Talk:The Baden-Baden Lesson on Consent

Outside view

This page got off to a bad start when DionysosProteus overwrote an article by Kleinzach after two days with a REDIRECT to an article DP had created some three months before; that article still was a stub consisting of one line. DP then included the material from KZ's page on this one and expanded it further.

Subsequently, an edit war broke out over the structure of the article. KZ reorganised the material, breaking up the single lead section into a lead and a section "Performance history"; this edit was summarily reverted by DP, reverted by KZ, reverted by DP again, reverted by KZ again with some additions regarding perfomance history (Clown scene controversy between PH and BB); that version again was summarily removed by PD, doubting the veracity of the reference. KZ reverted to his version, adding a specific instance of an already cited source.

KZ then changed the text "… by the German dramatist [BB] … Seven of its scenes were set to music by [PH]" to "… with a text by the German dramatist [BB]] … and music by [PH]". This edit was then reversed by PD, a reversal which also undid a number of intervening wholly uncontroversial edits.

Structure

I think WP:LEAD fully supports KZ's view on the structure of this article. The current lead is too long. It lends itself perfectly to "Lead" + "Performance history". Reverting actions by DP without giving consoderation to the elements of a previous edit feel like WP:OWN and lack WP:AGF. On one occasion, article improvements outside the scope of this dispute were irresponsibly caught up in the DP's revert action.

Clown scene

I assume KZ's source says what he claims. In that case, the disageement between BB and PH is important, and the fact that the work didn't get performed again until 1958 is poignant. KZ first thought this section had also been dropped in DP's most recent reversal; in fact, it had been placed into a different paragraph. KZ has since acknowledged that this passage has not been removed.

BB vs PH

I find the original wording "Seven of its scenes were set to music by [PH]" rather baffling — doesn't the piece consist of exactly seven scenes? On the other hand, (and this is my impression from reading quite a lot of Brecht's works as well as reading secondary literature about Brecht and Hindemith — all of this is of course wholly WP:OR), the Lehrstück is more likely considered a Brecht piece than a Hindemith piece. As the sentence with the "seven scenes" seems disingenious to me, KZ's latest proposal on how to phrase that sentence seems appropriate. In fact, I can't see how any person could object to that wording.

Additional remarks

• The German title of the piece is Das Badener Lehrstück vom Einverständnis — it should be quoted as such. Schott published the Hindemith score under the title Lehrstück — KZ's original titel for the article.
  • Why was it necessary to use "Baden-Baden" in the English title? To avoid ambiguity? Well, if Brecht didn't find it necessary to avoid ambiguity in the German title, why should a translator? I know that this is indeed the prevalent title in English literature, but I would also point to Der Jasager, Der Neinsager, Kuhle Wampe, Die Verurteilung des Lukullus, and a bit further away Erwin und Elmire and many other titles in German literature as models for using the original title for articles.
  • Lehrstück is here translated as "teaching play"; I suggest to consider "didactic play" as well — this is widely used in the secondary literature.

What's to be done?

• I think the article's lead is too long and tries to cover too much; a section "Performance history" should be split off.
• The authorship of the piece should be described per KZ's proposed wording above.
• A wikilink which got reverted for Oszkár Kálmán should be re-instated. Done
• Wikilinks for Josef Witt and Theo Lingen should be added Done; an interwikilink for Valeska Gert should also be considered Done (and the title of her film was Der Tod).
• The spelling of "Lehrstuck" in the 3rd sentence shoul be corrected.  Done
• The Category:Bertolt Brecht plays should be removed — it's a parent category of the Category:Lehrstücke by Bertolt Brecht.  Done--Kleinzach 00:05, 20 January 2009 (UTC) Reverted 20 January 2008 by DionysosProteus. --Kleinzach 00:01, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Michael Bednarek (talk) 09:29, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree with that analysis. If there are any specific objections anyone wants to make to any of the points made by Michael Bednarek, can we go ahead and make them? Otherwise I think we should make it a roadmap for revising the article. --Kleinzach 00:28, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Generally pages are removed from a parent category to prevent overpopulation, which is hardly a concern. Will we soon have to depopulate Category:Lehrstücke by Bertolt Brecht when a subcategory for Schulwerke is created? Sparafucil (talk) 08:38, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Talk page etiquette

