Jump to content

Talk:Das Lied von der Erde

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

NPOV

[edit]

due to religious and social issues This famous anti-Semitic firing is mentioned like this at Wikipedia in order to be NPOV? Wetman 18:34, 1 Mar 2004 (UTC)

It's written like that because nobody has bothered to change it, I guess. --Camembert

Instrumentation

[edit]

I played this last night, and fixed a couple of obvious errors in the instrumentation list here. In addition, there is one snare drum ("kl.tr.") roll in the Dover score - however, the drum is not mentioned in the list of instruments at the front of the score, and the publisher didn't sent us a part!

Also, the 3rd movement (two different editions of the score) specifies two piccolos, unison throughout. With deep respect for my flautist friends, there is an obvious intonation danger, and we only used one yesterday; I bet that's a common practice. David Brooks 18:19, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Analysis

[edit]

I'm not an expert on Mahler, but is not the analysis totally subject? At least cite some sources of reviews whereupon such an analysis is reached as the general consensus.

Analysis (2)

[edit]

I meant "subjective". The analysis is totally subjective. This article is not told from a neutral point of view.

Ilike1954rcamodels 01:58, 18 October 2006 (UTC)ilike1954rcamodels[reply]

I Agree

[edit]

This article is definitely far too opinionated and filled with original research. Of course, personally, I don't mind that sort of detail in an article since I believe that anyone should be able to tell when something is an opinion or not, and they can ignore it if they so please. I personally like having the opinion there in case someone does find it interesting, like me. Having said that, I recognize that such techniques are not consistent with wikipedia policy, a fact which takes precedence in the end. I probably wouldn't be bothering to join in here, however, if the article (no longer extant) that I began on the Song-Symphony hadn't been utterly lambasted with bouts of complaint about original research. I therefore feel that an article such as this, being (in my opinion) even worse than my own on the aforementioned subject, should certainly be subject to revision. Now after all of that ranting, I must sheepishly confess that I do not have the time currently to revise it myself (although if I did, I am sure that loads of ravenous critics would instantly tear my corrections to shreds just as they did my previous contributions). I will, however, post an uncyclopedic template on this article for the time being, in hopes that someone will take it upon their brave selves to actually do the dirty work. Finally, to the person that wrote the phrases to which we here object, I feel extreme sympathy for you, as I have experienced such criticism in the past. Unfortunately, however, the greater good must be served, and our opinions have no place here. Europus 01:12, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Edits

[edit]

I replaced the non-neutral material in the article's introduction with an actual definition of the piece. I only found this definition on a web page after searching for some time, however, and someone who has more reliable sources on hand should check it to verify its correctness. Thank you.

Europus 01:23, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

'Unencyclopedic'?!? Abysmal, more like!

[edit]

This is probably the worst music-related article I have ever seen on wikipedia. It needs wholesale revision. I have provided a better opening paragraph, but do not currently have the time to work on the rest. The 'Origins' section, for a start, requires almost total recasting: as currently constructed it contains hardly anything that is worth keeping. Pfistermeister 06:45, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Complaints

[edit]

Yes, as others have observed, this article has some real problems: specifically, it contain copious amounts of subjective analysis which runs afoul of WP:NOR and/or WP:NPOV. Why, though, has no one simply taken the initiative to root this out (preferably replacing it with solid material, although better to have no material than unencyclopedic material)? I guess I shall have to do so; I invite any others who want to to join in. Heimstern Läufer 05:09, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It should be noted that, while this is probably the most extreme example I've seen yet, many classical music articles on WP have problems like this one. Note that WP:CM has some guidelines concerning what should and should not appear in our articles. Heimstern Läufer 05:23, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
OK. I think most of the most obviously offending material has been scrapped. Unfortunately, this leaves a substantially shorter article, but it is better than one with flagrant original reasearch. More objective observations based on the score would probably help us bring the article back to a better length. Heimstern Läufer 05:07, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"libretto?"

[edit]

I haven't looked yet at the problems cited by the other editors (I just stopped here quickly to pick up the url so I could cite it on a page I was writing for my blog) -- but I was kind of disturbed by the term "Libretto." I've always felt that term applied to the text of an opera -- and it thus seems disturbingly inappropriate to the sense both of Mahler's music and to the texts he set. I think "text" or "texts" would be a better term.William P. Coleman (talk) 04:56, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The trouble with Mahler analysis is that there isn't a consensus about his compositional thinking. So, like it or not, comments are going to be subjective, and may well look like "original research". But it ought to be possible to explain why he thought of this work as a symphony (he deliberately withheld a number from it, because he had a superstition about Ninth Symphonies being terminal: the work we know as his Ninth was in fact his Tenth, and, like Das Lied von der Erde, posthumously premiered). This article doesn't address that. It has been suggested that the six movements can actually be seen as covering the traditional four - movements 3 -5 jointly fulfilling the scherzo function and helping to balance the finale. (One also quotes the Eighth Symphony's second movement). It might be possible to find in the finale a texture resembling a hybrid of scena and aria (two of each, separated by a funeral march, based on elements of the Trinklied which begins the work, in the role of a development section) and sonata. The last section of the finale with its repeated "Ewig", could also be seen both as a cabaletta and the coda to the whole symphonic conception. So the intellectual and formal weight distribution of the classical symphony is completely reversed. But we still have something which can be called a symphony, even though nothing more different from its immediate predecessor, the Eighth, could be imagined. I'm not proposing this as an addition to the article, simply suggesting that it wouldn't be too hard to find similar thinking in the literature.94.192.68.44 (talk) 16:31, 12 January 2011 (UTC) Croy379[reply]

Error, wrong poet, "Der Einsame im Herbst"

[edit]

Both in the paragraph 'Text' and in 'Structure', the Chinese poet Chang Tsi is mentioned as the author of the original "Der Einsame im Herbst" poem. This is wrong. I did some research in the sources, the evidence of the error is threefold:

1. Wikipedia's own article on Chang Tsi mention that it is an error to attribute "Der Einsame im Herbst" to this poet. Instead it should be Qian Qi.

