in a great direction. Fred 05:16, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

To do List

Right, I've started making some suggestions on articles needed. Let's make them think that all two of us have grand plans. ;-) --Peter cohen 07:08, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Congratulations

Congratulations on starting this. I'm sure you will get a lot of members. I have put an announcement on the Opera Project. I am hoping that this project will use the styles, categories etc of the parent project while developing them and generally aiming for a much higher standard of article than is possible with opera in general. -- Kleinzach 01:52, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! My objective frankly has always been to ensure that Parsifal and Tristan und Isolde end up as featured articles. To a lesser extent I'd also like to see this for Richard Wagner, Die Meistersinger von Nurnberg and Der Ring des Nibelungen. While I think that the articles on Wagner himself, and Parsifal are getting there, I still believe there's a lot to be done for the rest of the mature operas and will be putting most of my efforts into this. I do think it will be important to adopt a unified style for the articles on the operas (removing trivia, etc.) so that they look as good as they can.--Dogbertd 13:02, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Unified style

Proposing a format for our unified style for discussion here sounds like a good preliminary task then. We're now reaching the sort of numbers where a sensible discussion can be held. Who wants to produce it? Dogbertd are you willing to do so, having got Parsifal to GA status?--Peter cohen 13:16, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

I think that the format proposed on WP:WPO#Article_templates is a good place to start, since this covers very fully all of the elements of opera as a staged artwork. For my part, however I think an encyclopedia article should also include sections on the inspiration and subsequent composition process. Fortunately we have a lot of information on these for pretty well all of Wagner's music-dramas. I should also add that, as this is a daughter project of the WP:WPO project it's important that we try to use a style that can be follwed for all operas in Wikipedia, and that we don't lose sight of the ultimate objective for WP:WPO, which is to improve all the operas in WP.--Dogbertd 14:13, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Looking at that template, neither of the opera articles I have created conform fully to it. The background section in The Silver Tassie corresponds to some of what you are suggesting. And I think with the possibility of discussion being quite extended for some operas by RW, this can't all go in the introduction section, but certainly belongs before the performance history. The music and libretto section in Blond Eckbert probably corresponds to the analysis part of the recommended "context and analysis" section, but I think in some cases can be separted. Unlike with Wagner, I feel justified in merging mention of the one recording of each opera with the performance history. So maybe we need to have a discussion over in WP:WPO on different levels of heading appropriate to different works. --Peter cohen 15:23, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

We've always had a relaxed attitude to article structure/sections at WP:WPO. The format at WP:WPO#Article_templates is more for stubs than developed articles. We have encouraged contributors to work on the different sections as listed in order to get viable articles started. In the case of the long Wagner articles it will be appropriate to create additional sections, both to break up the text and make it more readable, as well as to clarify the structure of the article. So I'd recommend going ahead with making the articles as good as possible and not worrying about uniformity, which in any case is not always a good thing. -- Kleinzach 05:44, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Lists of Wagner singers

One resource which may be useful is The Record of Singing which lists Wagner singers of the 'Caruso to Callas' era, this shows which Wagner singers have been covered and which haven't (e.g. Margarete Matzenauer etc). If you think it's a good idea we could put a subsection of them up on the project page in an 'articles wanted' section. -- Kleinzach 02:06, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

I have started a subpage List of article-worthy Wagner singers. It's very much a work in progress. I've started with the period 1900-1950. It needs checking. Some of the names should probably come out and others added. -- Kleinzach 11:37, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Categories mentioned on project page nominated for deletion

Wagnerites and Anti-Wagnerites proposed for the chop

Rather than just rushing in and opposing the deletion, I think there needs to be some thought on how we will use the categories. There seem to be a fair number of Wagnerians (i.e. performers of RW's works) in the Wagnerites categories and I think we may need to think about a distinction between those tow concepts. The likes of Ridderbusch and Melchior were largely known as Wagner performers. Bruckner was influenced by him. Ludwig II sank substantial money into supporting him. All of these should of mentions of Wagner in their articles and should be linked to a group of similar people. But should they all be in the same category?--Peter cohen 23:16, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't see any point in listing performers and other poeple who have not specificially written in support of Wagner's ideas as Wagnerites. That category is much inflated. Frankly I am inclined to vote in favour of deletion but would be interested in other opinions before I do. -- Kleinzach 23:53, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

