Talk:Parsifal/Archive 1

Archive 1

Reverts

Reverted and placed here for sourcing:

Longinus pierced the side of Christ on the cross, and which was saved by Joseph of Arimathea

neither reference appear in any of the Wagnerian texts that I am aware of it. This is material of later commentator, and unsourced.

The section on Instrumentation strikes me as overkill, and it seems out of sync with the standard for opera articles. Are there any good reasons to keep it? Skiptog 20:07, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

It doesn't look right to me either, for one thing it looks to small. nobs 20:12, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

Actually I thought the instrumentation section added a nice touch which should be extended to other operas. But something has to be done about the plot, which is very old-fashioned and sometimes plain wrong - Monsalvat is on an inaccessible mountain is it ? - so how come Parsifal and Kundry can get there without any trouble? It's obviously not so inaccessible that Amfortas cannot get in a bath in the sea and still get back in time for the Grail ceremony. And Kundry is the "messenger of the Grail"? I think not! Dogbertd 15:24, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

I like the instrumentation section too, but it seems a bit small. No referenece to the size of strings, for example. Also, I do not believe the Monsalvat reference occurs in any Wagnerian texts; it is drawn from von Eschenbach and other sources (like the Arimathea & Longinus references) and inserted here, as has happened over the past century plus. Personally, I feel it dilutes an understanding of Wagner's work and should be removed (clearly, Wagner intended Bayreuth to be the seat of the Holy Grail, not the Pyrennes, etc). nobs 17:59, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

LOL! - How true! When I've got some time I'll make a start on revising the plot so that it refers more closely to things as they are in the opera, and without all the accretions from Eschenbach. In any case, I think the plot reads in a very old-fashioned way and this should be fixed. Dogbertd 10:00, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

Very good recent edits. Perhaps an addition along these lines, in closing Parsifal states,

"das Mitleids höchste Kraft

und reinsten Wissens Macht

dem zagen Toren gab.

translated something like,

"that gave compassion's mighty power

and purest wisdom's might

taught the timorous fool!

thus stating compassion is learned, not inherent in human nature. Also, after the Nietsche-Wagner split, Nietsche expressed somewhere how sickened he was that Wagner, in his old age, was kneeling before the cross, etc. Good work! nobs 16:20, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Finally got round to replacing the original version of the Plot. I've tried to stick to what is in the opera, and nothing more. I hope this is better. --Dogbertd 09:40, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

Yes, it is much better without all the extraneous stuff. The only other thing I'd suggest (and it there's now need to hurry it) would be maybe a discussion somewhere, based on some of Wagner's own writings, of what I believe to be the heart of the whole drama, given in Kundry's words,

Wahnsinn! -

Mitleid! Mitleid mit mir!

Nur eine Stunde mein!

nur eine Stunde dein...

und des Weges

sollst du geleitet sein!

translated something like,

Madness! -

Compassion! Have compassion on me!

For one hour be mine!

For one hour I'll be thine...

and the Way

Thou shalt find!

which is more less the opposite of the carnal oblivion of Tristan and Isolde (finding "the Way" is scriptural language, "I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life..." etc; also, in Arabic al Sharia means "the Way"). This is a rejection of trying to find salvation in "the natural" or carnal nature, and really stands in contrast to much written about Wagner's personal life. nobs 14:52, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

recent changes

I like the addition of the premiere cast, but now we've got the first Met cast - which probably means that we'll also have to have the first Covent Garden cast, first Paris Opera cast, first La Scala cast, etc and the table will become unwieldy. As it stands the Met cast do not all appear to have full names (the voice from above was, apparently, supplied by Homer - who I always thought was a man) - do we really need to have any cast other than the Bayreuth premiere?--Dogbertd 07:50, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

I added the Met premiere cast (or what I could find of it) because of the historical signficance of that particular performance (first outside Bayreuth, violating Wagner's wishes and perhaps copyright). I'm not at all attached to keeping it though, I try to err on the side of including too much information. Fireplace 15:29, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree with what you say - the first US performance is probably significant in that regard, however I'm afraid that (like the list of recordings) this will simply expand from important premiere casts, to include everyone's favourite cast. I suggest we wait and see if it turns into a monster before we change it.--Dogbertd 07:55, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Reorganize?

I think that the current sections 3 (Roles) and 4 (Instrumentation) would fit better just before section 9 (References). The Roles and Instrumentation sections contain useful information to some but it is not needed by readers of the article as much as Plot and Criticism and Influence. Also, perhaps the last sections could be sub-sections of a new encompassing section like:

Listening to Parsifal (with an introduction)

Motifs (a new sub-section)

Sound samples

Recordings of Parsifal

Instrumentation

Roles

I was very tempted to just go and do this myself but I thought that someone that worked on the other Wagner opera articles and opera in general should comment. WikiParker 11:01, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

It would be nice to see how this works. I agree that the article is a bit disorganised in places, and perhaps this would help. Why don't you try it out, and if there's a huge chorus of disapproval it will be easy enough to revert.--Dogbertd 12:41, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Okay Dogbertd, I did it. My introductions to the "listening to" section and the "leitmotif" sub-section are terrible though. I just put them in as stubs for someone who knows more about Wagner and opera to fill in. WikiParker 22:16, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

I think this works really well. The only thing I've done is to put the Roles back beside the Plot, since I think it helps to know who the characters are while reading the story. It would be good at somepoint to expand the Motifs section to identify the particular musical themes in Parsifal, however this may not be easy: Wagner's use of Leimotif in Parsifal is much more complex and advanced over his first attempts in Der Ring.--Dogbertd 09:03, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Is Parsifal a 'Heldentenor' or a 'Jugendlicher Heldentenor' role?