2. This reference: Der Einsame in Herbst, including both the original Chinese text and several translations of it, clearly attributes the poem to Qian Qi.

3. The poem in question is part of the Quantangshi collection. The poem is in volume 236, and can be found online with at a project putting original Chinese classical works online: quantangshi online.

Unless there are objections, I would therefore like to proceed and remove references to Chang Tsi and instead refer to quantangshi and Qian Qi. Uffe (talk) 11:41, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

More analysis of sources: The poet Qian Qi (Pinyin spelling) was in early XX century sources often called 'Chien Chi'. This was before pinyin became norm. This lead to confusion between him and another poet called 'Chang Tsi' alias 'Chang Chi' or even 'Tschang Tsi'. I have looked further and found that fr.wikipedia has the full correct story, but da/de/nl.wikipedia also fell in the trap and have the wrong poet. I have not checked in the rest of the languages. I also read the original poem in the quantangshi collection. A bit difficult for my beginner Chinese level, but the poem is a beauty. However, it is also worth mentioning in the article that Das Liad v d Erde only use the first half of the poem.Uffe (talk) 21:41, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Did the changes, as explained above, also in the da.wikipedia, de.wikipedia and nl.wikipedia.Uffe (talk) 00:48, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Text

[edit]

I just added some German text to the article. I know WP guidelines are to put in English -- I will be doing this soon. I like the way it's formatted on the Beethoven's ninth page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Symphony_No._9_%28Beethoven%29 and I shall try to follow this model. Does anybody have any better ideas?
jonathan riley (talk) 15:51, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Das Lied von der Erde. 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:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 04:41, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Musical notation Lied 6

[edit]

In the second example, the third slur shouldn't be there. Because a) I don't know if this is an exact copy of the Urtext and b) I don't know how to use Wikipedian musical notation, I'm not changing it. Barbara Touburg (talk) 20:03, 25 November 2018 (UTC) (musical typographer and musicologist)[reply]

Levitsky's "Earth Prayers" as "answer" to Das Lied

[edit]

I seem to have accidentally stumbled into an edit war with 2-xite concerning Earth's Prayers by Alfred Momotenko Levitsky. Specifically, it deals with the work's designation as a "companion piece" or "answer" to Mahler's Das Lied von der Erde. According to a blurb on the Dutch New Music Now website, the work was apparently intended by its composer as an "answer" to the Mahler. I'll quote verbatim in Dutch (with bolding of word "answer"): "Alfred Momotenko-Levitsky schrijft met zijn premièrestuk ‘Earth’s Prayers’ een ‘antwoord’ op Mahlers ‘Das Lied von der Erde’." 2-xite keeps insisting I'm fabricating this or making a "speculation." Not even sure why they think this; I have tried making it clear to them in my edit summaries that the work is described as an "answer" in the article which I cited. It has nothing to do with me. To be clear, I have no horse in this race one way or another. I'd never even heard of Levitsky until another editor posted the work a few days ago. Anyway, I would appreciate getting some consensus on this matter in order to settle it one way or another. Thanks in advance to all. CurryTime7-24 (talk) 06:55, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The current sentence in the "Related works" looks fine to me, and seems to be backed up by sound sources. Aza24 (talk) 07:20, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • War?! You have time to all this... Right? And you read Dutch... And you have to promote Dutch Music Now... I see. OK, here are the program notes: https://www.nporadio4.nl/media/com_nporadio4/files/NTRZM2021-04-24-web2.pdf There is not a word about "answer" to something. The editor on that site did just put some thoughts to fill the space because that person did not have enough time/info/sense (or else)e to write, but it doesn't need to be repeated here. Right? Read the program notes, please.

Some quotes (emphasis added in translations):

  • From New Music Now website:

IMHO, "answer to ...", "commentary on ..." and "companion piece" indicate more or less the same: the expressions hardly indicate a different nuance. The problem is, however, afaics, that these are hardly sources independent of the composer (program notes, quotes by the composer,...) and as such seem insufficient to include this information in this article. Failing any independent (secondary) reliable sources on the topic this can (at best) be included in the Alfred Momotenko Levitsky article. --Francis Schonken (talk) 06:58, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Recordings section?

[edit]

What is the purpose and rationale for such a long, primary list of recordings? SPECIFICO talk 16:06, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Probably worth cutting it, or at least significantly shortening if some sources can be found to built consensus on the "most notable" recordings. --Noahfgodard (talk) 17:08, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, although unfortunately that is tricky because there's a strong bias to recent recordings and raves by relatively uninformed reviewers. The alternative might be one of our typical "list articles" which are basically permitted editor-selected significant items. SPECIFICO talk 17:22, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Numbering of Mahlers last symphonies

[edit]

If Mahler were indeed superstitious (which he wasn't!) and feared the number nine, he would logically number his next symphony (after "Das Lied v. d. Erde") as his TENTH symphony. But in both the manuscript and the publishing contract he numbered it as his Ninth and the following (incomplete) symphony as his Tenth. This is again one of those silly and inconsistent stories that Alma Mahler peddled about her late husband. Knud Martner, Copenhagen. 85.81.50.123 (talk) 00:17, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Das_Lied_von_der_Erde&oldid=1212378160"