Talk:Samstag aus Licht

Libretto

It is customary that opera articles mention the language and author of the libretto in their lead. I noticed that this work is categorised as Italian and German, but I couldn't find any details. Is it possible to add this? -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 04:15, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I was unaware of this custom, but it should easily be addressed. The second scene has no text to speak of (only two words, in Latin), and the text of scene 3 is in German. One small problem is that the text for scene 4 was originally written in Latin, but the version used is an unattributed Italian translation. How is this usually handled? Another technicality concerns the first scene: in the score, the text throughout is given in German, English, and French. These are to be rotated in uneven proportions (one language should predominate) and the performer is to decide which language to use at any given point.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 06:00, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

PS: Would you please have a look at Sonntag aus Licht in this regard? The libretto there is partly by the composer, but partly from other sources. The main language is German (scenes 1, 3, and 4), but the texts in scenes 2 and 5 also include Spanish, English, Hindi, Chinese, Arabic, and Swahili. I would appreciate your advice on how to deal with this in the lede paragraph.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 06:21, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Someone has to decide on the body of words to be sung, and that person is credited as the librettist; if needed/wanted/desirable/feasible, the sources of the libretto are sometimes mentioned later in the article. "… to a multi-lingual libretto selected/assembled by the composer" is a helpful start. As it is, Sonntag doesn't mention the words "libretto" or "words", and once intriguingly refers to "original vocal texts".

As for categories: Category:Multiple-language operas seems apt. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 08:11, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ah-hah! That category is new to me, but seems to fit Sonntag perfectly (and perhaps Samstag, as well). I shall review the Sonntag article in light of your very useful description of the librettist as the person who "decides on the body of words". Although they are in seven different languages, the texts in scene 2 of Sonntag are all translations from Stockhausen's own words, but in scene 5 they are drawn from pre-existent texts in five languages. This definition of "librettist" neatly solves this problem. Thank you.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 22:45, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Spelling "Gruß"

There are a number of movements in the cycle with the German word "Gruß" (the correct spelling) in their title. The article Licht is inconsistent on the spelling (10 "Gruss", 4 "Gruß", 1 "Grüße"); this article (Samstag), uses only "Gruss". Can this be made consistent? -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 04:15, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The problem has to do with the way the word is printed in various articles, programme books, and scores. I did notice this as I was typing, but consistency and accuracy should be maintained.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 06:02, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia does not always strictly follow published sources when they grossly contradict Wikipedia's style rules; e.g. all-caps Latin inscriptions are to be shown in sentence case, ambiguous dates in sources have to be fixed. I'm not sure how to deal with eccentric (or Swiss) spelling, but, following your edits, the inconsistencies are now removed or explained. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 08:11, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for pointing this problem out, in any case. Since the recent orthography reform, I have been somewhat confused about when double-S is used in place of the former es-zet, and when es-zet is still in use.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 22:38, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Aside & off-topic: The reform was indeed quite a mess and that confusion is wide-spread. I stick to this first approximation: "after a short vowel: 'ss'; after long vowels and diphthongs/Umlaute: 'ß'; Switzerland: always 'ss'". That leaves regional variations in pronunciation (e.g. the Maß, a glass beer mug, is pronounced and spelled Mass in Bavaria) and surnames where, like in English, all rules are suspended. Cheers, Michael Bednarek (talk) 05:28, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Images

I'm looking around for Botticelli's Lucifero: the only one in the commons is I think different from the Scala backdrop. But another question: does the Liege statue by Guillaume Geefs have a specific connection to Stockhausen? I'll pass it on to the costumer, whether a tail hangs thereby or not... Sparafucil (talk) 22:57, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Scala backdrop of course was not drawn by Botticelli personally, but was claimed by the management to have been based on a drawing by him. I cannot confirm what the original model may have been, but I have to agree that the one you found on Commons is significantly different. The Liège statue has no direct connection that I know of, though Stockhausen surely knew it from several visits to that city. It seemed to me the best representation available for the purpose. If you have got a better image in mind, by all means bring it forward.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 23:15, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, that's mildly disappointing, though I see Le génie du mal merits its own article and is more widely famous than I had imagined. Maybe the detail is the one from [1] though?

Sorry to disappoint. Getting back to Botticelli, it appears that there are at least two versions of the Lucifer drawing. The incomplete one, which you can see here, more closely resembles the design for the Scala production, which you can see in the background of one photograph on this blog (the photo showing the stilt dancer, which is taken from the DG record cover). The relationship is very plain: all that the designer has done is to remove Lucifer's hands from in front of his mouth, and minimize the appearance of the two extra faces. It is otherwise the same. The facial expression on the full-length figure (the one you have found on Commons, and also in the external link) is rather different.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 03:12, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Broken link

Afraid I don't know how to fix it, but the link to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samstag_aus_Licht#CITEREFStockhausen_and_Kohl198525 at the end of the synopsis is broken. Joexcm (talk) 15:45, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! There was a syntax error in that infernal template, and it was my fault. Sorry, it is fixed now. I can well understand why you couldn't figure out how to fix it, because template syntax is esoteric knowledge and recognizing the nature of a problem from the displayed text requires some experience with the individual template. (I think templates are a menace and should be banned from Wikipedia!)—Jerome Kohl (talk) 16:19, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]