This question is being discussed at Talk:Fach. Opinions welcomed! - Kleinzach 10:19, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

GA Candidacy

The article is too long. Nominate for peer review. GreenJoe 16:54, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

• The article is well written, broad in its coverage, the images are fine and there are no licence-problems. It seems stable and all relevant viewpoints are included in the criticism section. However, as stated above, some parts could be shortened, especially the 'composition' section slightly seems to go into excessive detail. The plot-part is not wikified yet. Please add some wikilinks to this section so that other editors don't feel the urge to check if it's a copyvio (it's not, I checked). Also, consider tightening the synopsis. The lead section on the other hand is very short compared to Wikipedia standards, even though it is still within the limits of our MoS. The lead should include a hint at the Bayreuth tradition in my opinion and the tradition of not applauding after the first act. Other than that, it's a good article.--DorisHノート 19:46, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

• Hurrah! And Thanks! I didn't understand the bit about adding Wikilinks to the plot (Synopsis). I wrote this myself from my transliteration of the libretto and hence it's not a copyvio (as you say): but what could I link this to?--Dogbertd 08:20, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

I just placed some links in Act I, so you can see what I mean. There is more on internal links on Help:Links.--DorisHノート 10:38, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Gotcha. Thanks.--Dogbertd 13:18, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Nice article, congrats to the people who developed this. Good to see another opera GA. Moreschi ^{Request a recording?} 13:45, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Three Acts or Four?

I have a recording of Parsifal (Hans Knappertsbusch, Bayreuter Festpile, 1962), and on it, the opera has four Acts. Is there any accounting for the discrepancy between this number and that given in the article? --MosheA 01:49, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, I have an older Philips copy of this, I must check out what it says. The opera definitely has Three Acts. Must be some wierd mistake in the CD pressing or in the documentation.--Dogbertd 11:01, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Well my copy of the (Philips) 1962 Parsifal CDs is quite clear that the opera is in 3 acts, although it is on 4 CDs. I'm sure that if your version has a f***-up of this magnitude, Knappertsbusch would have some fruity rejoinder for the issuing company!--Dogbertd 18:48, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Possible change

I don't want to touch a good article myself, but was wondering whether aligning the cast photo in the "Early performances of Parsifal" section to the left would be OK? It looks a lot better on my screen, or would it make the text in between too narrow for people using tiny resolutions? Lethesl 16:50, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

This may be a good article, but it might be great with your input! Remember the cardinal rule of Wikipedia: Be Bold!. If everyone else hates it, it will be reverted soon enough.--Dogbertd 19:39, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Done! *hides* Lethesl 02:10, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

I think this looks good. It comes out well on my browser (Firefox), and I chaecked it at different font sizes, and it still looked fine.--Dogbertd 08:03, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Sound Samples

I'd like to use those little buttons you see in other opera articles (see Claude Debussy for some examples) but I can't because the only sound samples we have in Parsifal are links to external web-sites rather than to media uploaded to wikipedia. Does anyone have any such samples we could use and - equally important - does anyone know how to do this uploading?

The same comment applies to samples of the score, which I think would form the core of a section on the music of Parsifal, but I don't know where I would get these examples from, nor how I would upload them. Any help gratefully received. --Dogbertd 10:47, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Dogbert. Uploading samples onto the net somewhere is an easy process and if you want me to explain please leave a message on my talk page - or here. Equally, as an owner of, I think, all of the commercially available Parsifal's - with one or two exception - I can supply samples needed. The only problem is copyright issues of course. I am not sure about the copywrite issue with using, no-doubt small, samples of a recording within WIKI. Anyone know?

By the way, I think you seem to be the main contributor and indeed author, of this article and just wanted to say well done.:-)Crowleys Aunt 06:43, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! I can't claim sole credit for the article, which is a team effort, but it's one I've spent a lot of time on (along with Tristan und Isolde). I too have many of the existing recordings of Parsifal and could make excerpts from them if it were not that I believe i would infringe copyright. I've no idea of a 30-second excerpt would be acceptable as a form of "advertising", which might be permitted under copyright law? I'm currently trying out some free score-writing software so that I can make JPEGs of the most important themes, but how I get them into WP is a bit of a mystery. I suppose I upload them to WP:commons, from where I can link to them.--Dogbertd 07:57, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

I've just had a thought. I'm pretty sure that the 1951 Knappertsbusch Parsifal from Bayreuth is out of copyright - I've seen it published "officially" from companies other than Teldec. Maybe we could legally use this one?--Dogbertd 08:00, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Dogbertd The instructions for uploading and installing Media files to a page in WIKI can be found here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Media. Seems WIKI uses vob, which isn't a problem. equally, seem we can upload directly to WIKI - which means we can bypass third party sites and any bandwidth issue that might cause If your not failure with the process, or "need a hand" I would be more then happy to help :-). I.e. let me know what extracts you want uploaded and I can do it. The '51 Knap would be a wonderful source - pity we couldn't use the '62 but as it’s only for examples well, any Knap will do :-). Let me know how you wish to proceed and how I can help. Crowleys Aunt 01:09, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for this offer. It would be very helpful if you could do some of this. I was thinking that the Prelude to Acts 1 and 3, some of the Flowermaiden's song and the Good Friday music would be great to have on the page. It might also be useful to have as separate excerpts the Dresden Amen and the very first theme from the prelude, since I'd like to use these in an expanded section on the music of Parsifal. Thanks again!--Dogbertd 08:07, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, for late reply, but been working away for a little while. Sure no problem. With reference to the Preludes: The whole of them or just excerpts? I think as we are using a public domain Parsifal, the 51 knapp, it will make little difference as far as copyright is concerned. Crowleys Aunt 05:03, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

While professing no expert knowledge on the 1951 recording, I am surprised that it is out of copyright. What circumstances led to this? --Alexs letterbox 05:18, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Found on the web is that the Decca 1951 Knappertsbusch Parsifal was made in parnership with Teldec. Even if not, Decca may have assigned Teldec use of the copyright for a CD version of the recording. Without actually checking for the copyright renewal I would assume that the recording is still under copyright. I'm looking into Fair use and Wikipedia guidelines: Wikipedia:Non-free_content, Wikipedia:Music_samples and Wikipedia_talk:Music_samples#Classical_Music_Samples WikiParker 10:00, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

OK, this is confusing. it seems (AFAIK) that the Kna is out of copyright in Europe, but may not be in the US (see [[1]] and [[2]]). Naxos Records have been able to issue the Kna recording in Europe, but can't sell it in the US because Capitol Records took them to court to stop them doing so. If posting excerpts on Wikipedia was considered to be "selling" and if WP is considered to abide by US law, then we can't use this recording unless there is some fair use claim we could make. If WP is not held to abide by US law, and if we're not "selling" it by posting excerpts then we may be able to use this recording. I think it would be OK to use short samples (illustrations of the major leitmotifs such as the Dresden amen) but it seems to me as if putting the entire prelude, or the Good Friday music might be of dubious legality. This reminds me why I went into science, and not the law...--Dogbertd 08:27, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

WP does stick to American law. I had assumed, like you, that the early Kna would be out of copyright everywhere, but it is US, or specifically that applicable in the state where WP's machinery is, that takes precedence. Fair use justifucation should be achievable, given that we are intending to achieve a chritical discussion of the music and, the inclusion of motifs is to help user recognition. More info is at Wikipedia:Music samples. I would however suggest raising queries on the specialist audio fair use pages, if you are in doubt. --Peter cohen 12:12, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm thinking of recording these excerpts with my trusty kazoo. Seems to be the only way to be sure....--Dogbertd 14:09, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, been away for a little time (is that actually a reasonable excuse? Being away from the Internet seems somewhat impossible? O well.) and somewhat preoccupied. Equally, I hate getting into these copyright arguments and what national laws WIKI follows - isn't it true that WIKI is actually international? Or if we wanted to add the excerpts to the German language WIKI article we would be OK as copyright has expired there"?