the subject heading is mine; this clearly doesnt have to do with Outside View but is a spinoff of the section below Sparafucil (talk) 03:52, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Kleinzach, do not alter my section heading again. It is inappropriate for you to do so. The section heading accurately describes my objections to the suggestions given above and should not be altered. The authorship should be described in such a way that it is accurate. The description I gave in the article is supported by evidence. "Seven scenes or numbers from this work were set to music by Paul Hindemith [...]" is how Willett describes the contribution (1997, 22). DionysosProteus (talk) 13:28, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

DionysosProteus: The section heading you wrote: "Relying on secondary sources without familiarity with the work in question" is tendentious. You are entitled to your opinion - but opinions must be signed and not used anonymously in topic headings in an attempt to subvert the argument. (In fact headings should be descriptive to enable future, indexed, access.) --Kleinzach 23:41, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

It details an objection, which you have persistently ignored. It is not an opinion, but a fact. MB wrote that he found the "original wording "Seven of its scenes were set to music by [PH]" rather baffling". He continued with by suggesting that "the sentence with the "seven scenes" seems disingenious to me, KZ's latest proposal on how to phrase that sentence seems appropriate. In fact, I can't see how any person could object to that wording." It is clear from that bafflement that the sources offered in the article have not been consulted (see above). If either of you had consulted the sources, then you wouldn't be expressing such opinions. As far as my section heading goes, it is inappropriate of you to alter it, as you have done so again in your last edit. Stop this inappropriate behaviour. The section is followed by a long and detailed explanation, which is signed. DionysosProteus (talk) 13:45, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

DionysosProteus "the sources offered in the article have not been consulted". Which sources? Brecht-related sources or Hindemith-related sources? Ones that refer to the original work or to a revision by Brecht? As Sparafucil has already asked (without getting any response): "What I'm still missing is whether the original version was in 11 scenes or 7."

Also removing section headings - which are there to prevent this discussion from disintegrating into incoherence - see here [1] - is disruptive. --Kleinzach 23:58, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Kleinzach, it is completely inappropriate of you to keep moving my comments into separate section headings. They are responses to the discussion in the section in which I place them. You are welcome to add your own comments, but do not alter mine in any way. Once again I find myself asking you to behave appropriately. The sources to which I referred are the ones that would prevent the kind of bafflement detailed above. It is not an unreasonable expectation that editors should know what they're talking about and be familiar with the work of art in question when making a contribution or criticising that made by others. 14:10, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

None of DionysosProteus comments have been altered. However unsigned section headings do not belong to anybody. They must be be neutral, and not used to criticize other editors, as they were in the tendentious (topic) Relying on secondary sources without familiarity with the work in question. DionysosProteus has also repeatedly removed section headings added to clarify the discussion, see [2] and [3]. --Kleinzach 00:06, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Ach, there are no sectionheader police. Anyway, I see nothing wrong with familiarity with primary sources (The play is only 9 pp!) and it wasnt the header that had the tendentious part! It was perfectly obvious that "original sources" was DP's, less obvious that Talk page section heading was prefixed to DP's post by KZ, and needlessly confusing that you both dont keep the talk history simple by observing the most recent at the bottom convention. Tendentiousness is deplorable in the article mainspace but WP would grind to a halt if it were banned from talk pages. Sparafucil (talk) 03:52, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Relying on secondary sources without familiarity with the work in question

It is difficult to take the suggestions above seriously when it is clear that other editors are not familiar with the work in question. The title of the piece is that given in the standard critical edition of Brecht's works in English, in line with Wikipedia guidelines. That translation is by Geoffrey Skelton, the author of the Grove article. Wikipedia guidelines state that the article should have the common English-language title. The piece consists of eleven scenes, hence the phrasing of H's contribution as music set to seven. I object to the wording because it is not specific. Go check the secondary sources and the primary work if you're uncertain. When I incorporated the material from the Lehrstück article, I provided a fair amount of new information along with detailed, in-line citations. The information in the Lehrstück article said:

• "It was first performed on 28 July 1929, at the Stadthalle, Baden-Baden. Hindemith and Brecht disagreed about the revision of the work - the former wanted to remove a controversial scene - with the result that no further performances were given while they were still alive."

