Jump to content

Talk:Der Ring des Nibelungen/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

To do?

To do: Mention some of the important leitmotifs. Maybe Leitmotifs in der Ring des Nibelungen, with MIDI files?

this note is not originally mine, I found it on the article page and moved it here.MikeCapone 21:10, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Das/Der

This is something that has always perplexed me to no end — shouldn't the title be Der Ring der Nibelungen, given that Nibelungen is plural, not singular? StradivariusTV

I think Nibelungen is singular, with the -en indicating the genitive. But don't ask me why it doesn't end with an -s David Sneek 12:29, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The Nibelung in the title is indeed singular: in english it is the "The Ring of the Nibelung", and the Nibelung in question is Alberich: the title could usefully be translated as "Alberich's Ring". However there is also a possessive tense in there: the Ring *of the* Nibelung, and in German this results in the use of "des" rather than "der". Dogbertd 3rd May 2005

To elaborate further, der Nibelung is a weak masculine noun, which means that in this instance when the genitive case is used to indicate possession, it takes a suffix of -en instead of -s or -es to show that it is a weak masculine noun. The same is also true of words ending in -ist, such as der Polizist. Ed_Solomon 11:19, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Well said, thank you for bringing in the weak ... uh ... declension? I remember being confused by the hymn-tune titled "Lobt den Herrn", with "Herrn" looking suspiciously like an archaic spelling of the plural "Herren", suggesting the title should mean "[You-all] praise the gentlemen". The den should have tipped me: you can't construe Herr(e)n as an indirect object, so den is inconsistent with construing it as plural. Both singular accusative and plural dative forms are ended with -en for weak nouns. But the case for the word "Herr" is irregular for the singular accusative form as "Herrn", whereas the plural dative form is "Herren" as the general regular rule. So once you've gotten your head around the existence of "weak masculine nouns" (another one of those means "gentlemen", "Mr.", or "lord"), the singular masculine accusative is all you've got left. So the real translation has to be "[You-all] praise the Lord", or "Praise ye the Lord." Obviously. Honest. (And even if you can't remember how to decline a strong noun.)
But it's worth saying a little more, about how easy the original error is. Nibelung (any member of the race (dwarves?) whose home is Nibelheim) -- and for that matter Volsung Wälsung (any member of the race/family that Siegmund and Sieglinde are supposed to be founding when they commit, simultaneously, adultery and incest) and the Gibichung -- looks an awful lot like the special class of German feminine nouns that are formed from verbs using the suffix -ung. An example that comes to mind is die Besetzung from besetzen (roughly "the occupation" from "to occupy"), and to discuss the occupations of Poland and Czechoslovakia, you'd use the plural Besetzungen: "the day of the occupations" would be, IIRC, der Tag der Besetzungen. So it is very natural to expect Nibelungen to be the plural of Nibelung.
--Jerzy•t 08:13, 30 July 2007 & 02:50, 1 August 2007 (UTC)(UTC)

Why German titles?

Why are Wagner's works kept at their German titles? Is there any special reason to abrogate Wikipedia:Naming conventions (use English) in this case? Zocky 00:37, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

"only use the native spelling as an article title if it is more commonly used in English than the anglicized form" - the titles of Wagner's operas are more often used in the native form in English than the translated form. This is often the case for works of music (Beethoven's "Hammerklavier" sonata, Puccini's "La Fanciulla del West", etc). Dogbertd 08:47, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

First Studio Recording of the Ring?

Was Solti's really the first studio recording of the Ring? Furtwängler's 1953 Ring in Rome was the first, I believe, although I am not sure whether Moralt's 1948-9 Ring was done in the studio. I think it is rather silly how people find the need to elevate the Solti Ring any higher than it already is...

The Furtwangler 1953 Ring was designed for radio broadcasts and wasn't actually meant for release on LP, unlike the Solti, which was designed from the start to be issued on LP. Hence the Solti *was* the first. I also believe (but may be wrong) that the Furtwangler wasn't released until after the Solti was finished. I think the statements in the article on the Solti reflect the facts (it really was voted "recording of the century", etc), but if you can show otherwise, please amend. --Dogbertd 16:11, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

I see that the article was changed to show that Solti's was the first stereo studio recording. Thank you for making the appropriate changes.

(George I.

Characters lists

A question was raised about whether the individual operas should have character lists, in addition to the big list on this page. Per Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Opera#Include singers at premieres? I've been adding premiere casts, and because of different premiere dates and the fact that different roles of the same character were created by different singers (e.g., while Sophie Stehle created Fricka in Rheingold, Anna Kaufmann created her in Walküre), I think a single list would become cluttered. So I favor individual lists on the four opera pages, but I'm not wed to this if there's disagreement.

I agree. A full list could easily take up an entire page, and would seriously disrupt the flow of any article. This page already says that the synopsi (synopses?) are at the subpages. --Alexs letterbox 08:57, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

kupfer

shouldn't Harry Kupfer be mentioned in the "contemporary productions"-section? he is pretty well known at least here in germany; and his productions are a good example of the "modernize the setting"-strand, which are further remarkable because they were originally developed in the gdr. i don't dare to write anything into an english article, so maybe someone else could do so...

I would include Kupfer only if you think his stagings are in some way significant or important - it's probably not necessary to include every director who has ever staged a Wagner opera in this section unless you think they have particular merit. I suppose at some point we'll have to have a separate page on Ring productions, and I'd agree that Kupfer should be in that.--Dogbertd 07:39, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
I must confess to have never seen the Kupfer Ring at Bayreuth, but from what I have read, it was one of the more important Rings since the centenary Ring (and certainly more successful than Peter Hall's flop, which does get a small mention). --Alexs letterbox 23:57, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
The Kupfer was certainly reckoned a success by comparison with the Hall, but there's some debate about whether Hall's attempt to present a "realistic" or literal interpretation of Wagner's stage directions was fully supported by the Bayreuth management. However there's a big difference between the Kupfer and the Hall which might make it worth including: you can watch the Kupfer performance on DVD, while the Hall has vanished unrecorded into history.--Dogbertd 15:09, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Recordings

A new recording of the complete cycle done when it was performed in Adelaide a couple of years ago is being gradually released (at least in Australia). I don't have the details, just read a review in the paper. However, that will have to be added to the list of recordings

We will have to wait when it the last opera is released. It is noteworthy as the first cycle released on SACD, but I have not been able to obtain a copy (The operas are $120 each!). --Alexs letterbox 07:47, 26 July 2006 (UTC)


There's a basic mistake in the Recordings section of this article: conductors conduct -- not only the orchestra -- but all the singers, too; i.e. the whole thing.--80.223.18.180 20:07, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

  • It's something of a convention to refer to these performances by the conductor's name (the Solti Ring, the Karajan Ring, etc). I think it would be too unwieldy to include the details of all the cast members for each of the performances listed. Maybe the preceding text could pick out some of the most significant Wagner singers associated with some of the performances, if you think the cast are getting a raw deal?--Dogbertd 20:17, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
  • I Do think the Cast is getting a raw deal, but after someone deleated the cast lists I posted, I suggest an abriviated list. so here's what I think should be on there: Wotan, Brunnhilde, Siegfried, the Welsung twins, Fricka, Erda, Mime, Hagen, Loge, Waltraute and the Giants. Maybe the Gibitches, and in spedcial cases where a big stars sings a small role (like when Joan Sutherland sang the Woodbird in the Sotli Siegfried. Anyone object to that? -- User:TvsFrank13
Yes. The page would become quite unwieldy if we included all the soloists (which is effectively what your list does). This is not the Penguin CD guide. It is an encyclopaedia. I would suggest just mentioning Wotan, Siegfried and Brünnhilde. (BTW, I'm interested to know why you include the Giants, but the Gibchungs are only a maybe?). --Alexs letterbox 00:07, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
I agree with Alexs that the main article is probably not the place for this level of detail. However it wouldn't IMHO be out of place to have a separate article on Recordings of Der Ring des Nibelungen which includes details of "starry" casts and such like.--Dogbertd 15:32, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Adaptations/Parody