On consideration I'm coming round to the view that Wagnerism was really a historical movement, and that the importance of aligning yourself with or against Wagner was restricted to the 19th century. In the 20th Century there have been larger beasts to fight for/against, and in any case Wagner has become less important as a composer (because of the reduced importance of "classical music" in the west) and more important as a symbol of German nationalism, so that the labels "pro"- or "contra"- Wagner now no longer refers to ones feelings about his operas or his music, but how one reacts to the portrayal of him as a symbol of Germany. I guess this is rather a longwinded way of saying that I would not oppose deletion.--Dogbertd 08:32, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Project banner

I note that the project page makes mention of this project potentially engaging in assessments. Unfortunately, I see no evidence of a specific template which could be used as the project banner which could be used with which to do assessments. I have rather a fair amount of experience in creating such templates, so, if you want any help creating one, please leave me a message on my talk page with some indication as to what you want in the banner, and I can create at least the basic structure which you could later modify. Thank you. John Carter 15:47, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks but we also have some experience with project banners. Thanks for the offer though. -- Kleinzach 01:25, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

I've now made a banner which is here: Template:Wagner. Please check both the design and wording and make suggestions as appropriate. The coding is {{Wagner}} and it looks like this: -- Kleinzach 02:11, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Nice work! I think this is great. Would it be an idea to make the bolded project talk page into a Wikilink?--Dogbertd 07:50, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

It is! Because this is the Talk page it appears in bold! Please note that I have now simplified the text to make it a little less wordy.-- Kleinzach 10:50, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

I have now put a link to the banner on the project page. -- Kleinzach 00:46, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Use of the project banner

The Gilbert and Sullivan Project put their banner on G&S category talk pages. Will we do the same? This would mean that the banner would go on the three special Wagner categories, but not on any page that didn't belong to a Wagner category. Is that reasonable? -- Kleinzach 10:28, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

I have now put the banner on all Wagner category talk pages. -- Kleinzach 02:13, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Tannhäuser

Didn't know this project existed - I've just made an attempt to extend, correct and copyedit Tannhäuser (opera) - especially the first section of the article - . --Smerus 19:43, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

You will be most welcome if you like to join and take part in developing it. -- Kleinzach 00:41, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Greetings! Excellent work on Tannhäuser. I'll add some verification ASAP.--Dogbertd 09:35, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Peer Review of Tristan und Isolde

I think we're getting there with Tristan und Isolde. Before I go for external peer review, I'd like to invite comments from this august body of experts. A couple of things jump out immediately, and which I'll try to fix:

• the synopsis has no wikilinks
• still need more verification in some of the sections (Reactions to.. and the Recordings sections, in particular)
• I mean to expand on the bibloigraphy section with some comment on the reason for inclusion of some of these works.

Any other comments for improvement would be gratefully received. I'd like to see T&I become the first opera FA.--Dogbertd 10:19, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, Porgy and Bess beat you to it. Perhaps the first incontrovertible opera FA. --Alexs letterbox 12:39, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

I'll look it over. Although I don't really have any substantial Wagner books to hand, I can at least do some copy-editing. From what I've seen of the FA process, be prepared to be disappointed. It's unlikely they'll address any of the actual content, but you'll get lots of minor linguistic quibbling and requests for several thousand citations. In other words, last time I looked, there were way too many Beckmessers there. But maybe I'm being overly pessimistic. --Folantin 08:42, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Well we can only try. I just thought some input before going for full FA review might be of help. I have a rather large Wagner library: if you think there's anything that needs referencing, let me know and I might be able to find something.--Dogbertd 15:04, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

It looks really good. I've just done a quick copy-edit. Worth mentioning Wagner's self-quotation in Die Meistersinger (Mein Kind,von Tristan und Isolde kenn' ich ein traurig Stück) or describing T&I's relation to his later operas? Thomas Mann's Tristan? --Folantin 13:56, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

I suggest checking the criteria for good and featured articles and look at some recent candidate assessments. I think the article will need hugely more citations even on quite basic matters of fact which we as Wagnerians all know to be true (Wagner writing the libretto, von Bulow conducting the premiere etc.) to pass. It may also be useful to dig out some more musical illustrations e.g. of the Act 2 non-resolution and Act 3 resolution of the Liebestod music. I think those would count as legitimate uses of musical illustrations within the copyright policy.--Peter cohen 18:52, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, they certainly like excessive referencing. --Folantin 19:03, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Oh another issue with referencing which I've run into with Troilus is that they want page numbers. --Peter cohen 16:04, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Well Porgy and Bess which was a FA has 21 references, and T&I already has close to this, and I mean to add a few more when I get a mo. So I'm not sure what "excessive" referencing is: I would have thought "sufficient" is what we should aspire to. I would also point out that most of our references do have page numbers.--Dogbertd 08:23, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Previously missing from the big list of projects

I've added us to Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Directory/Culture under opera. --Peter cohen 18:49, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Date for picture of Die Feen?

