Talk:Tannhäuser (opera)

Infobox?

I suggest something like this, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:25, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Be aware of the egghunter. Minor point: there's no need to italicise |name= or |other_name= – the template will do that. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 03:54, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. Italics taken. If you mean the link for opera, - I think most readers interested in this work may know what an opera is and are helped more by the link to Wagner's "operas" some of which he didn't want to have named operas ;) - When we deal with a choral work by Bruckner, we link to his such works, not general. for example. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:55, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

done --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:58, 13 August 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) 10:12, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

I followed the examples on the Ring operas and others, not added by me, and those of all Verdi operas, also not added by me. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:45, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Bibliography

There is a long standing tradition in WP for having "bibliographies" that may not necessarily equate to line references, variously listed by titles such as bibliographies or further reading. To remove all such sources, which editors presumably consulted, seems rather a purist approach. I would therefore reinstate these, if necessary, distinguishing those directly cited and those not, but that is a fluid situation, obviously. --Michael Goodyear (talk) 20:45, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

At least one of the removed sources was actually referenced in the text, but not done well. I will address that. Sources provide tools for future editors to improve pages, and should be only removed if irrelevant or unreliable. --Michael Goodyear (talk) 20:54, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

The prime purpose of citations is given in WP:CITE - "By citing sources for Wikipedia content, you enable users to verify that the information given is supported by reliable sources, thus improving the credibility of Wikipedia while showing that the content is not original research. You also help users find additional information on the subject; and you avoid plagiarising the source of your words or ideas by giving attribution." The key is that the bibliography list in an article cites sources. I know of no citation or authority for the 'long standing tradition' mentioned above. Adding in a bibliography works which are not cited is therefore misleading. There seems no point in adding (unless they are specifically cited) general dictionaries of opera and of music, or in adding out of date works relating to the topic which just happen to be available online; whilst adding to the list specialized books and articles which are not cited is a sort of WP:OR, drawing the reader's attention to works which are not reflected in the article text, just because they are favoured by an editor. A few articles carry lists of uncited works headed "Further reading." See Wikipedia:Further reading, which points out that "Like the External links appendix, the inclusion of a Further reading section is optional, and many good articles, and more than half of all featured articles, omit it entirely. This section is present in fewer than 3% of Wikipedia's articles". Best, --Smerus (talk) 06:26, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

David, First I acknowledge that you are an important contributor to the Wagner project and have a relevant academic background.

Second, I'm sure you know that the Met is broadcasting this Opera all over the world this weekend, so I expect this page to get a lot of hits, which was my motivation to try and bring up its usefulness as much as I could in a short time. Ideally I am sure both you and I would love to see all the Wagner opera page raised to at least GA status, but I don't have time right now, with a lot of other projects ongoing.

Third, WP MOS are deliberately worded as guidances, so some judgement is necessary. My judgement tends to be guided by two main principles - does it help make the page look professional - and does it improve the usefulness to end users. One can't cite sources for everything that goes on in WP and unfortunately given the vast number of contributors, standards are very uneven. My opinion was based not on any specific citable authority but on many years of actively contributing to WP, and many thousands of edits and articles (though not as many as you), and active involvement in steering WP projects, and thus in terms of what actually goes on out there, whether ideal or not. We all evolve personal editing styles based on experience and learning from others, but this is the first time I have encountered this particular principle spelled out like this - may be the Wagner project has its own styles and rules. (my preferred style is sfn with a separate bibliography, which facilitates maintenance). However it is interesting that WP allows of a wide range of citation styles. I make a careful distinction between citing for all the reasons we both know here and in academic scholarship, and providing useful bibliographies. WP's Citing guidance does not really address the issue, so I find no evidence to suggest a bibliography is in anyway misleading. However I agree with you that a number of bibliographies are sometimes lacking judicious selection, and Extermal links often worse. I really don't see any evidence of OR here. But I agree it would be wrong, if I understand you correctly, to have important material in a bibliography not used in the article, particularly if they express a point of view or facts contrary to that which is stated in the article. I also agree that a lot of things are optional, but that does not make them prohibited. I don't have any statistics on the frequency of usage, but that does not prove anything one way or another. Personally I don't find External links a useful concept - after all where possible one tries to make all of one's sources external links - and absorb them into bibliographies in my GAs and FLs. In this particular case, I am revising the page and intend to use most of the sources.