A famous parody of the Ring Cycle is "Der Ring Gott Farblonjet" (Yiddish ~ loosely "The ring Gott misplaced"), by Charles Ludlam composed for the Ridiculous Theatrical Company (off-Broadway). Der Ring Gott Farblonjet is in fact listed by Wikipedia under CL's works. See NY Theater Review [1] The RTC is now defunct, but there was a revival, see [2] It is certainly very funny and deserves a Wikipedia mention. -- 65.242.144.24 14:17, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

In my opinion, the Ring Cycle has been parodied so many times (and is so open to parody), that a list of all parodies (including the one you mention) would be unnecessary and add nothing to the article, which is long enough as it is. Also, Der Ring Gott Farblonjet only receives 76 google hits, raising the issue of notability.
Fair enough. I got 301 Google hits for DRGF so I don't understand your number of 76. FWIW Wikipedia already has a page for Charles Ludlam, and DRGF is listed there as one of his plays. It would cost nothing to put a link from there to here and vice-versa. No matter. -- 65.242.144.24 20:14, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
You would need to put it in quotes into Google, otherwise you would get pages that just have those words anywhere. However, I have thought a bit, and given that we have four one sentence notes on adaptations already, it would be unfair to include this one. I still oppose the inclusion of trivia-like sections as unencyclopedic. --Alexs letterbox 07:59, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
I did not insert the sentence into the main page. I have no strong opinion. I merely brought it to Wikipedia's attention, given that Wiki has an entry for Charles Ludlam, which mentions DRGF as one of his plays. BTW what was the criteria for including the other adaptations/parodies? (Anna Russell and Disney I can understand, they are famous.) (Addendem: I counted more than 76 Google links with Der Ring Gott Farblonjet in contiguous order. I stopped at about 112. This merely proves my life is so sad I have nothing better to do than count Google links.) -- 65.242.144.24 14:17, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
Admittedly, there is really no criteria for inclusion in a trivia section. I would remove the section entirely, but would have no justification in doing so. We might as well let it be. --Alexs letterbox 07:42, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
What's Opera, Doc?, starring Bugs Bunny and Elmer Fudd, may be the classic send up, the one so successful it may have closed the door on future parodies of the ring. --Phil Wolff 04:48, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Trivia

Alexs has suggested that the inclusion of trivia-like sections is unencyclopaedic. I think this point is interesting and worthy of further discussion here. Do the other editors of this page feel that the Trivia section should be removed? Where would we include thos snippets of information that don't fall naturally into the other sections we already have (eg. the points on the translation of the title into English, which does seem to cause confusion amongst English speakers)? Is there a Wikipedia standard on Triva sections?--Dogbertd 08:44, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps I should move this discussion to the Wikiproject. WP:WPO --Alexs letterbox 07:48, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
I would think that parodies, trivia, adaptations to other media, and other derivative work are as important to understanding music and myth as the original works. --Phil Wolff 04:48, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
Maybe let the trivia and derivative works section build up until big enough to warrant a page of its own. --Phil Wolff 04:48, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Orchestration

Does anyone know the size of the orchestra for which the Ring Cycle was scored? 152.23.84.168 16:08, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

I'll add it to the page, but its complicated (eg. in some passages the 3rd flute is added as 2nd piccolo, some horns take some tuba parts) --Alexs letterbox 02:56, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
Wagner was also credited for experimenting with the serpent (an instrument). I expected such an instrument in this huge opera. -- A Wang (talk/contrb.) 19:29, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Der Ring des Nibelungen/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

Comment(s)Press [show] to view →
B class. Coverage of Wagner's ring is shared with six other articles: Das Rheingold, Die Walküre and Siegfried Götterdämmerung, (Der Ring des Nibelungen, Der Ring des Nibelungen: Composition of the text, and Der Ring des Nibelungen: Composition of the music As before, I've 'credited' it with the information in the other Ring articles). However it could benefit from minimizing the overlap with the other pages, and also:
  • A full discography including historic recordings (which should perhaps go on a new, separate page)
  • More illustrations

-- Kleinzach 15:26, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

B class. Agree with Kleinzach's comments. Also:

  • Some more thought needs to be given to the overall structure of the combined articles and the relationship between this article and the others listed above. In particular, more useful links to and (especially) from the individual operas and the three Ring articles are needed so that anyone interested in (say) Die Walküre can easily access relevant information in the related articles.
  • More detail needed in individual items in the discography
  • Is the full list of roles really needed here?

--GuillaumeTell 10:04, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

55/100 This article has been written in Summary Style, therefore this assessment is made with that in mind. On these marks the article is in the top section of Start class, but I'm inclined to go along with above views that it is a B.

Given the current level of achievement and the improtance of the Ring itself, we should be thinking of working towards nominating this article for GA status. There is a fair amount of work needed first. I recommend reading Wikipedia:What is a good article?. Reviewers are particularly keen on appropriate fair use of pictures, on referencing, on the lead section being a summary, and on a good writing. As an example of a comment failing point 2 at WIAGA, "a full understanding of the story of the Ring cycle requires attendance at all four operas" requires a citation. On the writing of the article as a whole, I note that reference is made to the size of an orchestra three times. This is excessive and would get picked up at GA.

Here are specific comments against the WP:Wagner marking scheme.

  • Background/history of composition/discussion of plot and/or text, etc. 10/15: Reasonably good, but I would expect Feuerbach and Schopenhauer both to get a mention. Stabreim should me mentioned before the translation that uses it.
  • Performance history, including recent performance history and creators of role 10/15: Again pretty thorough. The Bayreuth role creators could be included here. The discussions of performance are a bit listy. I think a GA reviewer would expect some critical discussion based on reviews and secondary sources.
  • Tabulated list of roles 3/5. I disagree with GT and feel that the list of roles should be included here. But this should be tabulated with premiere singer's names.
  • Synopsis 5/10. I would expect a bit more detail here even with summary style. One paragraph an opera like this: "After being rejected by the Rhinemaidens, Alberich decides to steal the Rhinegold from them. He curses love and in so doing is able to forge the gold into a Ring that gives him power over others. Meanwhile the giants have built the castle Valhalla for the gods. Wotan, who is meant to rule the world through law and justice, has initially agreed to trade the godess Freia for the castle in the expectation that Loge would find something else the giants would prefer. The giants agree to accept the treasure of the Nibelungs instead, if the gods get for them. Reluctantly Wotan agrees to go to Nibelheim with Loge to get it. There Alberich has enslaved the other Nibelungs including his brother who has made for him the Tarnhelm, a magic helmet. Loge tricks Alberich so that Wotan is able to catch him. Alberich is forced to give up the gold including the Tarnhelm and the Ring. Wotan tries to keep the Ring for himself when the giants demand him, but gives it up when warned by Erda that his actions threaten the power of the gods. The giants argue over the Ring and the murdered Fasolt becomes the curse's first victim. Loge decides to abandon Wotan because he has betrayed his principles and failed to return the Ring to the Rhinemaidens."
  • Notable arias etc. 4/10 Do mention 4 sub-operas. Whilst, I don't think specific arias need to be named, it might be worth saying that certain "bleeding chunks" like the Ride of the Valkyries get played on their own and that there have been attempts by conductors to produce orchestral summaries. ("Ring without words", Stokowski's efforts...)
  • Critical appreciation, discussion of music etc 10/15. Again pretty good. I think the existence of extended orchestral passages could be clarified further. Given Redemption through love is named, it should be made clear that Wagner called this the Glorification of Brunnhilde. Someoen (Lorenz?) discusses the Ring as sumphonic - mentioned i think in Cooke.
  • Recordings 7/10. It's at that funny length where its long but not complete. Moralt is the obvious absentee as the first studio recording. I think a separate page could help in which the cast details can be given. Then here we can have a summary noting particularly significant recordings: e.g. Solti as first studio stereo recording, Krauss as heavilly recommending in Gramophone etc.
  • Illustrations, including musical illustrations 1/10. An attempt has been made to illustrate the article, but the picture is copyright and there is (and will be) no fair use justification. Some older illustrations needed. Also musical ones. e.g. "Redemption through love is mentioned, transformation of Ring motif to Valhalla). Use has to be within Wikipedia's policy, or out of copyright.
  • Inline references, notes, sources, external links 5/15 Good bibliography. Need more inline references especially when interpretations given or views are mentioned. Need more external links.
--Peter cohen 17:20, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Last edited at 17:20, 13 September 2007 (UTC). Substituted at 14:39, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Ending of the Ring