Several sites including [[1]] show a picture of the last scene of Die Feen with Arindal having just freed Ada with his lyre. Has anyone got a source with a date for this picture? From the style, it looks as if it ought to be out of copyright, but it would be good if someone could find out for certain, so I can include it in the article without fear of deletion.--Peter cohen 21:28, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Article assessment 1: proposal

Kleinzach has been pondering the question of article assessment, and has suggested to me that I might like to:

• devise a points system for articles falling within the scope of the Opera Project, based on some work I did on operas by Bellini
• pilot this on a subset of articles, the Wagner Project's articles being the easiest to define (and not too numerous)
• also pilot a version of the standard WP assessment criteria which has been modified by Moreschi to make it more suitable for opera topics. This can be found here.

The aim would be to see which method is easier to apply and also to refine both schemes, where necessary, in the light of experience, following discussion here. The results would then be taken to the Opera Project for further discussion before roll-out of one method or the other.

The points system that I've devised is only applicable to articles on operas. Different schemes would need to be developed for people and for other operatic topics (genres, opera houses, opera companies, festivals, opera history, etc.).

Here's what I've come up with for operas (I'm assuming that all articles will at least say "A is an opera by B to a C-language libretto by D, based on the [work] E written by F", and am not allocating points for this):

Elements	Points
Background/history of composition etc	15
Performance history, including recent performance history and creators of roles (the latter will normally appear in the Roles table)	15
Tabulated list of roles	05
Synopsis	10
Notable arias, etc: (preferably embedded in the synopsis)	05
Discussion of music	15
Recordings	10
Illustrations	10
Inline references, notes, sources	15

The points for each element are the most that can be allocated. Elements that are present but brief or incomplete would attract part-scores.

The maximum total points for any article would thus be 100. I'm tentatively suggesting that scores could be translated into the standard WP classification, as follows:

• 0-39: Stub
• 40-69: Start
• 70-89: B
• 90+: A

(Note that GA and FA classes are assessed and awarded independently, so do not figure in the above).

All comments and suggestions for improvement are welcome and should be posted below.

Timescale: I'll be around until Sunday, then busy and/or away for ten days. However, Kleinsach has volunteered to help with assessments, so there won't necessarily be a hiatus. And can I re-emphasise that this is just a pilot. The nitty-gritty of any specific assessment can (indeed should) be discussed here to help with refining the system.

(I'll join the project on a temporary basis while this is going on. On a personal note, I'm not that much of a Wagnerian. There's one opera that I really like and one that I'll be happy never to see again; the rest, such as Tristan, which I have a date with next Monday, I don't mind seeing from time to time. But none of that should affect the assessment experiment.)

--GuillaumeTell 17:58, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Article assessment 2: responses

I think we may need to see worked examples of the scoring. My instinct before a trial marking was that one article I contributed Blond Eckbert should rate as B. If I switched to inline referencing and reworked a couple of other things, it should have a chance to reach GA. However a first pass of marking it myself would go.

• Background: Brief but with the key facts 7.5/15
• Performance History: I think it covers everything 15/15
• Tabulate list of roles: Done 5/5
• Synopsis: Written in detail with the libretto to hand 10/10
• Noted arias: not discussed. Are there any? 0/5
• Discussion of music: Gives information on scoring and refers to comments in reviews but not to academic sources 10/15
• Mentions the one recording and that is original cast and has been broadcast etc. 10
• Illistrations: none 0/10
• Inline references, notes, sources: Does cite sources, but not inline. No notes: 5/15

I make that 62.5 which puts it in the upper range of start. And perhaps some of those full marks are a bit generous.

I suggest lowering the suggested percentages for grades. Also consider some marks for the style and comprehensibility of the article. There are some requirements for that for GA and A rating should imply reaching GA requirements too. --Peter cohen 18:40, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for this, Peter. I actually did a few worked examples when discussing the exercise with Kleinsach. One was Der Vampyr, more or less all my own work, to which I awarded 40 (Start). Agrippina (opera) got somewhere between 80 and 90 (arguably A) and Orfeo ed Euridice got 75 (it's actually a GA). Sorry, I added up the figures on the backs of envelopes and seem to have thrown them away - but I could probably reconstruct them (and y'all can have a go if you wish!). Lowering the suggested %s is certainly an option.