Thanks for your input and information --Michael Goodyear (talk) 01:56, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

PS The page statistics confirm a sharp rise in interest. I would be interested in the input of my friend @Gerda Arendt:, who has had a lot of experience in this area.--Michael Goodyear (talk) 03:44, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Thank you, but still limited service, back tomorrow, and a backlog, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:30, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Simply put, I think it is appropriate under WP style to reserve article 'sources' for works cited in the article. If there is a need to add 'further reading', then there ought imo to be a brief explanation and justification of why it is recommended - (e.g. Stebbings, Arthur (20XX). Book, Place:Publisher ISBNno. A general survey of the background to the first production.) otherwise it does indeed become WP:OR, simply a list of items which the editor likes. I don't think I have anything further to add on this topic, but you may care to raise it in a wider context e.g. in WP:WikiProject Opera. Best, --Smerus (talk) 09:36, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

PS Obviously, Michael Goodyear, I did not realize when I made my initial edits to the biliography that you were intending to expand the article. My apologies, and my thanks to you for your work.--Smerus (talk) 10:19, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

PPS. You give in the bilbiography 'DGG' as a reference. Can you please make clear the recording (e.g. conductor/orchestra, the catalogue number)), the name of the writer of the notes, and the page references. See e.g. Template:Cite AV media notes. Also we're lacking page references for Holden, and for Harewood and Peattie - Thanks --Smerus (talk) 12:57, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Yes of course - I was in a hurry to get something on paper prior to the broadcast. --Michael Goodyear (talk) 21:38, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

PS I was also aware the recording was fully referenced in the subpage Tannhäuser discography--Michael Goodyear (talk) 21:51, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

There is actually another consideration. Unfortunately, there are many relatively good articles on WP which give a list of "sources", with vary few or no line references (non English WP is often worse, even at GA level), for which they are often tagged. Since we are supposed to assume good faith, I assume that the contributors faithfully reproduced the spitit of the sources they used but maybe lacked the requisite skills for adding line references. I think that is a more charitable interpretation than OR. In which case it would be a disservice to the article to erase them and thereby divorce text from source. It then falls to more obsessive editors like you and I to take those sources and attempt to link them to the text line by line! I think it is actually a bigger issue than even WP Opera, but since you raise it, yes it would be a good idea to have a much more standardised approach to opera articles, something that has bothered me for some time.--Michael Goodyear (talk) 21:38, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

'Noted excerpts'

This seems to be a WP:OR listing, with no evidence or citations, or definition of what 'noted' might mean; or indeed any indication of what its point or purpose might be. All the important items are already mentioned and described as appropriate in the newly-updated synopsis. I am therefore deleting it on the gorunds of cruft and repetition.--Smerus (talk) 10:23, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Another issue of broader implications than this page, since I see something similar on many opera pages--Michael Goodyear (talk) 21:40, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

For example? Not, I am sure on any opera articles which have been given GA or FA status.--Smerus (talk) 08:15, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Probably not, admittedly I have not done a search on those categories. --Michael Goodyear (talk) 13:57, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Synopsis

For clarification, I have deliberately separated stage directions and kept the italics in the original, from my paraphrase of the ensuing actions and words.--Michael Goodyear (talk) 22:24, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

This italicisation makes the synopsis very difficult to read, and is contrary to Wikipedia practice. Also it is not clear from the above whether the stage directions are translations of Wagner's originals (in which case citations would be apprpriate), or are yours (or another authority's) interpretation of them. Can you please clarify your clarification?--Smerus (talk) 08:13, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

In fact, here is the opening set of stage instructions, from the libretto which is cited in the article's external links:

Die Bühne stellt das Innere des Venusberges dar. Weite Grotte, welche sich im Hintergrunde durch eine Biegung nach rechts wie unabsehbar dahinzieht. Im fernsten sichtbaren Hintergrunde dehnt sich ein bläulicher See aus; in ihm erblickt man die badenden Gestalten von Najaden; auf seinen erhöhten Ufervorsprüngen sind Sirenen gelagert. Im äußersten Vordergrunde links liegt Venus auf einem Lager ausgestreckt, vor ihr halb kniend Tannhäuser, das Haupt in ihrem Schoße. Die ganze Grotte ist durch rosiges Licht erleuchtet. – Den Mittelgrund nimmt eine Gruppe tanzender Nymphen ein; auf etwas erhöhten Vorsprüngen an den Seiten der Grotte sind liebende Paare gelagert, von denen sich einzelne nach und nach in den Tanz der Nymphen mischen. – Ein Zug von Bacchantinnen kommt aus dem Hintergrunde in wildem Tanze dahergebraust; sie durchziehen mit trunkenen Gebärden die Gruppen der Nymphen und liebenden Paare, welche durch sie bald zu größerem Ungestüm hingerissen werden. – Dem immer wilder gewordenen Tanze antwortet wie im Echo der Gesang der Sirenen

What is in the synopsis in the article as it stands is rather different from this - e.g. there is no mention here of the rape of Europa. If you are going to cite extensively from Wagner's own stage directions, the citations should be clear and accurate and it would be helpful to differentiate them by enclosing them in quote marks (which would save the optical confusion of long passages in italics). You should also make clear what is Wagner's original, and what is the additions or interpretations of some other authority, of the stage directions.--Smerus (talk) 08:33, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

The stage directions are paraphrases of those in my libretto, the one cited there, which are italicised in that edition. --Michael Goodyear (talk) 13:39, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Clarified in bibliography and text. The link in external links is quite different, and appears to be a different edition to that used in the DGG recording. Indeed it is the Dresden edition, rather than the Paris edition!--Michael Goodyear (talk) 16:29, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

October 2015 upgrade

I have done some substantial work on this over the last week and it now looks more like a C than a Start. There is still a huge amount of work to do, eg thematic and musical analyses, relationships within Wagnerian canon. The literature is vast. However public interest has started to wane (at one point we had 3500 hits a day), so I will move on to other pressing projects for now. At the moment the issue as to whether bibliographies should contain 'Further Reading' or not is moot, since all entries are now incorporated into the article. --Michael Goodyear (talk) 16:21, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Bibliography

We seem to have our knickers in a twist about the bibliography. Firstly, it is better to separate by sources and then by additional reading (that is, if you can justify the additional reading, see discussion above). Take a look at the layout at Richard Wagner, which is a featured article. Secondly, don't confuse different editions. The crappy old (and incomplete) translation of Wagner's 'Mein Leben' online is quite different form the complate and more accurate translation by Andrew Gray which I included as a separate cite - recent editing seems to have confused these two editions. Please sort out.

Presenting readers with a huge list of texts, some of which have been cited in the article, and some of which haven't, is confusing for the reader and militates aginst the clarity which Wikipedia strives for. and sorting them on a WP:OR basis as 'Books by and about the Wagners', etc. is also not helpful. Any text which is listed and not cited should have a careful explanation as to why it is important/relevant. Leah Garrett's book for example is absolute rubbish and totally underserving of a mention. Our mission is to inform, not to overload with a ton of cruft. Thanks, --Smerus (talk) 16:26, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Assessment comment