Dog: the use of the kazoo might be a good alternative, but would Richy approve? ;-). To be honest - I think I will just encode the samples we have discussed and if anyone has issues with this then we can go through whatever officious nonsense WIKI goes through - no doubt raising a WIKI IKI 99876645633224555 on a pink form signed in triplicate and then countersigned by whatever megalomaniac record company claims copyright on something recorded 52 years ago, the full version of which would no doubt only be of interest to three or four Wagner nerds two of which at least are already involved in this article - including myself :-).

I will give it 3 days for anyone to comment and if no one has any issues by then the aforementioned excerpts will be uploaded. You have been warned :-) Crowleys aunt 2 (talk) 12:30, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

I've been busy too, so it's definitely a reasonable excuse. I agree with you and would be happy to put these items on the page and let the Wiki Gods decide.--Dogbertd (talk) 13:39, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is obviously not a law unto itself and is certainly not actually international. It must follow the laws of the countries in which it is hosted: the US, the Netherlands, and South Korea. Now, we have no clear cut statement that says that this recording is PD. From WP:BCI: the absence of a copyright notice does not mean it is in the public domain and only an explicit statement from the copyright holder can release all of his or her rights to the work and make it legally available for any purpose. Am I right in concluding you have found no such statement. Therefore, we must assume that it is still under copyright.

Now, that does not stop us from including excerpts in the article, but we must be able to justify them under fair-use. The relevant content guideline states that Music clips may be used to identify a musical style, group, or iconic piece of music when accompanied by appropriate sourced commentary and attributed to the copyright holder. Samples should generally not be longer than 30 seconds or 10% of the length of the original song, whichever is shorter. Quality issues must also be addressed, see Wikipedia:Music samples.

Finally, I believe it is irresponsible to include material with no real knowledge of its copyright status by the reasoning that it is only of interest to a minority of people. Sorry to rock the boat. --Alexs letterbox (talk) 23:02, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Actually I think the copyright question in Europe is very clear: it is out of copyright. The difficulty I have is that this appears not to be the case in the US. So - as I said before - if WP is considered to be "US"-based then we can't use this material. If OTOH we decided that it was "EU"-based, then we can. We're not trying to sweep the CP issues aside, but are stuck on the horns of a dilemma. A 30-second "fair use" excerpt isn't really going to be of much use for a work like Parsifal. Looks like it's back to the kazoo.--Dogbertd (talk) 08:51, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

The policy does say that for extended works such as symphonies and operas we are allowed more than one extract. The 30secs or 10% is based on a per number basis. So, for the prelude, lasting more than 5 mins, you could get away with the opening 30secs. Similarly, for the Good Friday music or whatever. For shorter numbers (hard to think of many in Parsifal!), you would have the 10% limit. (Looking at the timings for the Kna 62, the choral ending is less than 5 mins, so that would have a 10% limit.) I think for an excerpt of Kundry singing "Sind die Tiere hier nicht heilig" to illustrate the Dresden Amen, or the voice from above singing the prophecy should be okay, because they are not numbers as such and could be construed as part of Act 1 as parts of different scenes with the rule applying to scenes.

(later) Ah! here we are from Wikipedia:Music samples:

There should be only one sample per song recording, even if multiple users produce samples. If a new sample is uploaded, the old one must be deleted. In the case of a multi-section/movement work such as a symphony or opera, the use of one relevant sample per section/movement is acceptable.

I think we can get an appropriate level of samples. Also please note the wording "per song recording". So, I think multiple recordings would allow more versatility. And for the Act preludes, parts of the grail scenes and the transformation music, the Karl Muck performances will be out of copyright even in the US.--Peter cohen (talk) 17:33, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable to me Peter. However, just to clarify on that basis it would surely be possible to include all of the prelude as we must accept the composers ideas on how his work should be "broken-up. As I am sure we all know know Wagner saw Parsifal as one whole piece - the acts simply to allow complex scene changes and the performers to do things that no doubt Wagner would have liked they wait till the end to do - IE go to the loo. So we could use the 10 percent rule across the entire opera, although breaking that 10 percent up into - god forbid in Wagnerian terms "bloody chunks? Crowleys aunt 2 (talk) 17:35, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Sorry Peter, you added while I was writing :-). I have a large number of Parsifals, although oddly not the Muck I think - I will go searching through my collection in a bit and check. So, on that basis we could take 10 percent from each one - thus giving us the complete samples orginally suggested by Dog? Crowleys aunt 2 (talk) 17:40, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Sorry about that, meant to preview not save the first time.

Unfortunately, the composer's wishes will not let Wikipedia get away with a breach of copyright law. We can't include all the prelude from the Kna 51, because that's a continuous section lasting more than 30 secs and it's in copyright in the US. The rule is 30secs or 10% whichever is shorter. But, as the quote implies, we can treat Parsifal as several mini-works run together and so approach 10% of the whole opera.

Muck's recordings date from the wrong end (for us) of the 1920s, so some may still be in copyright in the US. I thought they were earlier than that. The conductor recorded most of Act 3 for HMV/Electrola and extracts from the two earlier acts for Columbia. Looking at [3], [4] the excerpts from Parsifal I have (the Pearl/Opal box) are available from US suppliers on more than one label, which probably suggests that they are out of copyright. Columbia and HMV/Electrola are both European companies. So that probably helps.