This section has been removed from this parent article and snythesised into the material to be found in the article Der Ring des Nibelungen: Composition of the text. Please make future edits on this topic to the daughter article.--Dogbertd 16:05, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Orchestration

I remember seeing a photo of Siegfried Wagner at Bayreuth with seven harpists for the Ring (the seventh for use in emergencies!). It's been a while since I looked at the full score. Does anybody know the exact details of the harps in the score (I know for certain that they appear in Siegfried and Gotterdammerung)?

There are six harps at the end of Rheingold, when the Rheinmaidens are complainign about the corruption in the upper world. 136.148.1.142 22:35, 26 March 2007 (UTC) Peter

Would you consider links to YouTube videos of the Operas appropiate for this article. GreaterWikiholic 02:26, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

It really depends if the copyright question has been addressed, see Wikipedia:Copyrights#Linking_to_copyrighted_works —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Alexs letterbox (talk • contribs) 02:40, 22 April 2007 (UTC).
So does YouTube have any video of pre-1911 performances? [wink]
--Jerzy•t 04:42, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Redirect list

In light of the variety of plausible misspellings, i'm listing the current Rdrs, in some case with notes.

Bad titles (bypassing urgent)


Bad titles (but as of 04:42, 30 July 2007 (UTC), unused in main namespace)


Good titles

  • The Ring of the Nibelung [English standard title; Good translation]]
  • The Ring Cycle [accurate & recognized description]
  • Ring Cycle
  • Wagner's Ring [recognized description, but may deserve a Dab, for sake of at least a few Web uses as short title for either Wagner's Ring and its Symbols by Donington (amusing: German title is Richard Wagners „Ring des Nibelungen“ und seine Symbole) or J. K. Holman's Wagner's Ring : a listener's companion & concordance.]
  • The Nibelung's Ring
  • The Nibelung’s Ring::used-by [smart quote? If so, probably needs bypassing]
  • Ring of the Nibelung
  • Ring des Nibelungen
  • Wagner's Ring Cycle
  • Ring des Niebelungen

Mis-cased titles (probably harmless if piped reasonably)


IMO, further Rdrs are needed for the combinations of

  • both in English and German,
  • with or w/o the initial definite article,
  • for
    the standard spelling Nibelung,
    (my own favored) misspelling w/ ..ie.. in place of the ..i.., and
    Shaw's English variant of The Perfect Wagnerite, omitting the ..e.. to produce "Niblung".

(They total 12 in number; some are extent but i think most are absent.) --Jerzy•t 04:42, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Redemption Through Love/Glorification of Brunnhilde

I think the discussion of the musical ending should include a mention that Wagner called the so-called Redemption Through Love motif, the Glorification of Brunnhilde, it appearing first when Sieglinde praises her. Adorno's argument is then shown to be crass as what Wagner is doing is highlighting her significance above Wotan and Siegfried both of whose music ends before hers. 136.148.1.142 22:33, 26 March 2007 (UTC) Peter Cohen

Right, and note that it is a variation on the "Brünnhilde as woman" motif, which in turn is a variation on the Valkyries motif. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.214.59.212 (talk) 22:05, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

4 channel and surround sound

Were any of the recordings made during the 1970s done in quadraphonic or 4 channel sound? Which ones are available in some other type of surround sound format? --Blainster 17:02, 22 September 2007 (UTC)


JRR Tolkien

On the 'RING OF THE NIBELUNGS' movie website, it says that J.R.R. Tolkien had said that "the Nibelung saga was an inspiration for his Lord of the Rings trilogy." Yet, this Wiki page had said that Tolkien had denied this. Which one can we believe? Wiki, or the official ROTN website? Sir Sanjuro 19:04, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

This article's assertion regarding Tolkien is not sourced, so it needs a citation added, or it should be removed. Many of the other unsourced statements in the article need to be tied to their presumed sources in the references given. --Blainster 17:02, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
Tolkein might well have said that the "nibelung saga" was one of his inspirations for LOTR, however the comment in this article refers to the erroneous belief that Wagner's Ring cycle (something entirely different) was an inspiration for LOTR. I'll try to add that reference when I remember.--Dogbertd 11:43, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
I don't think it is controversial to say that the Nibelung traditions in Nibelungenlied and in the Poetic Eddas were an important inspiration for Tolkien. However, once when Tolkien was faced with the allegation of plagiarizing Wagner, he responded with something like "the ring is round and there the similarity ends". We need to separate between the Nibelung tradition, which most assuredly was a major inspiration, and Wagner, which he denied as inspiration.--Berig 11:50, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
I've added the requested reference, and also provided a link to the relevant section of The Lord of the Rings.--Dogbertd 12:56, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

ROH ring circle 2007

Hi guys. At the moment in Covent gardens a very successful performance is running. I saw the first circle (2,,5,7, and 9 of october 07) and I was thrilled. I m trying to add a note for the performance but i ended up people talking about vandalism???? Could someone else write something about this production please in a way that it will not end up in a dispute - as i am not an expert in writing critics- because really your contemorary performances part is wrong absolutely inaccurate and incomplete as it doen t include this very important circle in covent gardens, and who knows what else. Thanks. Italiotis 21:36, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

You changed "Wagner wrote the libretto" to "Wagner wrote the alphabet" in that edit. Hence the vandalism fix tag. Tomixdf 07:21, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Sorry Tomixdf i did not made this change. Of course that was a serious vandalism from whoever did that and i completely agree with you. But it wasn t me.

I was just reffering to the the reference regarding covent gardens. I will reinclude a simple reference for that. Thanks a lotItaliotis 08:24, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

I've cleaned up the entry a bit. Then again, it is rather pointless to have a large list of contemporary performances of the ring in the article. IMO a performance should only be added if it is in any way special or revealing. In what way is that the case for the Covent Garden performance? Tomixdf 11:36, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree. The title of this section is notable contemporary productions. I've seen quite a lot of this one, and don't really see what is notable about it - unless you count Bryn Terfel's first Wotan or Pappano's first Ring.--Dogbertd 13:32, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
I agree that this one is nothing special and I don't really see how it is distinguished from other ROH productions such as the Hotter one in the 60s, either of the Friedrich ones in the 70s and 80s or the one in the 90s whose producer I forget. Of more interest may be the fact that the same producer did a Ring in Japan.
I think we might benefit from a bit of thought about the section as a whole. A paragraph on Bayreuth is appropriate, but it might do with a mention of how oftne they change productions. Then we can mention how large companies (ROH, the Met, Vienna, presumably) tend to have a production in their repertoire all the time and turn over stagings at whatever rate and contrast this with how smaller companies (Canadian Opera, Chicago) tend to reserve productions for special occassions and also a mention how smaller houses in Germany tend to regard staging a Ring as a more normal thing to do than those in other countries. And we need references.--Peter cohen 13:51, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Opera Vs. Music-Drama

The article begins by describing Wagner's works as "a cycle of... music dramas", and then, in the next sentence, refers to them as "operas". Syntactically, this suggests that the terms "Music-Drama and "Opera" are synonymous. Most Wagnerians would take issue with the blurring of that distinction. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.115.153.68 (talk) 22:16, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps, but are these articles intended for Wagnerians only, or for the general public, who will look upon all of these works as operas? I think the more general term "opera" is going to be more widely understood. --Kyoko 22:23, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
I agree -- one or the other should be put into a parenthetical, without equating them. The uninitiated reader who types "ring cycle" into wikipedia after watching bugs bunny wants to know within the first sentence that these are operas. Fireplace (talk) 01:26, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Setting

Does anyone know around what years the events occur in the cycle? I was thinking maybe early 11th century. Any ideas?