Your example above reminds me that I should perhaps have said that recent operas like Blond Eckbert are in some respects easier than older works, where, for example, the original cast is often very difficult to track down. For BE and suchlike, performance history, original cast and recordings can be pretty comprehensively dealt with (especially if you have the indexes to Opera magazine to hand, as I do), and I think that noted arias should be scored as 5 if there aren't any, which almost takes you to my figure for B. --GuillaumeTell 20:34, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

My gut assessment of Vampyr is that it is an obvious Start-class article, but it only gets the bottom mark for that grade. And if O&E is a GA, I'm surprised that it's in the bottom half of your B-range. I would therefore lower the suggested starting point of both those grades. On the other hand, I would argue that Agrippina should have some musical illustrations before it reaches A. Maybe the illustration marks should be broken down into piccies and musical illustrations.

How about these ranges?

• Stub 0-29
• Start 30-59
• B 60-89
• A 90+

I have now looked at Wikipedia:WikiProject Opera/Article ranking but have to think furtehr on what I think of its contents.--Peter cohen 21:22, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

We seem to have made a headlong dive into the detail here. Can I take it that everyone is happy about starting an assessment scheme here? If so perhaps we can put up a first draft on the Assessment page? I understand we will have to consider the points system, the ranges and the assessment criteria in relation to each other. IMO it will be easier to fine tune the system when we can see all the elements together. -- Kleinzach 01:35, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

As there have been no more comments, I've put a copy of the article ranking and the points system on the Wagner Project assessment page. Where do we go from her? Perhaps GuillaumeTell would like to edit it, and then maybe Peter cohen would like to review it again? Would that be a good idea? -- Kleinzach 07:53, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

GuillaumeTell has said he'll be unavailable for 10 days. Given this assessment scheme is presumably intended to roll out to opera in general, where should we best discuss it? --Peter cohen 09:49, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

No hurry really. Let's wait until he gets back. I think we are a long way from porting this over to the Opera Project. -- Kleinzach 15:35, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Article assessment 3: testing

(Just been encouraged again to comment by Kleinzach.) Whilst I'm not proposing a thorough scientific verification process for the scale, I think it might be useful to pick some articles with varied quality, take some votes on what they should rate as and then go through a marking exercise with the scales. That way we can both check that the results of the scale correspond with how people would rate the article subjectively and have some worked examples in which people get an idea of how to allocate marks out of ten, or whatever, for a particular heading. --Peter cohen 09:54, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Good. Perhaps you would like to suggest 4 or 5 Wagner articles for us to use as examples? -- Kleinzach 13:20, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

How about a mix of operas, RW and connected people and performers? Try this for size:

• Parsifal - AFAICT our only good or featured article
• Hans Hotter
• Richard Wagner ex-featured
• Wieland Wagner
• Rienzi

--Peter cohen 14:51, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

OK. I'll have a look at them tomorrow. -- Kleinzach 15:12, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Here are my 'scores':

• Parsifal Quality scale (subjective): A, points system 81=B
• Hans Hotter Quality scale (subjective): Start, points system 29=Stub
• Richard Wagner Quality scale (subjective): A, points system (not available for composers)
• Wieland Wagner Quality scale (subjective): Start, points system (not available for directors)
• Rienzi Quality scale (subjective): Start, points system 34=Stub

It seems the points system is more stringent than the quality scale (subjective rating). Over to you! -- Kleinzach 02:29, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to reveal my answers a bit at a time. Apart from the dramatic effect, my connection is playing up.