I also have the Gebhardt records: Bayreuth the early years box containing some extracts of Parsifal from recordings from before 1923, the earliest being from 1903. Some of these recordings might be available elsewhere too.--Peter cohen (talk) 19:09, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Peter. Having gained some interest in Public domain music under USA law, it appears - if http://www.pdinfo.com/ is to be trusted - no music recording in the USA falls into the public domain till 2067!. This is to be honest capitalism at it's most insane in my opinion. So, no matter how old a recording of Parsifal we find it will remain unusable in the USA - although oddly nearly anything from 1957 in UK law is usable - but this would only be in the UK.

To be honest my friend I'm quickly losing interest in this given the near perpetual copyright in the USA. 30 second samples simple won't do what Dog intended - even if we "chain" a number of different recordings together. This leaves is only with the old leitmotif route - a route I m not convinced of the effectiveness of with Parsifal. One possible way around this of course, would be to simply direct the reader to a site that does offer longer examples - The Good Friday music for example. The net abounds with these, non USA sites, and they have been in place for many years.There is also the possibility that some university music undergraduates have uploaded their performance of Parsifal somewhere - this has happened with Cosi, The Magic Flute, Onegin, etc. These are often fine performances and uploaded without the usual copyright restrictions (Strangely often from students in American universities. Might this be a possibility? Crowleys aunt 2 (talk) 00:12, 28 November 2007 (UTC) Crowleys aunt 2 (talk) 00:15, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Act Two commentary...

The quoted lyric Ich sah das kind... should not follow the statement that Parsifal's mother died of grief. It now seems better situated to show when Kundry saw Parsifal with his mother.

Makuabob (talk) 10:22, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Poll

Which of these three should we place as a sample of the Act III Transformation Scene?

• Traditional interpretaion (Levine & the Met, Siegfried Jerusalam as Parsifal) [5]

• Controversial 1982 Syberberg feature film. (Who can identify the faces beginning at 01:29?) [6]

• Modern Eurotrash [7]

nobs (talk) 20:36, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

I've not checked the sites, but there is a general issue of copyright. Also material on youtube can often disappear. Any example that is used would either have to be under a free license, or similar, or would have to be limited to less than 30 secs/ a ceratin percentage of the work/number. If we find things within those rules, then I would tend to recommend orthodox interpretations.--Peter cohen (talk) 20:46, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

i agree, we don't want them inserted directly into the article, but there would be no harm in having a link to these various videos - perhaps in the Parsifal on Video section? We'd have to keep an eye on them from time to time to make sure they haven't vanished. Myself I'd vote for the Levine: it's closest to what Wagner intended.--Dogbertd (talk) 07:54, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually this is against Wikipedia policy. (See WP:Copyright.)--Peter cohen (talk) 11:31, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Peter Cohen is correct. It is not permissible to link to copyright violations, nor suspected copyvios. Moreschi (talk) (debate) 16:38, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Well then we'll have to accept that we can never use *any* recording of Parsifal to illustrate the music, since - as we've discussed previously - it seems that WP is american and under US law we'll all be dead before any existing recordings fall out of US copyright. Which seems completely mad to me - both the interpretation of copyright and our complete inability to use the multimedia potential of WP to improve our article on Parsifal.--Dogbertd (talk) 19:06, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

We can use them, but the extracts have to be short. I'm sure I've given a link here somewhere before, but I think the time limit is 30secs. So, leitmotifs can be illustrated without any difficulty. Some of the very early recordings can also be used. Which reminds me I have to port my track listing of the Gebhardt early years of Bayreuth set over to this machine. All those performances are now public domain, although they are going to be only the length of a 78 or a cylinder or something.--Peter cohen (talk) 22:02, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Wagner and the Nazis

The Nazi government banned performances of Parsifal in 1939. Actually the association of Wagner with the Nazis has been exaggerated. Hitler was just as big a fan of Beethoven and Bach as of Wagner.

Also the extent of Wagner's librettos putting down Jews is wildly exaggerated. We constantly hear claims that the villains in Wagner operas (Alberich, Klingsor, Telaramund, etc.) are based on "Jewish stereotypes". Look at Wagner's notes etc. setting forth the stories, and you'll find nothing to substantiate that. Also, some of the original performers--singers and musicians too--of Wagner's operas, chosen by Wagner, were Jewish. Bayreuth has engaged many Jewish musicians and singers; look at Otto Klemperer, for example. It's true that Wagner had strong anti-semitic tendencies, but there are different kinds of anti-semitism. Tom129.93.17.128 (talk) 20:22, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Pronunciation

I've always pronounced the middle syllable phonetically (/-si-/), but it occurred to me that, being a German title, it should be /-zi-/. Thoughts? -- JackofOz (talk) 21:29, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I believe it is usually pronounced as an English "z". An interesting footnote to that is that Wolfram von Eschenbach's epic, which (quite loosely) inspired Wagner, was entitled "Parzifal". In German, a written "z" corresponds pretty well to the English sound "tz", hence: "Partzifal". IIRC, in Wagner's early drafts, he used the spelling "Parzifal". I don't know why he changed it. Ozob (talk) 18:06, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Synopsis Rework

To improve the synopsis, as part of the FA requirements/suggestions, I will be correcting some of the text, using a G. Schirmer opera score of Parsifal as a guide. It contains the composer's original score notes (and a translation to english). The lyrics are in german, of course, and in english, although the Stuart Robb text is not the most concise I have encountered, to date. I will rely more on the translation of Chris Wood from the booklet accompanying my Georg Solti 1972 recording (1986 A-to-D remastered), a Langenscheidts german-english english-german dictionary and personal experience from ~two years of living in West Germany.
Some of the scenes will be re-aligned to the score. As much original contribution as can be retained, will be. It may be slow going...
Makuabob (talk) 22:57, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