The characters who have historic basis lived during the Age of Migrations.--Berig (talk) 12:29, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
The Ring begins in "mythical time" with no human characters appearing in Das Rheingold. Later the cycle is base on usch sources as Nibelungenlied which appears to be set in the 5th or 6th centuries.--Peter cohen (talk) 13:44, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Few major or minor chords??

I have corrected the number of Double Basses in the Ring from 12 to 8 (12 Basses, that would sound like mud! - obviously a typo and nevertheless not found in the score) but being new to Wikipedia I'm not certain on how to rewrite the bit about the scarcity of triads. To say that simple major or minor (i.e. consonant) chords are rare in the Ring is misleading as they can be found on practically every single page. There is harmonic suspension and a great deal of chromaticism, but Wagner's music in an extension of tonal practices and can still be analyzed using conventional methods although I will admit that parts of Tristan are slipperier. The beginning of Rheingold is nothing but a huge Eflat chord that goes on for over 4 minutes. There are places where he extends 7th chords for an awful long time to create tension, but there is no specific avoidance or for that matter rarity in his use of major or minor triads Batonpower (talk) 00:53, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

In the end I was a big boy and I rewrote the passage. Batonpower (talk) 22:43, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. In the longer term, we need to find a proper source to reference this to. I guess you might be a conductor and able to understand a lot of this stuff yourself. But, Wikipedia policy says that we should rely on published reliable sources rather than the understandings of contributors themselves, whatever their expertise.--Peter cohen (talk) 12:03, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
Good to know, but I bet the original sentence did not come from a published source in the first place - it was way too naive. Anyway, I'll see what I can find, but it could be difficult: it's a bit like finding a reference saying that Pandas are never pink. I'll give it my best shot. Batonpower (talk) 17:27, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
You're probably right there. I do intend to work further on improving the Ring articles myself one day using sources such as the ENO opera guides and Cooke's I saw the World End but having extra people with a musical education involved rather than just intelligent laymen such as I claim to be will both provide a better understanding of what the sources are getting at and hopefully a knowledge of a wider range of literature.--Peter cohen (talk) 17:57, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Title of the article

I've never visited this page before, and I was very surprised to see it has the German title. In English it's virtually never referred to by that name, except in pedagogical and reference works; and even there, it might be "Der Ring ..." in a list of Wagner's works with all their formal names, but it'd be "The Ring ..." in the text of an article. As far as the English-speaking music-attending and CD-listening public is concerned, it's known by an English name (either "The Ring of the Nibelung", or just "The Ring", or "the Ring Cycle"); and this is an article written for English speakers. -- JackofOz (talk) 22:41, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

  • This is a fair point, and we should probably debate it, however the WP Opera project is clear on this (see[[3]])

"most operas are performed in English-speaking countries under their original names (e.g. Così fan tutte and Der Freischütz) and English titles for them should not be invented."

I would argue that Der Ring is most often performed in German under the German title. In fact performances of the The Ring are sufficiently rare as to merit comment - notably the Goodall performances at the ENO.--Dogbertd (talk) 08:23, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

The bigger picture is the whole context in which your quote appears:
  • The standard practice is to use English titles of operas for article names and in articles when it is common convention (e.g. The Marriage of Figaro. The Magic Flute, The Barber of Seville). This reflects the Wikipedia convention [to] use English in titles when possible. Nevertheless (and here's where your quote begins) most operas are performed in English-speaking countries under their original names (e.g. Così fan tutte and Der Freischütz) and English titles for them should not be invented. (my bolding)
The Ring's a special case in that it is not in itself an opera but a cycle of operas. Nevertheless, I think we should deal with it as if it were an opera. I'd argue that it's common convention to refer to the Ring by an English name, although it's probably just as conventional to refer to the individual operas by their German names. I'd never really focussed on this dual approach before, but that seems to be my experience. -- JackofOz (talk) 09:09, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
I think the common practice is to refer to it by an abbreviated name The Ring, Ring Cycle etc. I don't come across the full English translation The Ring of the Nibelung very often and we should not title the article by an abbreviation. (We don't call opera articles Figaro, Butterfly or Boris. The abbreviations themselves don't have to be assumed to be translated. Ring is a word in both languages and the can be used with untranslated titles such as The Oresteia. I would kep the German title for the main article and redirects for the rest.

I want to add Mark Twain's and Tolstoy's criticisms

...do I make a new section or take one from the ones furnished? --VKokielov (talk) 14:28, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

The image Image:Valkyrie4.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

  • That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
  • That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --04:16, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Adelaide 2004 not the first Australian production

This was widely touted as the first time the Ring had ever been staged in Australia, with huge hype. But it wasn't the first. According to Erik Irvin's Dictionary of the Australian Theatre 1788-1914, the Ring was performed in Her Majesty's Theatre in Melbourne in August 1913. The dates are:

  • Das Rheingold: 19 August
  • Die Walkure: 22 August
  • Siegfried: 25 August
  • Gotterdammerung: 29 August.

He gives no details of the performers, orchestra, conductor etc. Is there any reason why these performances shouldn't supplant Adelaide's claim? -- JackofOz (talk) 01:26, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Recordings

The entire section on Recordings must be re-written and edited for accuracy and clarity. It must be reorganized with subsections on audio recordings, video recordings and (because they are so new) Blu-Ray DVDs. The cite for DVD and Blu-ray recordings is http://stridonolassu.googlepages.com/ Oconnell usa (talk) 16:16, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Are there any Ring cycles on Blu-Ray? Your citation only mentions DVD, which are already discussed in the article.--Dogbertd (talk) 19:10, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
Yes, there is one Ring cycle on Blu-ray now available. All Blu-ray DVDs of Wagner (and other opera composers) are listed on the cited website. Go there, look in the right column under "Other", "Opera on Blu-ray". Then look down the list (sorted by composer). The sole Ring cycle Blu-ray is directed by Michael Schulz, conducted by Carl St. Clair, Deutsches Nationaltheater Weimar, 2008 (Arthaus Musik). Oconnell usa (talk) 19:36, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Singular or plural?

The composer himself described the work as 1 music drama, not 4. Peter jackson (talk) 15:25, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Removal of Trivia section

I have removed the following:

==Trivia==
  • The Nibelung of the title is the dwarf, Alberich. Der Ring des Nibelungen could be translated as: Alberich's Ring.[citation needed]
  • The German title is often mistakenly written with the article der repeated, Der Ring der Nibelungen, which means "The Ring of the Nibelungs" (plural, understood as the race to which Alberich and Mime belong).
  • Nerdcore rapper MC Front-A-Lot released a song regarding his experiences attending a performance of The Ring. He expresses initial disappointment that the opera wasn't about Hobbits and ultimate joy when the final act delivered a very pleasing conclusion.