This was wholly inaccurate, and is a good example of why we should not rely on a single secondary source. My revision read:

• "It was first performed on 28 July 1929, at the Stadthalle, Baden-Baden, directed by Brecht. The production was an immediate critical success. It was also performed in Vienna and in various German towns, as well as being broadcast on Brussels Radio in 1934. Hindemith and Brecht later disagreed about the revision of the work (Hindemith wanted to remove a controversial scene), which resulted in no further performances until 1958, when a production opened on 14 May in New York."

The source provided as evidence for the last of those sentences does not indicate that it was the clown scene in question. To add that information in without providing a source was misleading because it made it appear that the Willett source confirmed that. The Skelton article wasn't cited as evidence. As regards the structural arrangement, my objection is not against the use of a performance history section, but against the illogical splitting of material that clearly belongs together--the incorporation of the film wasn't an element of it's original performance? ditto for the programme's description? The intro is not too long according to WP:Lead. On the contrary, to arrange the material logically whilst using a performance history section would leave only three or four sentences in the intro. I don't doubt that when the article is expanded further, a performance history section would be desirable; I'm simply asking that the material is arranged logically. As regards the remaining points, the wikilinking and spelling corrections present no difficulty. The categories should remain as, like the opera categories, they are detailed in both. "Didactic play", like "alienation effect" doesn't tend to be used by contemporary scholars, preferring "teaching-" and/or "learning-". Those issues, though, belong on the genre's page. DionysosProteus (talk) 15:07, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

"It is difficult to take the suggestions above seriously..." DionysosProteus, "above" is a little imprecise, assuming you dont take issue with Michael Bednarek or myself weighing in on what strikes a general reader as confusing. I assume we're agreed that Grove alone isnt going to settle the nature of Hindemith's contribution, but neither do you claim familiarity with the published score.

A way forward would be for someone to consult Hindemith's note in the piano score as well as Brecht's riposte (in Versuche 2). Sparafucil (talk) 01:36, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Are you suggesting that the score contains music for more than seven of the eleven scenes? DionysosProteus (talk) 19:31, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

I havnt looked yet either, though regular library hours resume next week. Skelton makes it plain that it contains performance directions as well as music, and the publisher's page seems to summarize an essay on the philosophy of Gebrauchsmusik that is opposed to bb's notions. Willet 1967 says (p135):

...[the premiere] caused a major scandal at Baden-baden, thanks largely to the gratuitous and, on paper, laboriously unfunny scene for the three clowns. (This, according to Dr. Strobel, was the reason the festival had to shift the following year to Berlin.) Brecht then added further sections to his text, which he had not regarded as complete, but Hindemith refused to set them to music, with the result that each refused to let the work be performed except in his own version, and it became impossible to perform it publicly at all.

What I'm still missing is whether the original version was in 11 scenes or 7. Suhrkamp (Die Stücke von Bertolt Brecht in einem Band, 1978) gives 11 without comment, scene 3 being the only one with clowns. If Hindemith's score is the only publication of bb's first text it would be a rather significant primary source!