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

Translation of subtitle wrong Sängerkrieg (from the subtitle of the opera) really isn't a [literally translated] "singer's war", but more of a "minstrel contest". It has got to be possible to find out what the consensus among published translations is. If that were to turn out "Singer's war" (which I doubt), then perhaps this article should start remedying the mis-translation but make a special note. Incidentally, this is not a matter of taste (i.e. when some busy-bodies think they have to improve on a title like "The Gay Science") but of plainly missing the meaning of the original phrase. Lower end of the B spectrum. Some specific areas for improvement: More performance history (e.g. at Bayreuth) needed Synopsis could be improved, and should show clearly where the Dresden/Paris versions differ, and should include the first lines of notable arias, etc., where they occur More discussion of the music would be good Recordings - those generally considered the best (with sources) would be a better choice than "some of the most popular" Illustrations: the Cezanne is irrelevant - what is needed is a scene or two from the opera References: should be replaced by inline refs at appropriate points --GuillaumeTell 11:04, 7 September 2007 (UTC) Upper Start class (54 points). Possible improvements: Recent performance history - and practice regarding the different versions. Synopsis - per GuillaumeTell - also adding German for notable arias. Adding critical appreciation and discussion of music section More illustrations - many historic ones must be available. Fully discography including historic pre-war recordings. -- Kleinzach 01:59, 8 September 2007 (UTC) 52/100 Upper start range. Unlike some of the other operas, there is some material covering each area of the marking scheme. However, this needs to be deepened as indicated below. A total of 60% is required to reach B-class, so the background and composition material is well up to that standard. The marking scheme and comments indicates where more marks could most easilly be picked up. Background/composition/text: 11/15 a good solid introduction to the work and the mess of different versions. I would suggest also placing the opera in the context of Wagner's oevre as a whole. Also worth mentioning hybrid performing versions such as the Sawallisch Bayreuth one. Performance History: 7/15 very thorough on premieres, but try to find full names for Paris singers, but what since? Tabulated list of roles: 4/5 Give the full names of the characters. Wolfram von Eschenbach isn't just a character in this opera but Wagner's main source for Parsifal. Synopsis 8/10: could do with a little work on the English Notable Arias etc: 2/5 Not enough mentioned. Where is "Dich Teure Halle", for instance? First lines should be in German. Music/Critical appreciation: 4/15 The music really needs its own section. Apart fromt he debuts, there's really no mention of critical opinion. Recordings: 5/10 needs to give main cast for all recordings. Could do also with a mention of recordings of the overture, extracts. Illustrations: 3/10. Agree with the above comments. Should also import some sound extracts, within Wikipedia's policy, e.g. you mention the Venus motif, but how do people know what it sounds like? References, notes, links, sources: 8/15 good to see a start on inline referencing, but obviously we will need more before going for GA. I think that there should be some better external links. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Peter cohen (talk • contribs) 10:03, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Last edited at 10:11, 4 May 2012 (UTC). Substituted at 07:37, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Motivations

The section presently headed 'Game Theory Analysis' had its title changed by me to 'Tannhäuser's motivations' - as its contents refer not only to games-theory but to Jungian interpretations. This has been reverted twice by an editor without explanation. I am referring the issue to WP:OPERA to seek other editors' opinions.--Smerus (talk) 12:26, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

It's not a particularly fleshed-out section. It was originally called "Analysis", and added by Michael Goodyear: [1]. I'm even wondering if it should actually exist in such a tiny form. I think it should be expanded somewhat, from the citations given (and others if found); unfortunately the first two are not linked or visible. In any case, the section should not be called "Game Theory Analysis", when in fact that is only one of several analyses referred to. It should probably be reverted to the original title. Softlavender (talk) 13:08, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

Yes ideally there should be a larger section (titled 'Reception' in many opera articles) which gives an overview of critical comment on the opera (and where appropriate of performances), which could include views on T's motivation. I will see what other citations I can find. In the meantime I will await any other comments before considering reverting the section title.--Smerus (talk) 19:31, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

I gave a very clear explanation for my deletion. As long as the article does not include a section about interpretations, then having a single section highlighting just one such opinion is biased and incomplete. It looks as though one author wants to pimp their specific work, and is in no way objective. If there were a thorough section of critical analysis of the opera, then it might make sense, but as such, it's simply out of place. Kirkmc (talk) 05:32, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