The first two points are not trivia. The first has had the fact tag for some time, and the second is irrelevant as the correct spelling is used in the article's title. The third is unsourced and adds nothing to an understanding of the Ring in general (whereas the fame of Russell's interpretation merits an inclusion). --Alexs letterbox 08:41, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

This is certainly fine by me. I thought these bits really were very trivial indeed.--Dogbertd 18:46, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
    1. Alberich's Ring is not an accurate translation -- Alberich is of the Nibelung family/race, but not the only Nibelung -- but is an accurate English restatement of the implicit meaning: he is the Nibelung with a credible claim to owning the ring.
      And treating it as a title is not a widespread enuf error to cover: the first 30 of 103 unique and 286 raw G-hits on the phrase, i found [4] using the phrase in asking the question we asked above at #Das/Der [sic!: should read "Des/Der"], but no instances of it being used as the English title. (It does however appear in some of those hits as if it were translating some German phrase -- i haven't looked up to check it -- used by Wagner in the stage directions and/or dialogue.)
    2. A pair of G-tests shows that about 10% of Web pages commit the "double Der" (read aloud, ha-ha) error, which suggests that being overwhelmingly exposed to the correct title is not enuf to make people remember the correct title: the error is seductive, bcz a little knowledge is such a dangerous thing. (In fact, it's worse than previously stated; i'm adding a little more to the section i mentioned above under 1.) No, it's not trivia, but it is worthy of mention.
    3. The rapper & the hobbits are indeed off-topic in this article, which is enuf reason to remove them to this talk-page section. (Their being unsourced would justify a fact tag on them, but it is abusive to give "unsourced" as a reason for removal, without also arguing there is reason for presuming the info is false, e.g. at least "seems implausible". We delete for falsehood; we delete tentatively -- sincerly soliciting contrary evidence -- for either tentatively appearing false, or tentatively appearing unsource-able after making a sincere, even if not thoro, attempt to turn up some sourcing.)
--Jerzy•t 06:38, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
"Alberich's Ring" is not a correct literal translation, but it does show very clearly what "Der Ring des Nibelungen" means (ie that we're talking about the Ring that belongs to a single person who is a member of the race of Nibelungs - ie. Alberich) - and it was used as the title of one previous English translation of the libretto (Jameson, I think). This fact appears in Magee's book on Wagner and Philosophy, and so can be verified. I confess I was tempted to put it back, since it makes the meaning of the title absolutely explicit, but then I got sidetracked. --Dogbertd 08:18, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
I agree as to the virtues of the phrase: information is lost in translating of the phrase that serves as the German title, bcz the hint given by "des" doesn't get reflected in the English translation of the phrase, and it probably is obvious to many more German speakers than English speakers that a "Nibelung" is some kind of person rather than, say, a brand or model of car, or a historical event ("Risorgimento" meaning "unification of Italy"), or a metonym like "Srebrenica" (meaning "tragedy of oppression and neglect") or "Somalia" (meaning "utterly failed project"). But "Alberich's Ring" is not a translation, since it adds information to the title in the form of naming rather than describing the owner; i think it's worth making the distinction between a translation of a title (e.g., "The Ring of the Niebelung" or maybe even "The Niebelung's Ring"), and a substitute title (whether in the same or different language), just as we would never call The Professor and the Madman (American edition) a translated title for The Surgeon of Crowthorne (original UK edition). So i'd rather have it said that "Alberich's Ring" has been used as an English title for The Ring, and accurately describes its subject matter. And doing so may be a valuable addition; with such a change of wording, i'd have no objection to restoration.
--Jerzy•t 07:15, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
In regards to the Frontalot section (which I was just about to ask about here, but checked to see if it had been discussed,) here's a source for the mention about Frontalot, the lyrics straight from his site. http://www.frontalot.com/index.php/?page=lyrics&lyricid=39 Lucashoal (talk) 02:26, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
And since I see no support OR objections, I've cited the source and added it back to the article Lucashoal (talk) 07:30, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
I'm not sure that a section in the main article is the best way of doing this. I think there is scope for a Wagner/The Ring in popular culture article. Following "What links here" gives quite a few retellings of the Ring in modern media such as manga, so there is plenty of material for a list.--Peter cohen (talk) 11:34, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
You lost me there in all honesty. I'm not a huge wiki-editor, I just contribute where I can. If ya mean that an entirely new article for "The Ring In Popular Culture" should be made...then go for it. I just made this addition in particular since, as noted, nobody said anything one way or the other for almost two months. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lucashoal (talk • contribs) 03:00, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
This article is on a major opera. Adding information on some rapper distorts the article. A major work of art like this will have influence on hundreds of sources of popular entertainment, but very few of these (e.g. the Bugs Bunny parody) are important enough to be mentioned. This illustrates one of the problems with Wikipedia, which is that the relative importance of certain topics can be drowned out or at least distorted when people with pet favorite interests log in just to add their bit of popular kitsch. —Preceding unsigned comment added by AliceTaniyama (talk • contribs) 21:22, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
But Frontalot isn't just some rapper. He's the 579th greatest rapper in the World! And now in all seriousness, I get what you're saying. May not agree ENTIRELY, but I understand what you're getting at and will defer to popular opinion.Lucashoal (talk) 02:02, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for accepting this. I've just gone and chopped out a whole lot more pop culture trivia. This stuff isn't anywhere central enough as a fact about Wagner's Ring to go in this article. It might be important as a fact about a rapper's career or a particular video game etc to merit mention in articles on thos subjects. And, as I said last year, an article specifically on Wagner's role in popular culture could merit all sorts of mentions.--Peter cohen (talk) 20:30, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Instrumentation

The Instrumentation section needs quite a lot of work, so I'll start. There are two initial problems that must be addressed. First, each of the four operas requires different instrumentation, so each of the four Wiki articles should have a separate section for that opera's instrumentation. Second, as currently written (i.e. before my edit), the section confuses the number of instruments with the number of musicians (perhaps because it carries over the confusion from the Dover edition). I'll begin to correct these problems. Oconnell usa (talk) 18:10, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Glockenspiel. A previous edition shows that the Ring operas include the Glockenspiel. The Glockenspiel is used in Siegfried and Gotterdammerun. Therefore, this has been clarified. Oconnell usa (talk) 03:38, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
There is a prominent passage for glockenspiel in Gotterdammerung during the 'Siegfried's Rhine Journey' segment of the Prologue. In addition the article needs to have a separate note about the way a glockenspiel is included in place of the 'bird's voice' in the concert extract version of the 'Forest Murmurs'. Pfistermeister (talk) 13:03, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
Thanks Pfistermeister. Please post more info about the request for a "separate note about the way a glockenspiel is included in place of the 'bird's voice' in the concert extract version of the 'Forest Murmurs'" -- which concert version? Oconnell usa (talk) 15:46, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
Thunder Machine. Neither Wagner's score nor the Dover score includes a specific reference to the use of an instrument called the "thunder machine". However, since it is used in orchestras today to produce the sound which Wagner intended (see his quote in the footnote), it is included as an instruemnt here. Oconnell usa (talk) 20:35, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
Tenor Drum. The earlier edit included the tenor drum as an instrument in the Ring but did not cite which opera (or, for that matter, which score). The tenor drum is used in Gotterdammerung, so this has been clarified. Oconnell usa (talk) 03:38, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
Wagner Tubas. See the Wiki article on Wagner tubas for information on the tenor and bass versions, including their sizes (B-flat in F). Oconnell usa (talk) 21:10, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
An Opera-L contributor pointed out that, despite the fact that modern Wagner tubas play both the A-natural and the B-flat parts, Wagner's score requires all four Wagner tubas, becasue all four play at the same time. See, for example, the opening bars of Rheingold, Scene 2 (page 84 of the Dover Score).
Tenor-Bass Trombones. These now-obsolete instruments have been replaced by Bass Trombones, as is clarified in the footnote and the cited Wiki articles. Oconnell usa (talk) 21:31, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
Clarinets. As described in the Wiki artilce, Wagner's score requires a total of 6 clarinets: three A-natural clarinets and three B-flat clarinets; they are played by a total of 3 musicians. Oconnell usa (talk) 22:02, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
Bass Clarinets. As described in the Wiki article at [5], "Music is occasionally encountered written for the bass clarinet in A, e.g. in Wagner operas . . . . Very few, if any, modern players own a bass clarinet in A; these parts are therefore played on the B♭ instrument, transposing them down a semitone." Oconnell usa (talk) 22:07, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
Steerhorns. The steerhorns (also called "Wagner steerhorns", "stierhorns", cowhorns, bullhorns, etc.) are instruments used in Walkure and Gotterdammerung. A new Wiki article should be written for this instrument. Oconnell usa (talk) 00:45, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