• Well I wrote most of the current synopsis, but if you can improve it, I say go for it. I used the German libretto and my 20 years experience of this opera. But I'd be interested to know what bits you think need improvement. To date most of the changes I've seen to the synopsis have simply been re-expression of the same material with slightly different words (eg borne instead of carried,with mistrustinstead of mistrustfully, etc . The synopsis has already been criticised as being too long (and it probably is too detailed.) When there are other bits of the article that could do with improvement (or that are simply missing! - there's still nothing on the music) I'd much rather see people put new work into those. Just my 2 cents.--Dogbertd (talk) 09:15, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Hi, Dogbertd. You & I most likely think the synopsis is too short. It is so brief that salient points like Gurnemanz's flat-out statement that "Kundry never lies" or the string of leitmotifs heard during the long kiss of Act 2 are lost to readers (and, perhaps, many listeners). It becomes a question of just who sat in judgement of the synopsis, giving it 9 of 10 points. If it was someone as experienced as you are, why were no specific points made about what was missing? If not...
    So, should it even be attempted? I will leave that up to you and any others with actual interest in sharing the content of the opera (which DOES include the musical phrasing) with the readers.
    Makuabob (talk) 15:58, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
    • Have a look at the archive at [[8]] and the section Article Assessment 3: testing for the comments on Parsifal by several members of the Wikiproject Richard Wagner [[9]]. I certainly didn't make the judgement myself: that would be pointless. I suppose much depends on what you think the role of this article is. Myself I see it as an encyclopedia article where someone with an interest can come and find out what the story of Parsifal is. Is this really an article for specialists in Parsifal (ie. you and me)? Or is it for a general audience? If I wanted to know something about quantum mechanics I might read the Wikipedia article and hope to learn something about it: the article ought to tell me about the importance of the heisenberg equation but I wouldn't perhaps expect to be confronted by the thing itself except in a separate article for folks who can think in several more dimensions than I can. I wonder if the same should be true for Parsifal: someone who wants to know the story probably doesn't care about the level of detail that would interest me, but equally it's got to be more than: Act 1: Parsifal is an idiot & he's never kissed a girl, Act 2: Parsifal kisses a girl and becomes wise, Act 3: Parsifal fixes everything. I'm really not sure what the balance is because I'm probably too close to the material and to this article.--Dogbertd (talk) 17:24, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

The usual solution when there is much more to say than space allows is to create a subarticle, e.g., Synopsis of Parsifal. I don't know how acceptable that would be for this; there may be some Manual of Style regulation saying, "It's a synopsis, so it shouldn't be long enough for its own article!" But even if that's the case for the synopsis, it might be acceptable to create an article such as Leitmotifs in Parsifal which wouldn't be quite the same but could cover some similar ground. I'm sure there's a good place for one to ask about this sort of thing.

One potential problem with discussing Parsifal in this much detail is that everything would have to be citeable. Even trivial musical observations, like which leitmotifs that occur in the Act 2 kiss, would need to be cited one-by-one. I'm not quite the Parsifal devotee that some people are, so I don't know what sorts of published sources there are. If there aren't any, then it may not be possible to include that kind of information in an FA-quality article. Ozob (talk) 00:09, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

The example you give is quite easy on one level. A lot of scores (certainly the ones available in public library when I was a teenager) and libretti (e,g, those in the ENO opera guides) number motifs and reference them as they occur. The trickier aspect is that they don't all use the same numbering system. I'm talking mainly about the Ring here but I am sure that there will be similar issues with the other operas. A big table would be useful giving the musical notation, a sound file and how the names and numbers by which key authors refer to the motives. For the Ring Volzogen and Cooke would be too good starters for authors but the ENO guide uses its own system. I think we can get around WP:OR provided we don't introduce our own terminology and only identify motifs that have been listed in other sources.--Peter cohen (talk) 09:39, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

The idea of a separate subarticle may be something to work toward. My attempts have been to get the chronology of the action straight. Something else that seems to be missing in this article is a description of each main character (except, maybe, Ein Stimme): something like that in Jesus Christ Superstar. Wagner has delineated these characters considerably. (IMO, almost to the point of being caricatures.) Also, the places and objects should be described somewhat: the castle of the Grail, the Spear, the Grail itself (and, maybe, why both had to be together in the end?), Klingsor's 'spell' that enthralled the Grail Knights in his 'domain'... blah, blah, blah.

Is this article aiming to be a quick reference for the passing web-surfer or an incisive treatise that tears aside the veils to show the nitty-gritty core of Parsifal?
Makuabob (talk) 23:42, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Well it certainly is not an "incisive treatise", etc. It is an encyclopedia article. You might want to check out What Wikipeida is Not - particularly the section "Wikipedia is not a soapbox". I think if you want to get to the nitty-gritty core of Parsifal (whatever that might be) then Wikipedia is probably not going to satisfy your desire, because we can only publish what is Verifiable. --Dogbertd (talk) 12:29, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

A good point, Dogbertd, and taken to heart, I assure you. I do not want to force my point of view on the reader, I am simply trying to lay out a 'road map' to the work. If I understand the Wikipedia_is_a_tertiary_source concept, then we can use the opera itself, as it is a Primary Source. (In that same vein, I assume my Schirmer's opera score is a Secondary source.) That is all that I am trying to do here. I won't draw any conclusions but, in describing a character like Kundry, I will have to say that she enters and leaves the Grail's domain (seemingly) at her whim. Yet, as the Primary Source says, only those to which the Grail itself shows the path can find its domain. Kundry has been to Klingsor's garden AND the Grail forest at least twice, says the Primary Source. Is she good, evil, so tricky that she can fool Klingsor (and the Grail) into thinking she IS what she seems to be... or is she none of those? Obviously, I would not include that last sentence, but those before it are facts from a Primary Source.

So, how to proceed? My tendency is to lay out the facts and let the reader do with them as they will. Other thoughts from anyone interested...?
Makuabob (talk) 22:21, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

You're right that that last sentence wouldn't be appropriate but you should be careful how you express things elsewhere too. I think you need to check WP:OR, in particular WP:SYN. It's very easy to fall foul of that. In general secondary sources are favoured over primary, though plot summaries are usually written from the primary source. However, pointing out, say, that a certain motif only occurs in three places in the opera would probably count as original research. Wikipedia policy prefers such facts to be derived from secondary sources. Also, be careful about making your own translations of the libretto. Pre-existing transaltions are favoured in Wikipedia.--Peter cohen (talk) 09:03, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Makuabob, I think that the synopsis is big enough and detailed enough, and you feel differently. One way to deal with this would be (as suggested) to have a separate sub-article, perhaps on Characters in Parsifal. This would be a place for all the extra detail that you've mentioned. I've been looking for a place to put some information about Wagner's development of the characters (the use of elements of "the Fisher King" in the character of Amfortas, for example). How about that? This would be a place for your point about Kundry (who is all of the things you mention and more - but this comes about because she is a synthesis of what were to be two characters in Wagner's original draft - one in the Grail Kingdom, and the other in Klingsor's Kingdom: and, of course, she is the cursed "wandering Jewess" as well.)I'd be happy to help with this.--Dogbertd (talk) 13:33, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Dogbertd, I've been away for a bit but I see there is new help with a fresh, original outlook. So, I am going take a powder and let the well-established editors do their thing.
Makuabob (talk) 00:28, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Kundry a mezzo-soprano?!