The other hole in all this is a timeline for the revisions that takes into account the productions up to 1934. I dont have Willet 1997; can you help with these last two points? Sparafucil (talk) 21:48, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

References

Synopsis

Developing the (now minimal) synopsis would be a way forward with this - a synopsis of both the original version and of the later Brecht one. The present short list doesn't correspond closely with the introduction. We need to explain where the Clown Scene goes, where the film is used etc. Does anyone have any good information about either version? --Kleinzach 00:00, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Role of the speaker

The role of the speaker is given as "Gerda Müller-Scherchen". The Scherchen link goes to Hermann Scherchen. I'm not clear what this means. Does anybody know? Perhaps Scherchen's wife? --Kleinzach 00:08, 21 January 2009 (UTC) Good guess- they were married briefly. She is a notable person in her own right; see: Gerda Müller Sparafucil (talk) 08:43, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I've fixed the link so it's clearer. --Kleinzach 09:38, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Heiner Müller

While re-editing the article I removed the following because I wasnt sure whether "This" refered to the scene in Brecht's play or the scandalized audience at the premiere (which included Gide as well as Hauptmann!). :This scene was later reworked by Heiner Müller in his Heartplay (1981). Of course it should go back in; and article on Heartplay would be most welcome! Sparafucil (talk) 12:25, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

The "scene" refers to the clown scene discussed. If it drew on the response of the audience, it would be described along the lines of "this event was dramatised by Heiner Müller in his..." etc. Not sure how that could be described to eliminate the ambiguity you perceive. DionysosProteus (talk) 14:14, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

References

Gebrauchsmusik Vs. Gemeinschaftsmusik

I note the difference between Sparafucil's new version (which takes us forward on a number of points) and DionysosProteus's later revision, see [4]. In particular I see Sparafucil's reference to 'Gebrauchsmusik' ('functional' or 'applied music') has been replaced by DionysosProteus with 'Gemeinschaftsmusik' ('community' or 'amateur music'). Perhaps we can have an explanation? NB Skelton refers to 'Gebrauchsmusik' in the Grove (Opera) article on Lehrstück and has an article on it in Grove (Music). WP doesn't have an article (unfortunately) but there is a substantial section about it in Rise and Fall of the City of Mahagonny#Musical_and_Dramatic_Elements. --Kleinzach 00:33, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

the Mahagony paragraphs are a little suspect but there actually is an article; I've taken the liberty of altering your subject line with a link ;-) Sparafucil (talk) 02:48, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

I am restoring my revision because that's what the sources support. Brecht's objection, Willett explains, was to his conception of Gemeinschaftsmusik not Gebrauchsmusik. The more recent revision is not supported by the sources cited and doesn't offer alternative sources as evidence. Kleinzach, if you are confused by an edit, I suggest you consult the sources the edit offers as evidence before asking for an explanation here. DionysosProteus (talk) 16:16, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

From Lehrstück to Badener Lehrstück vom Einverständnis

1. I dont have handy the date of BLvE's first publication, and
2. I assume the 1958 production was sanctioned by Hindemith, but what version was used and what was the English title? Willett 1967 speaks of the Baden-Baden Cantata of Acquiesence and mentions a 1951 translation by G. Nellhaus. Are the three one and the same? Sparafucil (talk) 02:48, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

FWIW The title 'Cantata of Acquiesence' is used in number of books, for example The Cambridge Companion to Brecht By Peter Thomson. --Kleinzach 03:02, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Der Lindberghflug

I've started to edit this related article and would appreciate contributions from editors here. In particular, I'm wondering whether this should be described as a radio cantata. Thank you. --Kleinzach 01:44, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

It should not, no. If you consult the editorial notes for that piece in the standard critical edition, it details the ways in which it was described at each stage of its development. DionysosProteus (talk) 14:51, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

'Standard critical edition'? I think that needs explaining. In any case no such work is currently referenced. --Kleinzach 13:37, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Since you've been referred to the standard critical edition on many occasions before, I can only assume your query is, once again, disingenuous. Had you consulted the sources offered for this article, you'd be familiar with that for the other work, since they both appear in the same volume. If you're confused by the designation, I suggest you consult the wider critical literature on Brecht. DionysosProteus (talk) 14:18, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

The references for Der Lindberghflug are only to the German Wiki article and the review by Steve Schwarz. That's all. --Kleinzach 23:59, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