The instruments for all three operas have been added and, as of now, are in the process of being finally edited, but more work will be required. Oconnell usa (talk) 03:38, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

I moved the Contrabass Tuba to the bottom of the brass section in each list. I expect this is consistent with all of the scores although I haven’t actually checked. The score order for Wagner tubas is a more complex issue, very clearly explained near the bottom of the Wagner tuba article, and I agree with listing them below the Horns and above the Trumpets here. Also, separating them from the Contrabass Tuba helps emphasize the difference between one kind of “tuba” and the other. MJ (t • c) 04:48, 2 May 2009 (UTC)


In all honesty I'd prefer that the instrumentation section reflects the players needed for the work as opposed to the instruments required. I think this is pretty common practice as far as Wikipedia instrumentation sections are concerned, since listing the number of instruments gives a false impression of the size of the orchestra. For example, listing 3 clarinets in B-flat, 3 clarinets in A, bass clarinet in B-flat and bass clarinet in A gives a casual reader the impression that the work calls for 8 clarinettists as opposed to the 4 actually needed. Doublings should also be placed in the article as opposed to the extensive footnotes, many of which I view as unnecessary.

I also don't see the purpose of listing the entire orchestration for all four operas when it's so similar across the board. An idea I had was to list a "core instrumentation" of instruments used by all four operas, then listing how the specific operas differ (e.g. Rheingold adds these instruments, Walkure has these etc.)

I'd be willing to make these changes myself, but I want your input first. TrumpetMan202 (talk) 04:05, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I agree fully. I’d like to see it exactly as you describe. MJ (t • c) 04:24, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
The edit I attempted to make was reverted, claiming not to see any discussion for this on the talk page. I don't want this to turn into an edit war, so these are my reasons why the current instrumentation section should be overhauled.
The current instrumentation section is far too verbose and contains redundant information which dominates the entire article. In my mind it simply does not make sense to list the individual instrumentation for each opera when it so similar for all of them. My edit listed the core instrumentation for all four works as well as additions made by each opera. It presented the same information in a much more compact format.
Another problem with the section is that it lists the number of instruments needed as opposed to the number of players. I disagree with this for the reasons given in my comment above. An orchestra would be more concerned with how many players they would have to hire as opposed to how many instruments they would be playing.
Finally, many of the extensive footnotes in this section are unnecessary. The purpose of this page is to list the players needed for the work, not to give a history of each instrument in the context of the opera. Much of the information contained in the footnotes, such as the doublings, can be included in the article itself.
There's a reason why my edit cut out so much. A good deal of this information is redundant and takes up space. For now, I am uncertain whether or not to revert to my former edit or to edit the page again to attempt to retain as much information of the original poster as needed. TrumpetMan202 (talk) 15:25, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
Just made another edit, this time retaining a good deal of the original instrumentation section. Let's hope it sticks TrumpetMan202 (talk) 16:33, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for the explanation. I just saw a massive chunk of information (14,000 bytes) was removed without discussion, so discussion to gain a consensus should be proceeded. And I can agree with your reasoning for the removal, so I don't think we have any unnecessary edit warring onward.--Caspian blue 16:46, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Der Ring des Nibelungen references in a video game - worth including?

In the video game "Sakura Taisen 2" (currently only available in Japan), a character named Reni Milchstraße can perform several different special attacks while in battle. Each of these attacks are named after the operas in "Der Ring des Nibelungen" (Das Rheingold, Die Walküre, Sigfried, Götterdämmerung). Is this worth including in the "Parodies and Popular Culture" section? Kero9x (talk) 18:27, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm afraid that the answer to your question is no. A major work of art such as the Ring are referenced in thousands of other works. This means that peripheral references such as the above need to be excluded or the section becomes so unwieldy as to be unreadable. It's not a major fact about the influence of the Ring, it might be worth a mention whenever an article on the game is written. Similarly it might be worth a mention if an article were written on the Ring's influence on popular culture. Thanks for asking, which a lot of people don't bother to do.--Peter cohen (talk) 15:21, 17 December 2009 (UTC)


Add something about the upcoming Met production?

Hi, It might be good to add something about the upcoming Met production.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/19/arts/music/19ring.html?_r=1&ref=music —Preceding unsigned comment added by Beagley (talk • contribs) 18:04, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Unless there's something particularly noteworthy or earthshattering about this production, I don't see why it needs to be included in an encyclopedia article. Not every production is noteworthy, and unless you wanted to have (eg.) a new sub-page on "Met Productions of The Ring" I'm not sure how important this one will be.--Dogbertd (talk) 14:20, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Where to put a leitmotif section?

I want to add a section on the various leitmotifs in Der Ring, based on the information and examples provided in the New Grove (I will typeset public domain images of the themes myself using lilypond). Would these work best in this article, or should I put them in the individual opera articles? On the one hand, many of the motifs are used in more than one opera, but on the other hand, the plot points/characters being referred to might be clearer if the information is provided in the relevant opera(s) article(s). JeanneShade (talk) 01:54, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

  • That's a tricky one. The article is already pretty long. I would suggest making a new article on the Leitmotifs used in Der Ring and reference it in this article. This would allow you to have one or two of the most important motifs in this article and a more extensive illustration is the daughter article where you could detail which motifs are common to the entire cycle and which only occur in individual operas. Just my suggestion.--Dogbertd (talk) 08:35, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
A Leitmotif list article is something I've thought of as needed for a long time. I'm glad you're interested in starting on it. Given various sources use different names, numbering systems a table form might be useful.--Peter cohen (talk) 11:56, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm not qualified in the topic, but leitmotifs are so crucial to what the Ring is about ... anybody up to it? 178.42.74.38 (talk) 20:14, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Productions

There is so much rich material to be mined in the whole area of productions of the Ring - different ways of setting the cycle, in various places and times, the related costumes, conceptions, possible interpretations, etc. There is some material on this in the article, but pretty paltry considering what it could be. Consider how significant some of this stuff could be by Wikipedia standards - this is an encyclopedia that has an article on cooties, for crying out loud.178.42.74.38 (talk) 20:17, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Siegfried Funeral March and Finale

Does this sound file belong here? Do we need a brass band version? Also what is the correct title for this music? The sound file was withdrwan at FSC but has now been resubmitted, see here. --Kleinzach 07:31, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

  • Does this sound file belong here? :- It depends whether you think something is better than nothing. Personally I don't like the brass band setting, since I wouldn't like a casual reader to think that this was how the opera sounds. What I'd really like to see is more excerpts from the actual opera itself, but here we run into the difficulty of copyright protection, which applies to just about any recording after the cylinder era, it seems. The German wikipedia has (in Parsifal at least) excepts from the 1951 Knappertsbusch, which is out of copyright in Europe. I'd be happy to upload excerpts from Knappertsbusch's Gotterdammerung also from 1951, but this is still in copyright in the US.--Dogbertd (talk) 11:42, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
No it doesn't. It's not by Wagner, it's not from the opera, it misleads the listener. The article has links to extensive discographies, and the intersted reader can be trusted to find an online shop with sound samples. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 12:28, 14 April 2011 (UTC)


Resolved
 – Copyvio wording removed. Darth Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 13:56, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

These two paragraphs are word-for-word lifts from the librettos of Decca records recording of the Vienna Philharmonic Orchestra, conducted by Georg Solti in 1959 and reissued by Time-Life Records in 1972. For Shame!