Hello.

One of my goals in life is to play Kundry on stage. Seriously. I am a mezzo-soprano, and when I read that Kundry, too, was a mezzo. my heart filled up with joy. But is it true? She's not one of those opera parts that are extra high, like most Wagnerian opera roles, is she? Because if she is, my opera repitoire, sadly, will be reduced to playing "old lady roles", as us altos call them. Please tell me that Kundry's a mezzo.

Also, when you said that Parsifal wasn't influential to the Nazis, I had to laugh a little. If you google a bit, you'll find that it was the opera that influenced Hitler the most.

I can't speak to the details of the score, but Meier and Ludwig have both sung Kundry, and they are mezzos. Fireplace 02:10, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Kundry is a role that lies pretty low in a Soprano's range, and has a few notes (esp "und Lachte!" in the 2nd act) which are high for a Mezzo, so I guess the only way you can know if you can sing it is to try - and good luck! I'd also be interested to know where there documentary evidence that Parsifal influenced Hitler "the most". An opera about compassion and overcoming one's desires doesn't sound like typical Nazi material - indeed if you look at the number of performances of Parsifal during the 3rd Reich, they fall away to nothing by abut 1942, because the Nazis thought that Parsifal had a "pacifist" message. Only Meistersinger was permitted. Hitler himself was more of a Lohengrin man, and by the end, preferred Lehar operattas to anything else.--Dogbertd 07:52, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Kundry is kind of a unique role. Her most successful exponents on record don't seem to record much else (I'm thinking of Irine Dalis, who sang her in the famous 1962 Knappertsbusch recording, and Barbra Ericson, who sang her immediately afterwards). The trick is, Kundry's high notes have to sound full and comfortable, like they're the middle, not the extreme, of the range. But the same is true of her low notes! So I would call her not a mezzo but a wide-ranging, deep-sounding, even husky, soprano. Christa Ludwig recorded the role, but she is awful (IMHO), tinny and small and too youthful-sounding. Yvonne Minton has the same problem, too much glitter in the middle and not enough fullness on the bottom or depth on top. Waltraut Meier did better but she's not a strict mezzo, she sings Donna Elvira and other soprano roles readily. Here's a formula: if you would consider playing the frenzied-adolescent trousers-roles, then you're wrong for Kundry. SingingZombie (talk) 14:17, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Correction and emendations to Act 1, Scene One commentary...

There is a misdirection in the first part of this commentary in that Kundry does not interrupt Gurnemanz's answer to the squires. He evades their question by redirecting attention to the entourage of the King ("Sorgt fuer das Bad!"). Right after that, Kundry makes her wild entrance. Later, Kundry's response to Amfortas' thanks is not incoherent - "Nicht Dank! Ha, ha! Was wird das helfen? Nicht Dank! Fort, fort! Ins Bad!" Wagnerian singers enunciate!

Gurnemanz is not just "one" of the Knights, he is the senior Knight of the Grail. He initially served Titurel, and was on hand to rescue Amfortas after Klingsor had wounded him with the just-purloined spear.

More later...

Makuabob 17:45, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Futher "rewording" of the First Act. Also, the "Grail" is re-identified as the "Holy Grail" and a wiki-link to that added. Details were included that show Gurnemanz was 'showing' Parsifal the error of his actions rather than applying authoritarian discipline. Gurnemanz already 'knew' Parsifal was a pious lad, since only the pious could find the path to Monsalvat, led there by the Grail. I tried to minimize references to Parsifal as a "boy" since he was introduced as a "young man." "Knave" carries a negative connotation.

Bear in mind that Klingsor's 'realm' is guilt, just as Monsalvat is for the pious. Kundry is neither "good" nor "bad." ("Nie tu' ich gute.") She represents logic and fact ("Und nie lügt Kundry, doch sah Sie viel"). In this way, just like the two Spocks in that bi-polar episode of Star Trek, she works in either domain. Where those in the Grail's realm make use of Kundry's actions for altruistic ends, Klingsor 'uses' her to "cast" feelings of guilt upon sinners and enslave them in his 'castle.' Makuabob (talk) 16:12, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Kundry as a representative of science and fact? No offense meant, but you must be in a parallel universe your own self! She's not that at all, she's ultra-sensual, pliable in her master's hands, and deceptive (she admits that she "never helps", but Gurnemanz dismisses this admission as raving, and diverts attention from her by giving a long narrative about the Spear.) The two Spocks? She has neither the logic and emotional control of the good Spock, nor the ruthlessness and goal-orientation of the evil Spock. The Spock-like representative of scientific rationality in Wagner is Loge, not Kundry. SingingZombie (talk) 14:30, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

In Act 1, Scene 1, also,... The phrase "beautiful flower-maidens who seduce and destroy Knights of the Grail" needs "destroy" changed to "enthrall." The Klingsor character calls directly to these 'seduced' Knights to defend his dark castle,... sort of obvious they are not 'destroyed.' Their virtue has been destroyed. Klingsor himself, early in Act 2, calls them betörten (bewitched).

Makuabob (talk) 11:16, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Parsifal vor der Gralsburg.JPG

Oh and while I'm here, does anyoen want to delete the file for the picture of Parsifal before the castle of the Grail that keeps being added in here. The dubious copyright status of that would immediately cause a GA problem if it gets back in.--Peter cohen (talk) 23:36, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

I see no problem with File:Hermann Hendrich Parsifal.jpg if that is the image referred to. Hendrich died in 1931 and copyright has expired. The imgae is used on a n umber of wikipedia projects. Jezhotwells (talk) 00:13, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

No the one Im talking about is File:Parsifal vor der Gralsburg.JPG where the artist dies in 1950 and where the owner of the physical picture is under the mistaken belief that they own the copyright.--Peter cohen (talk) 00:34, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

OK, I see that the artist died in 1940, ref {http://www.askart.com/askart/s/hans_w_schmidt/hans_w_schmidt.aspx}, I have renominated for deletion at Commons. If it is re-added to the article just delete it with a an edit summary copyright violation. Jezhotwells (talk) 02:06, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Parsifal and The Waste Land

Regarding the point raised in the GA review, I know Tristan is quoted in The Waste Land, but Parsifal? Is that a mistake? Does anyone have a copy of the Waste Land? --Kleinzach 22:57, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

I haven't, I'm afraid. Nor have I read it. I think that this programme covered both works, but I can't remember what was said about any influence. Magee's Aspects of Wagner mentions that Eliot quotes Tristan, Goetterdaemmerung and a Verlaine sonnet on Parsifal, but does not mention any other specific relationship between this oepra and The Waste Land. The only references to Eliot in Beckett's book concern the Four Quartets and are more to do with draqwing parallels with Leavis's view of that work than with suggesting any line of inflluence.