NB the title 'Tannhäuser's motivations' has now been restored by Kirkmc him/herself. As pointed out by Softlavender, other analyses are referred to in the paragraph, not 'just one'. In any case I am intending to expand the section over the next day or two.--Smerus (talk) 08:57, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

I don't recall the exact circumstances of its creation in Novemeber 2015, because I decided to move on rather than have two editors working on the page at the same time. I do recall that the sources had been on the page unused for a long time. I don't have any particular stake here. --Michael Goodyear (talk) 17:18, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

Pilgrim's Chorus

I corrected the identification of this theme in the section on the Overture. The famous Pilgrim's Chorus used there is the one from Act 3, Scene 1, not to be confused with the hymn sung by the pilgrims in Act 1, Scene 3. --Michael Snow (talk) 00:39, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

The correct full name

Hi! One short mention: the right full name of Tannhäuser is "Tannhäuser und der Sängerkrieg auf Wartburg" without the second "der". This mistake is often done even in Germany because it sounds a bit strange missing the article at this place. Greetings! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.204.137.89 (talk) 08:58, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

Changed to it both times (was one before). --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:00, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

"translation" of "Der Kampf der Sänger"

Somebody more capable than me should correct the English "translation" of "Der Kampf der Sänger" - this entry has it as "The Singer's Contest" - that is not accurate. "Der Kampf der Sänger" more accurately translates to: "The Competition/Contest between Singers," or, at the very least "The Singers' Contest." What stands now has no lexical meaning! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.36.157.248 (talk) 17:53, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

Waldhorns?

The article mentions waldhorns (a German word) but the link is to the natural horn (Naturhorn in German). In the German Wikipedia these are two different instruments. Mebden (talk) 16:39, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

The German Wikipedia at de:Horn (Blechblasinstrument) mentions "Waldhorn" as an alternative name for a French horn. As a native German speaker, I think that's confusing and wrong. A Waldhorn is e.g. the de:Parforcehorn or the post horn, horns without valves. The link to "natural horn" for the stage band is IMO correct. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 00:52, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

The Evening Star is Venus - significance?

The whole of the first act presents the goddess Venus as a sensuous temptress. In the third act, Wolfram sings an aria about the purity of the Evening Star, comparing it to the Elizabeth and the Virgin Mary. Wagner would surely have known that the Evening Star is the planet Venus. It would be OR to point that out in the article, but has no quotable expert ever pointed out that remarkable fact, and its significance, if any? --Hugh7 (talk) 03:19, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

It's mentioned at "O du mein holder Abendstern". -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 04:21, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

Featured picture scheduled for POTD

Hello! This is to let editors know that File:Tavola 5,_bozzetto_di_Gebrüder_Brückner_per_Tannhäuser_(s.d.)_-_Archivio_Storico_Ricordi_ICON011721_-_Restoration,_crop.jpg, a featured picture used in this article, has been selected as the English Wikipedia's picture of the day (POTD) for June 19, 2023. A preview of the POTD is displayed below and can be edited at Template:POTD/2023-06-19. For the greater benefit of readers, any potential improvements or maintenance that could benefit the quality of this article should be done before its scheduled appearance on the Main Page. If you have any concerns, please place a message at Wikipedia talk:Picture of the day. Thank you!  — Amakuru (talk) 09:54, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

Tannhäuser is an 1845 opera in three acts, with music and text by Richard Wagner. It is based on two German legends: Tannhäuser, the mythologized medieval German Minnesänger and poet, and the tale of the Wartburg song contest. The story centres on the struggle between sacred and profane love, as well as redemption through love, a theme running through most of Wagner's work. This undated set design for Act III of a production of Tannhäuser was produced by Max Brückner and his brother Gotthold, and printed by Otto Henning AG in Greiz.

Set design credit: Max and Gotthold Brückner; restored by Adam Cuerden

Recently featured:

• Boeing KC-46 Pegasus
• Redhead
• Jasper Francis Cropsey