"History provides few examples of artistic purpose so consistently followed as that which produced Wagner's tetralogy Der Ring des Nibelungen. As early as the 1840s, Wagner began to search Teutonic and Norse mythology for material for his epic, and it was not until the end of 1874 that the last bar of Götterdämmerung (Twilight of the Gods) was scored. Wagner's first plan was to compose one opera only, to be called Siegfried's Death, and for this he wrote the poem, which follows roughly the same course as that of the present Götterdämmerung, in 1848. It soon became obvious, however, that so much preliminary explanation would be necessary if the events of Siegfried's Death were to be clear to the spectator that some kind of introductory drama was desirable. Thus Wagner planned a second work, to precede Siegfried's Death and to be called Young Siegfried, and then he added two others, so that the project eventually embraced the whole tetralogy of the Ring.

Wagner did not work exclusively on the Ring during the thirty-odd years between its original conception and its completion. The poems of the four operas were written in the late 1840s and early 1850s; the music for Das Rheingold was composed in 1853–54, that for Die Walküre in 1854–56; and in 1856–57 Wagner composed, though he did not score, the first two acts of Siegfried; but at this point he laid down his pen, as far as the Ring was concerned, for twelve years, producing in the meantime Tristan und Isolde and Die Meistersinger von Nürnberg. In 1869, however, he took up work on the Ring again, his enthusiasm and inspiration still strong, and in the years 1869–74 completed Siegfried and created the finale to the tetralogy, Götterdämmerung. Das Rheingold was first performed at Munich on 22 September 1869. Its first performance as part of the complete Ring cycle took place at the Bayreuth Festspielhaus on 13 August 1876."

Infobroker (talk) 04:40, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Looks like this is the edit that added it all. Fenyx4 (talk) 13:51, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

This section is entirely unreferenced, thus unverifiable. Moreover it is completely irrelevant and should be removed completely. 81.83.134.227 (talk) 21:35, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Well, why don't you be bold and remove it? --GuillaumeTell 23:32, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
Done. 94.226.158.25 (talk) 14:33, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Meaning of "Nibelung"

Wagner's use of "Nibelung" for Alberich is an entirely new one, not supported by his sources, so far as I am aware. The Nibelungs were, in fact, the people called "Gibichungs" in Wagner's opera - the royal line of Burgundian kings of Worms. For some reason, Wagner decided to change this around, and it's worth discussing this in the title section. john k 13:53, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Okay, looking at the Nibelung article, I see that there were some early sources which applied the term to the Dwarfs, but that most modern scholars believe that the original usage was for the Burgundians. But this should be mentioned here, no? john k 14:00, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Nibelungenlied calls the Nibelungen a (dwarven) people/kingdom in the Far North (but not Iceland, since that is where Brunhilde is dwelling, and Sifrit travels by boat from Iceland to N-Land) maybe at the North Pole, the Faroer or in North Sweden... well, anyway, Sifrit pwned them and made them vassals, and they guard the Nibelungenhort. The hort passes to Kriemhild and Hagen uh.. appropriates it - anyway, it is in Burgund now, and in part 2 the Burgundians, therefore, are now called Nibelungen. - All these sagas differ but the Nibelungenlied is not unimportant since it is the main version of the myth for Germans. --92.78.31.25 (talk) 14:17, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Modern translation linked to

At least not 404, but it is really.. Most of the meaning is there, but it has not, to my eye, much connection with Wagner's poetry or language. Something analogous to Four score and twenty years ago ... becomes January 4th, 1xyz ... --92.78.31.25 (talk) 14:23, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Notable Productions

Some of these "notable" productions aren't so notable (eg, Seattle Opera, Washington National, Canada's). And if they are, no reason is given for their notability. I will be deleting them. 108.35.36.227 (talk) 05:16, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

I think that's unreasonable. Whether you think the productions you mention are less notable than others is clearly a personal point of view, and I'm sure reliable sources can be found which support their notability. So, I think leaving them does less harm than removing them. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 07:13, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
No, it is not a "personal view". If it is the same staging of the Ring as has been done dozens if not hundreds of times, then it is not notable. First production in Russia -- notable. Bayreuth -- notable. Those 3 that I mentioned are clearly not notable by just reading the article. Angry bee (talk) 00:43, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
In fact, the whole section is unreferenced. It would be good if someone (not me!) spent some time on this. --GuillaumeTell 11:37, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
Ah, the Template:refimprove additions in these 2 edits. The editor who added these tags has been queried at least three times about the appropriateness of his tagging, and I agree in this case, too. The blanket tag for the "Music" section, which in large parts only describes the work or reads the score and provides two references for less obvious statements, are unnecessary. This applies even more to the section we're discussing here ("Notable modern productions"), which, as far as I can see, contains no assertions likely to be challenged. The Wikipedia policy Wikipedia:Verifiability says: "you do not need to attribute everything." -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 12:52, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
The implicit assertion however is that thy are 'notable'. If nothing is provided (referenced or unreferenced) to support this assertion, then deletion is justifiable at an editor's discretion.--Smerus (talk) 15:08, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Characters

Can anyone justify the omission of Grane from the character list? No named character appears on more of the four operas than does Grane, who appears in three. Clearly Wager intended Grane to be onstage in at least some of his scenes, played by a real horse. Of course, the role is silent, but compare to the silent part of the page in Rosenkavalier, who also has a name (Mohammed) and who I would expect always to be a credited part. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wolfamade (talk • contribs) 21:22, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Anvils

While Wagner's music has warranted some distant relations to the use of anvils in art (q.v. What's Opera, Doc?), I'm guessing that the instrumentation requirement for 18 anvils is vandalism, but I have no clue what it should say... 150.148.14.6 (talk) 17:08, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Italic title

Why is the title of the article in italics? — Preceding unsigned comment added by George8211 (talk • contribs) 20:10, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

See MOS:MUSIC. Toccata quarta (talk) 20:24, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
Thanks. George8211 (talk | mail) 20:26, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Captain Harlock

Is it worth noting on this article that the Japanese animation and comic, "Captain Harlock" is essentially a space-opera retelling of The Ring? 63.115.34.34 (talk) 13:59, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

It's usually better left to the articles, like Captain Harlock in this case, to mention these connections, because they say more about that work than about the operas. The existing list of "other treatments of the Ring cycle" in this article needs culling, so I wouldn't recommend adding anything to it. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 14:18, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

English horn etc

these edits went from cor anglais to English horn, with no mention in the edit summary. I shall be putting it back, so saving the need for a link everytime "horn" is mentioned. Johnbod (talk) 19:42, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

UK English is clearly the established form in this article, to judge from the consistent spelling of "theatre". There should be a "Use British English" template. If there is not, I shall insert one.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 00:25, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Infobox?

I suggest to restore the 2013 infobox, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:46, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

The current navigation box {{Wagner operas}} lists the 4 components; shouldn't the infobox, too? -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 14:01, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