BTW, Im dealing with the Trevor Pinnock GAR. So, don't expect me to be available for any of the donkey work here for a week or so. --Peter cohen (talk) 23:36, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

The problem with the 'In Our Time' link given by Peter cohen above is that it doesn't seem to refer to Wagner's Parsifal, but more to other versions of the myth. --Kleinzach 13:52, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Et, ô ces voix d'enfants chantant dans la coupole! (V. Verlaine, Parsifal.) [10] [11] I don't know if this helps as I am unfamiliar with Parsifal, but it appears to be a reference to Verlaine'sm poem. Jezhotwells (talk) 14:00, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

In his poem The Waste Land T.S. Eliot does use the last line of Paul Verlaine's poem "Parsifal." Verlaine's poem was first published in the Revue Wagnérienne of 8 January 1886 and is his take on the events in Wagner's opera. The poem in the original French and in an English translation can be seen at http://www.monsalvat.no/verlaine.htm WikiParker (talk) 04:22, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. I think that means we should concentrate on Verlaine rather than Eliot. --Kleinzach 06:12, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Audio vs. video versions

There is a section in the article listing the audio versions available. Shouldn't there be a section listing the video versions, of which there are several? And how about listing Siberberg's film, which is a studio version?

• I agree. Perhaps you could make a start? Syberberg's film is already mentioned, albeit briefly.--Dogbertd (talk) 06:55, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Kundry mocking Klingsor

She is not mocking his "chasteness" as the other writer said. He is NOT chaste; he is MUTILATED. Self-castrated, in fact. That's what she's mocking. When she asks him "Are you chaste?", she's being sarcastic. Please stop edit warring against me and taking out my correction. Edit warring is against wiki policy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.237.243.185 (talk) 06:00, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

• Please assume Good Faith [[12]]. That is Wiki policy as well. And it would help if could identify yourself. At this point in the opera Kundry says "are you chaste?" which as you point out is a reference to Klingsor's self-imposed chastity through castration. However it has already been noted in the synopsis of Act 1 that he castrated himself, so it seems to me that these corrections represent a sort of running commentary, which is unnecessary in a synopsis which has already been criticised for being too long.--Dogbertd (talk) 21:43, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Schopenhauer, Wagner and Parsifal

I have noted a problem, which unwittingly I may have exacerbated, in the section of the Parsifal article, ‘Schopenhaurian philosophy'. So far this has played itself out in edits and counter-edits by myself and User:Lestrade but as this sort of shadow-boxing is of limited value I am placing the problem here and notifying both WikiProject Richard Wagner and User:Lestrade in the hope of getting some general consensus. The issue seems to me important because Parisfal has GA status so I think we need to be very clear about the information it contains.

The problem is that the section as it stands deals with two different aspects of Schopenhauer's influence on Wagner and by not properly differentiating them, or assessing them objectively, it risks misleading the reader. The two issues are:1)Schopenhauer's influence on W's music as a whole and 2) his influence on the opera 'Parsifal' in particular.

I have no problem with the paragraph on S's influence on the storyline of Parisfal.

However, User:Lestrade has been adding material on the other issue, Schopenhauer and Wagner's music. I make obeisance to User:Lestrade as an expert on Schopenhauer. My mistake perhaps was to aks him to give citations for his summaries of Schopenhauer, rather than at once to query the appropriateness of this material in this article. He has indeed very kindly given citations, (although the one he gives to note 63 scarcely justifies the rather odd statement that 'Before reading Schopenhauer, Wagner utilized music as merely one of several artistic ways of expressing his thoughts and feelings').

The issue here is one of timing. (I'm not going to cite sources here but will gladly do so to ayone who asks for them). Wagner's important theoretical essays on music were written in 1849-1852. At that time he had written 'Lohengrin' but already wanted to draw a line between that(and his earlier operas) and his future operatic activities. To these essays belong his ideas about the Gesamtkunstwerk etc. which his later works were to more or less exemplify. He first read Schopenhauer in 1854. He began writing the music for Parsifal 23 years later in 1877. By this time, the elements of his music which some commentators, such as Magee, identify as 'Schopenhauerian' were already long embedded in his style. It is thus misleading to talk about this influence in this section of 'Parsifal' as if 'Parsifal' was an early, or even a particular, manifestation of this influence.

It is also in any case rather dangerous to say that Wagner wrote his sort of music because of his reading of Schopenhauer (although keen Schopenhauerians such as Magee, who admits that he is no musicologist, are understandably eager to assert this). It is clear from Tannhauser onwards, and from his 1849-1852 essays, that Wagner was already moving away from the models of Weber and Grand Opera towards a personal, 'thematically-dense' style. To attribute all (or even much) of Wagner's change of musical style to his reading of S. is the crudest form of post hoc, ergo propter hoc. It could as well be stated that W. was impressed by Schopenhauer's writings because they reflected the ideas he had already formed or was in the process of forming. The statement 'Before reading Schopenhauer, Wagner utilized music as merely one of several artistic ways of expressing his thoughts and feelings' is in fact obscure and risks being highly misleading - and even if it were true in any sense, it would also be just as true of the period after reading Schopenhauer, when Wagner's flow of essays, letters, projects for theatres, and other non-musical 'expressions of his thoughts and feelings' was just as exuberant. Whilst W's ideas were congruent with many of Schopenhauer's, evidence that Schopenhauer dramatically changed his musical development is debatable, at least.

So for these reasons I suggest that the second paragraph fails WP:NPOV on the Wagner/Schopenhauer relationship, and is also WP:UNDUE for Parsifal the article.