It's called a Radiolehrstück für Knaben & Mädchen in bb's collected plays, and a Hörspiel in the PH Werke. The latter is of course radio play , though there is an independent English article on Hörspiel. Der Lindberghflug seems to be a unique genre, I dont know that it would be worthwhile to write an article on participatory radio drama for schoolchildren, though attempts are welcome. In the meantime, maybe [[hörspiel|radio]]-[[lehrstücke|lehrstück]] is a good compromise (I'm pretty certain the literature in English doesnt use the plural of Lehrstück; that page needs moving and a dab link to BLvE). Be sure to read the letter to Ernst Hardt (#148 in Mannheim's translation) on staging Lindburgh! Sparafucil (talk) 08:35, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Carl Koch

This edit removed Carl Koch (husband of Lotte Reiniger) as director of the film as added here. However, these sources seem to indicate otherwise: Der Tod, Deutschland 1929, Experimentalfilm, Brockmann, Stephen; Mayer, Mathias; Hillesheim, Jürgen (ed). 2008. Ende, Grenze, Schluss?: Brecht und der Tod. p. 114. The latter also suggests Danse Macabre as a translation of the film's title and points to the fundamental difference and confusion between the Lehrstück by Hindemith/Brecht and its revision by Brecht to Badener Lehrstück vom Einverständnis — murkier and murkier. Michael Bednarek (talk) 06:55, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

The source given in the article is a reproduction and translation into English of notes from the programme to the 1929 performance. That programme reads "Film Dance of Death by Valeska Gert (cameraman: Karl Koch)." Given that the same programme for the first performance announced that the work was "unfinished", it's not quite accurate to imply that there was a final version that was revised subsequently. DionysosProteus (talk) 14:50, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

In the circumstances, there isn't much difference between calling Carl Koch the director, or the cameraman. He evidently made the film so his name should go back in. --Kleinzach 15:43, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

The issue is not whether his name belongs in the article or not, but for what he is credited. The programme says that the film is "by Valeska Gert." Unless there is an equally reliable source to settle the question, that should be how it is described. DionysosProteus (talk) 17:09, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

The program does not credit anyone with direction, and it's ambiguous whether "von" refers to "film" or "dance". The filmportal reference above carefully distinguishes between "Kamera", "Regie", "Produktionsleitung" and "Aufnahmeleitung" and there is no reason to doubt Carl Koch's credit for Regie and Valeska Gert's for Darsteler. I can find no source showing that she ever directed anything. Sparafucil (talk) 22:13, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

@DP: The quasi-religious adherence to one particular class of sources to the exclusion of all others is preventing this article from useful further development. Michael Bednarek (talk) 08:15, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Michael, citing reliable sources is the cornerstone of Wikipedia's claims to reliability. Religious thinking is, by definition, founded on the exclusion of objective evidence. My insistence on reliable sources in print in English that are consequently available to any editor to examine and confirm information offered here cannot, by any stretch of the imagination, be called "religious." Sparafucil, I agree that it is possible that the translator has eliminated an ambiguity in the original programme note and in so doing distorted the information. However, we need a reliable source of the kind detailed above to confirm that. In lieu of that, we ought to go with the most-reliable source available, and so far, that is the editorial notes to the standard critical edition of the work. DionysosProteus (talk) 14:05, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

DP, wikipedia does not exclude German from reliable sources, either primary or secondary. My curiosity is aroused as to the exact wording in the SCT (for short;-)) but Ulrich Scheinhammer-Schmid: Schmeiß die Beine vom Arsch” Bertolt Brecht und der Totentanz. in Ende, Grenze Schluss? Brecht und der Tod ed. Brockmann, Meyer & Hillesheim (link above) leaves little room for doubt. Sparafucil (talk) 05:09, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

a few reverted points

I've restored Carl Koch and a few other bits DP reverted.