| premiere_location = Bayreuth Festspielhaus }}

Good idea, tried, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:58, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
Take over, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:00, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Apologies Gerda, only just seen this. I don't think it very appropriate. Have removed it pending further discussion. I suggest that idf you are going to add these boxes as you have at other Wagner operas, you raise the issue first at WP:Opera and WP:Wagner.--Smerus (talk) 10:20, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Agreed. In particular in this case, with 20 hours of music (or whatever), any infobox is bound to be either useless or much too long. Johnbod (talk) 12:07, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
Looks like you didn't care to even look, - I claim that it's more useful than a duplication of the bottom navbox which is now in the article, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:16, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
That falls into the useless category as far as I'm concerned. Johnbod (talk) 17:49, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
I'm confused. In the current version of the article I find two navigation boxes, one at the bottom, and the other (which looks to me like the standard opera navigation box) in the upper-right corner, where Gerda placed the infobox. It seems to me that the opera navbox has a significant advantage over the infobox, which is that the data window is collapsible. The infobox has entries for the premiere dates, but does not place the Ring in the larger context of Wagner's other operas. My question for Gerda is: why do you think the infobox is superior? (Or is this discussion ongoing at one of the two WikiProjects?)—Jerome Kohl (talk) 17:34, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
To answer your question (which Rlendog also did below): I like the navbox at the bottom (where navboxes normally are), don't need a duplicate on the side, don't like anything hidden or collapsed, and like an infobox to give a random reader - who has no idea of the subject - minimum information of time and place in history. (Same thing said Rigoletto and Götterdämmerung, two years ago.) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:28, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
I don't see why the infobox is less useful than a duplicate navbox. Of course the infobox does not place the Ring in the larger context of Wagner's other operas. The navbox does not either, and in any case that is not the purpose of an infobox. There are entire books about the Ring that don't place it in the context of Wagner's other operas. But the infobox does provide pertinent information at a quick glace, which the navbox does not. Rlendog (talk) 18:11, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
Apart from the premiere dates, what information does the infobox provide that the navbox lacks, and how does this weigh against the capability of collapsing the data window when you don't need or want it? A correction: the navbox does in fact place the Ring in the context of Wagner's other operas, as I stated. Of course it does not provide detailed comparisons of libretti and music, but it does offer a chronology for those who want to know what came before and what after.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 19:15, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
This is actually getting less clear. Maybe it is just me, but I do not see the same navbox at the top as at the bottom, but rather several different navboxes. I might venture to say that this particular article looks like it has got a bad case of "navboxitis", with separate navbox templates for "Richard Wagner", "Richard Wagner's Der Ring des Nibelungen", and the "Helpmann Award for Best Opera (2001–2020)", not to mention "Wagner operas". In fact, it has got so many navigation aids that I imagine most readers must be completely unable to navigate anywhere for all the clutter. I think at this point what I would most like to know is, what is the purpose of the Template:Wagner operas, if not for use in the place and function of an infobox? If an infobox accomplishes this purpose better, or if the editors of Wagner-opera articles like it better than the Template:Wagner operas, then shouldn't the latter be discarded altogether? As it stands, it looks to me like a contest between two different "duplicates", rather than a question of "duplicate or non-duplicate"? Where am I going wrong?—Jerome Kohl (talk) 22:29, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
I see simply history. The side navbox seems to have been the standard for project opera. The bottom navboxitis happened later, duplicating. The reader deserves to see something on the work - rather than navigating away. Too simple? - This particular article is different as it had an infobox first, replaced by the side navbox which was certainly redundant then already. - Same thing happened now again. - The central discussion is on project opera. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:15, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
Thanks, Gerda, it helps to have some history. You make it sound like the infobox was superseded by the side navbox, though clearly you and Smerus do not agree on whether this was a good thing. I shall consult the discussion on the project-opera talk page. Thank you for pointing this out, also.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 00:16, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Incorrect Grammar - Please correct

I have never edited anything here, but the constantly incorrect grammar in "Der Ring der Nibelungen" prompted me to try. However I have no idea how to go about it. Therefore I just prepared one article on my user page.

This is the Problem:


== The correct version is "Der Ring der Nibelungen" ==


Der - article, nominative masculine, singular

Ring - noun, nominative masculine, singular

der - article, genitive feminine, plural

Nibelungen, noun, feminine, plural

"des" Nibelungen would mean that the Nibelungen is singular (which it isn't) and masculine or neutral, which it isn't either.

Can anybody help in how to edit the many articles in Wikipedia that refer to the Nibelungen incorrectly as "des"? I am surprised that none of the German contributors have picked that up.

Yes I am German :) Gretelchen (talk) 01:34, 6 February 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gretelchen (talk • contribs)


The grammatical logic of your point may seem indisputable, but the German language Wikipedia (which is, of course, written and edited by German-speakers) disagrees with you, and uses "des Nibelungen" not "der", which doesn't help your case. I suggest you take a look at http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diskussion:Der_Ring_des_Nibelungen where this is the first topic discussed.
My German is a little rusty, to say the least, but the argument as I understand it is this: Wagner decided, for reasons known only to himself, to treat the word "Nibelungen" in the title as a singular (referring to Alberich). And, grammatically unsound though that may be, it's his work, and it is not the place of Wikipedia editors to overrule him. Grubstreet (talk) 09:17, 23 February 2010 (UTC)


You might also visit www.bayreuther-festspiele.de and note that the Bayreuth Festival (and surely no one is more of a Wagner specialist) announced the 14-disc box set of their 2008 performances as "Der Ring des Nibelungen auf CD". Grubstreet (talk) 12:03, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
The reasoning is correct, however des is Gen sg. The Nibelung is Alberich I suppose. --92.78.31.25 (talk) 14:20, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Many native german speakers do this wrong, because "Nibelung" is a very rare word. The suffix -ung is mostly used for abstract things and rarely for people.

However, Nibelung is masculine noun (c.f. https://de.wiktionary.org/wiki/Nibelung). In "Der Ring des Nibelungen", the Nibelung is Alberich, and he is the owner of the ring, hence Genitive Singular.

80.219.234.143 (talk) 02:50, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Der Ring des Nibelungen. 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) 19:44, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Spelling of "ring"

The initial letter of the word "ring" should not be capitalized, unless the word is part of a title, as in "The Ring of the Nibelung", or a short version of a title, in which case it should also be italicized. If you're referring to the magic ring itself, it should be spelled "ring", not "Ring". I am replacing several incorrect "Ring"s with more correct "ring"s in the article. Goblinshark17 (talk) 07:34, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

"Ring" should most certainly be capitalized... You are a vandal.73.220.34.167 (talk) 04:17, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
If you're going to call someone a vandal, you should ensure that you've tried your best to understand them first. The OP is clearly in the right; they were changing references to the ring as an object -- not as a work of art. Look: A magical ring is a key element in The Lord of the Rings series. Get it? 27.242.171.113 (talk) 13:47, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

Neutrality tag on article

On 27 August User:Alex Cohn added a POV tag to the article which leaves a message "The neutrality of this section is disputed. Relevant discussion may be found on the talk page" but there is no discussion of that on this talk page, the most recent discussion is an argument about infoboxes, what a surprise, from three years ago. That NPOV tag should not be on the article without identifying what the problem is. I will wait a few days before removing it. The article is certainly a mess, many sections without citations and needs lots of work which I am not enough of a Wagnerian to undertake.Smeat75 (talk) 16:28, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

Apologies, I forgot to update the talk page. I think the neutrality issues in the Content section are pretty obvious - we should not be making statements like "Perhaps the most outstanding facet of the monumental work" or "The music of the cycle is thick and richly textured" in Wikipedia's voice without providing a source and attributing them. Something somewhat akin to "X's reviews of the work emphasized the thick and richly textured music" would be ok with me. As it is now, it comes across as unencyclopedic puffery. I'm also not enough of a Wagnerian to tackle this. --Alex Cohn (let's chat!) 17:02, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
Since every one of the shelves of criticism and analysis on the work would agree that the music is "thick and richly textured" we should absolutely not attribute this thought in the text to some random dork. WP:SKYISBLUE. A ref or two to key writers would be in order. Johnbod (talk) 17:35, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
Thank you for removing the NPOV tag, which I also came to find the "citation" for. I thought "the music of the cycle is thick and richly textured" to be some of the best writing in Wikipedia. Editors forget, that after the citations are imbedded, someone needs to come through and actually write the article. Most of my editing is transforming disjointed lists of quotes into readable prose. As for "puffery", Wagner is the Prince of Puffery, the God of Grand. Let's celebrate his vision and talent, in his own style, as best we can approach his expressive genius. 184.69.174.194 (talk) 16:25, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

First paragraph of Story section appears in another site

https://www.storytel.com/pl/pl/books/765629-Siegfried-and-The-Twilight-of-the-Gods-The-Ring-of-the-Niblung-A-Trilogy-with-a-Prelude contains essentially the first paragraph of the Story section, which only has minor differences. Should that site be referenced as a source, has plagiarism occurred, or did that site copy the Wikipedia paragraph?— Wdfarmer (talk) 04:44, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

That section has been in this article since 2002; its current section header was applied on 26 October 2003. The book cited above seems to be from 2016. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 05:46, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Der_Ring_des_Nibelungen/Archive_1&oldid=1122335044"