I therefore suggest that the second paragraph of this section is not relevant to Parsifal the article. The topic 'Schopenhauer and Wagner' is an important one, and surely justfies a separate article in WP (for which someone more competent than I needs to volunteer), but it deserves more than a contentious few sentences lost in an aritcle about one of the operas. It is touched upon in the main Richard Wagner article. My proposed solution for the present therefore is to delete the second paragraph of this section; and to preface the first paragraph with something like the following:

Wagner had been greatly impressed with his reading of Schopenhauer in 1854, and this deeply affected his thoughts and practice on music and art. Some writers [&c.......]

Phew.

--Smerus (talk) 16:42, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

• Support. A well crafted, if somewhat lengthy, arguement Smerus. :-) I fully concur with your point of view. Perhaps Lestrade would be interested in starting a seperate article on the relationship between Schopenhauer and Wagner's music.4meter4 (talk) 17:12, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

I request permission to delete all contributions that I have made to this article. If anyone is curious about Schopenhauer's influence on Parsifal in particular or on Wagner's work in general, they can read Schopenhauer, Nietzsche, and Bryan Magee, if they have the time, interest, and energy.Lestrade (talk) 01:46, 29 October 2010 (UTC)Lestrade

Ah.....in that case, I will make my proposed edit. I will just note here that there are other sources on the topic, apart from the three mentioned by Lestrade.--Smerus (talk) 05:12, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

• • Support. That second paragraph wasn't strictly relevant to Parsifal. I have to say I think the influence of Sch on Parsifal is particularly strong, not in the music (I'm not sure how a philosopher can assert his influence on musical notes) but certainly in the libretto. Recall that Wagner wrote the draft for Die Sieger prior to Parsifal, and this very clearly shows the influence of Sch and of Eastern philosophy in general. The libretto for Parsifal was written 'after' his reading of Sch, so I don't think arguments of post hoc ergo propter hoc apply here. But I also agree it would be great to have a separate article on Schopenhauer's influence on W.--Dogbertd (talk) 10:31, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks - I was careful, I hope, to make my 'post hoc' comment relevant to W's music, not to his Parsifal text.--Smerus (talk) 13:42, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Applause after the first act

If I may volunteer this "original research": I've seen Parsifal in Bayreuth in 2009; the audience did clap after the first act (and there was no hissing or something of the sort). I fear that this article's information is outdated. Ebab (talk) 02:11, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Simply horrible

I was deeply shocked when I saw this ugly image of Wagner - when looking for Parsifal. I think it is a horrible mistake - and incredibly boring - to see always Wagner when you want to see an opera (of Wagner) or always Verdi when you want to see an opera (of Verdi). On the page of Parsifal, I want to see Parsifal - NOT WAGNER. What an aweful terror here! If you want to see WAGNER go to his page Richard Wagner.--Meister und Margarita (talk) 22:10, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Parsifal/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 →

(See Talk Page for GA review) 82/100 Still a spot of A. Blending short musical extracts with a discussion of the music is the most obvious place to improve the article. That and more on the recordings and recent performance histort should get this to A. Background/history of composition/discussion of plot and/or text, etc.: 14/15 Excellent. I am still aware of suggestions that Parsifal should be viewed as pagan. These might be discussed. Performance history, including recent performance history and creators of roles: 12/15. Strong on earlier performances through to the new Bayreuth. Might still look at some more recent productions. Tabulated list of roles 5/5. I think the "Ein Stimme" could be lost before going for FA. Synopsis 9/10. The language will need polishing before FA. Notable arias, etc: (preferably embedded in the synopsis): 4/5. Most of the way there. I would suggest including the phrase "transformation scene" for the interludes. And the choral passages of the communion scene might be highlighted - Muck recorded them, for example. Critical appreciation, discussion of music etc: 11/15. Much is there. I think the music might be explored a bit more form sources and with linked extracts. Recordings 7/10. A good start. The table contains space for cataolgue numbers, but these are not given. I'm surprised that the Gui/Callas/Christoff recordign isn't mentioned. And key recordings of extracts including Muck could be listed. Illustrations, including musical illustrations: 7/10. I would favour some smaller excerpt to illustrate the highlighted arias, chorises etc. Inline references, notes, sources, external links: 13/15. A little more work is needed especially on referencing before goign for FA. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Peter cohen (talk • contribs) 20:07, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Last edited at 09:54, 2 October 2007 (UTC). Substituted at 02:19, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Von Eschenbach's version

While Von E. does present blood-dripping spears, the object of Parzifal's quest in the original version of the tale is not Longinus' spear-- it's really readmission to the grail castle and the chance to ask the question.

The article at present states that Von Eschenbach's version is a quest for the spear. This may be due to clumsy editing or unfamiliarity with the original tale. But it's definitely inaccurate and should be corrected. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.210.243.64 (talk) 03:03, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

"Parsifal Suite" section: possible conflict-of-interest edit (?)

Is the fact that a company published a "suite" consisting of instrumental excerpts from the opera really notable enough for a sub-section? Why mention it at all? There are plenty of recordings of instrumental music from this opera. Well, I'll wait a few days, but unless someone chimes in and explains what the point of including this tid-bit in the article is, I shall delete it. HandsomeMrToad (talk) 17:07, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Unless some significant independent reputable coverage of this suite can be found, I agree that the section should be removed. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 23:59, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

If I weren't so passionately dedicated to the WP:AGF principle, I'd almost feel tempted to imagine that it could be possible to speculate there might be a hint, or tincture, of an extremely remote possibility that someone were indulging in a wee bit of COI-editing, maybe even covert advertising. This editor User:Classicalarticles (who has a TALK page but no user-page) seems to have a singularly narrow range of topics in which s/he is interested. HandsomeMrToad (talk) 02:25, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

What a synopsis is not

Hello, fellow Wikipedians and Wagner freaks!

I have cut 15kbytes or so off the summary/synopsis. As per WP:PLOTSUM, a synopsis "... is not (supposed) to reproduce the experience of reading or watching the story, nor to cover every detail. For those who have not read or seen the story, it should serve as a general overview that fills in on the major points. For those who have, it should be detailed enough to refresh their memory, no more."

Best wishes, HandsomeMrToad (talk) 07:06, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

Which class now?

After being demoted from GA, this article is now listed as unassessed. What's the appropriate assessment? -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 13:58, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

I've given it a B. Johnbod (talk) 16:14, 17 February 2024 (UTC)