1. The reference for the Hindemith quotes might as well be given as "letter... cited in" and it's less confusing to give "(source) cited in Brecht 1997" so we know whether it's bb or Willett talking (for that matter, is Willett the general editor or did he translate the present work?)
2. Brecht's paragraph from which the quote about the cellist is taken uses the term Gebrauchsmusik twice, so the change to Gemeinschaftsmusik needs explaination.
3. bb vs. ph should take into account both sides of the argument, letting them speak in their own words when possible. Why is Hindemith's conception "particular"? If the tendentiousness is Brecht's it should stay (and be credited). PH's own professed social goals would seem not to be "purely aesthetic". Sparafucil (talk) 00:37, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm assuming that in using the Brecht as example in #1 you are actually referring to the way the Hindemith info is cited? Otherwise, I'm not sure what you're talking about. That it is a letter to his wife is irrelevant to the point being made, and there's no need to have the footnote floating in the middle of the sentence.

Do you have a citation for the original Brecht quotation? Is it the GW? Both Willett's Theatre of and his Art and Politics specifically detail Gemeinschaftsmusik.

"Particular" because it ought to be clear that BB is in broad agreement with both gemein and gebrauch approaches to music. It's H's purely aesthetic pedagogy that he objects to--teaching just music, rather than music and ideas. Its the music for amateurs that abolished performer/audience that's at issue, not work composed for specific occasion.

There are several other problems with your edit: the redundant "however" is poor writing style. The use of "naturally" for Brecht's opinions is nonsense and distorts his views (and is now unsourced)--where does he conceive of music as "incidental"? It wasn't published in collected plays but in Experiments. H shouldn't be described as "observing", as if pointing out an objective fact, but rather "thinking", as if conceiving an opinion. The role as Mrs Peachum is incidental to the work under discussion and belongs, consequently, in a footnote. DionysosProteus (talk) 14:16, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Oh, I dont seem to have been as clear as I wished; #1 was a plea for references in the form of "Editor's commentary in Brecht 1997" or "Brecht's essay On Opera (originally published as an afterword to the score of Mahagony), cited in Brecht 1997". #2 This last is in Brecht: Writings on Theatre and, to my recollection (it's mislaid at the moment) on page 40 Willett uses the untranslated word "Gebrauchsmusik" (in a note that follows on page 42 he does say "Brecht is confusing [Gebrauchsmusik] with its companion doctrine of Gemeinschaftsmusik"). #3, the section admittedly needs more work. Can you contribute data on Brecht's publication? "Experiments" sounds like a machine translation of "Essays";-) The googlebooks essay on the dance of death has a footnote blaming bb for deliberately sowing confusion in a 1937 autobiographical contribution to the periodical Das Wort when he stated that H wrote no music to BBLvE but only to Lehrstück. Does Willett have more to say on this? #4 You're right about "however", i was still thinking along lines of H only set 7 scenes... #5 the Valeska Gert article didnt exist in English before, so it seemed important to identify her. Sparafucil (talk) 09:18, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

On #1, the re-edit of my edit has confused the sourcing. When it was Brecht, I cited "Brecht 1997", when it is the editorial notes, "Willett 1997", preferring the latter when the editorial section offers a primary source unattributed. On #2, yes, I hadn't recognised it as originating in "The Modern Theatre is the Epic Theatre" (1930), which, as you say, appears on p.40 of Brecht on Theatre. However, he doesn't identify in that passage that it's this particular piece he's criticising (though it probably is), and the editorial clarification by Willett at the end of the essay that you quote is important. Since the other two Willett sources--The Theatre of Bertolt Brecht and Art and Politics in Weimar Germany--both identify the objection's target as Gemeinschaftsmusik, and Brecht's remarks in the "Modern Theatre" notes make it clear, despite the confusion, that it's the "use" of the amateur he's questioning, I think that the article ought to identify the target as Gemein. The first publication is in the Versuche series, rather than the later works. 1930, I think. I can't remember which source I got that from, but can check if needs be. I haven't been researching this piece in particular recently, so couldn't add any more on the no music confusion. Can you provide a weblink to the googlebooks essay you're referring to? There is a relevant letter to Hindemith (#238, 1934/5), which addresses the relations between art and politics, but I can't find a reference to the Das Wort comments. DionysosProteus (talk) 16:05, 29 January 2009 (UTC)