• Parsifal (subjective) A, definitely not FA yet. Missing things which I as an "expert fan" found missing include: The stage directions indicate that Parsifal is actually affected by Amfortas's pain during the Act I grail scene the Mitleid/"suffering with" of the prophecy. The borrowing of the Dresden Amen, doesn't get a mention. Shorter illustrations of mentioned motifs could help.--Peter cohen 12:10, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
• Marks:Background/Composition: 14/15
• Performance History: 10/15 Missing current place in repertoire, that it's a regular at Bayreuth, the innovation of the Wieland's Bayreuth '51 production.
• Tabulated roles 5/5
• Synopsis 9/10 Point docked re Act I mitleid above
• Notable arias 2/5: would have expected "Amfortas! Die Wunde", The Good Friday music etc. to be better distinguished in the synopsis.
• Discussion of music 10/15 Audio extracts of named motifs, status of Prelude and GF Music as bleeding chunks would help. Humperdinck's involvement in extended Transformation music because scenery too long. Even indication of length of orchestral preludes and interludes.
• Recordings 9/10. Perhaps mention recordings of prelude and GF music.
• Illustrations 8/10. Shorter muscial illistrations.
• Referencing, sources 11/15. Needs more inline referencing before going for FA. Doesn't use Grove. I have Lucy Beckett's Cambridge Opera Handbook and the ENO Opera guide and might look through them for other infos. I'm pretty sure that Beckett talks about how Christ is not named and views there as being pagan elements in the opera.
• Total 78/100

Three points difference in our total marks is within acceptable margin of error. What strikes me on this pass is that actually discussion on the significance of the text and plot is a vital ingredient for Wagner operas that isn't in our markign scheme. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.1.72.227 (talk) 12:49, 31 August 2007 (UTC) I was logged off in the middle of this edit --Peter cohen 12:56, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Hans Hotter: subjective: start. Scale:Background/studies 3/5, Early career/breakthrough 4/10 - (wasn't he going to be on the Walter Ring?), Mature career 15/20, List of roles - 0/10, critical appreciation 2/15 - needs sourcing, discography 2/10 - mentions two of the best known recordings inline, Bibliography 0/5 - not mentioned, I'd be surprised if there aren't books about him, Illustrations 0/10 even if pictures may nto be usable within wiki rules, some examples of his singing ought to be acceptable, referencing/sources 2/10 does mention some though not inline. Some of the evaluations could be attributed. 28/10 within spitting distance of your score.--Peter cohen 15:22, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Richard Wagner. Strong B. I think some of the interpretations of e.g. Judaism and Music need referencing before going for GA. It is rated as B by multiple projects.

I wrote it myself so am hesitant to push my view that it is a B. It is rated as a B by the biographies people. Can't we adjust the opera singer scale to allow for dorectors and conductors?

Rienzi subjective: Start/B borders. Scale:Background/composition 3/15; performanace history; 10/15, tabulated list of roles 5/5; synopis basic fact there 3/10; notable arias 0/5, Discussion of Music 2/15; Recordings 7/10, could do with indicating who performs which part and marking clearly which are overture recordings; Illustrations 2/10 picture of RW is in opera box and link to overture provided; referencing, sources 3/15. Total 35/100. Mark again in spitting distance of yours.

Conclusions so far. Scale points too strict. Need to adjust singer scales to allow for directors, conductors etc. Links need to be incorporated. Discussion of the text/plot and its significance needs to be incorportated into scheme. Forst two raters came out with only five points deviation over three articles. Need to see someone else try it, but pointer is to reasonable inter-rater reliability. If marks are within two of a rating category border, then a second rater might be called in.--Peter cohen 16:12, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

My first reaction is that GuillaumeTell's point system is a success - as shown by the fact that our scores are so similar. Obviously we agree about the scale, which at present creates too many stubs. We can indeed allocate points for directors, managers etc. but maybe not for conductors as we have never covered them within the Opera Project (another subject really . . .). -- Kleinzach 01:06, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Glad to get your seal of approval! I've been out of action intermittently for longer than I was expecting, but I did rate the first four operas (I'm ignoring Die Hochzeit for now) using my points system. I gave Die Feen (before recent improvements) 30, Das Liebesverbot 45, Rienzi 35 and The Flying Dutchman 55. On my scale, that would have rated Die Feen and Rienzi as stubs, and on balance that seems harsh, as Kleinzach pointed out to me. I'd therefore favour adopting the revised ranges that Peter suggested way up above. (One reason that I favour a points system, by the way, is that it makes it easier to identify the main areas of weakness in an article.)

I've also been engaged in a lot of back and forth with SatyrTN over amending the banner to show the ratings and include a pointer to a comments page. This has finally concluded and the result is at Talk:Das Liebesverbot. The actual comments have yet to be added onto the dummy Comments page that I created. If there is a rating but no comments page (e.g. for auto-stubs), then the reference to comments doesn't appear. Note that my attention has so far been entirely on opera articles, except that I discussed the singers points system with Kleinsach. —Preceding unsigned comment added by GuillaumeTell (talk • contribs) 11:12, 2 September 2007 (UTC)