Talk:The Baden-Baden Lesson on Consent/Archive 1

Archive 1

Blanking and redirection of Lehrstück article

Lehrstück, an article started on 31 October was blanked and redirected to The Baden-Baden Lesson on Consent by DionysosProteus on 1 November without any explanation, see [1].

DionysosProteus should have the courtesy to explain what his intentions to other editors and get agreement before removing whole pages. The page on Lehrstück was based on the article in the New Grove Dictionary of Opera by Skelton, Geoffrey. --Kleinzach 23:25, 1 November 2008 (UTC) P.S. Grove give the title as 'Lehrstück', translated in English as 'Lesson on Consent'. --Kleinzach 23:31, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the lecture. The page wasn't blanked--please try to be more accurate in your descriptions. The material was incorporated into the already-existing article with a redirect. If you take the time to research the piece properly, you'll realise that this is where that material ought to be. Even the author of the Grove article translates it as the Baden-Baden Lesson on Consent in the collected works. DionysosProteus (talk) 17:04, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Was the work by Brecht, or jointly by Hindemith and Brecht?

The lead now says: "The Baden-Baden Lesson on Consent (German: Badener Lehrstück vom Einverständnis) is a Lehrstück by the German dramatist Bertolt Brecht, written in collaboration with Slatan Dudow and Elisabeth Hauptmann.[1] Seven of its scenes were set to music by Paul Hindemith.[1]"

This is markedly different from the lead to Lehrstück [2] based on Geoffrey Skelton which read (before it was blanked) ''Lehrstück (Lesson on Consent) is a music theatre ('Gebrauchsmusik') work by Paul Hindemith, with a German libretto by Bertolt Brecht.") If only seven scenes were set by Hindemith (who by implication was a junior partner in the project) how many other scenes were there? Also if Hindemith was a junior partner how come he was able to obstruct further performances of the work during his lifetime? --Kleinzach 00:27, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

To which implication do you refer? Please explain what a "junior partner" is and what relevance it has to the context. If you're interested in researching the piece further, the sources listed in the article are a good place to start. DionysosProteus (talk) 01:17, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Block reversion of edits

I've reverted to the previous edited version. If there are any issues with particular aspects of this please discuss here. Otherwise straightforward good faith edits should be allowed to stand. Any reasonable criticisms will be respected - but blanket reversion of edits is not the way to go, see [3]. --Kleinzach 01:33, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Once again all my edits - which were based on the normal formatting for works of this type - have been reverted in their entirety by DionysosProteus. I can only assume that this is ad hominem and nothing to do with the actual edits themselves which were for formatting - and accuracy with regard to the 'clown scene' - reasons. Once again no specific reasons has been given has been given by this editor, no explanation here. A pure case of ownership of this article? --Kleinzach 00:58, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps you'd like to examine the material a little more closely before commenting. You re-arranged the material into an illogical arrangement. Most of the material in the lead refers to the specific production choices made in the first performance and as such belongs together. As to the clarification about the clown scene, that sentence is currently sourced with a citation that does not support your edit. I don't doubt it's accurate, but you need a source that says so, without which the edit is misleading. DionysosProteus (talk) 13:06, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

The clown scene now has a specific reference. Don't remove this. Next time you think something needs a direct reference kindly use a {{fact}} tag instead of reverting other editors' work. --Kleinzach 09:28, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Please desist in reverting to an illogical rearrangement of material. DionysosProteus (talk) 02:35, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Once again all my edits have been reverted, see [4]. Instead of putting {{fact}} tags on any disputed points, everything is simply deleted. Sourced information has been removed. The 'Performance history' section - that is a normal part of operas and musical works articles - is simply removed as being 'illogical' . Once again the role of the joint creator, Hindemith, is belittled. So what is next? Removal of all the Opera categories - as happened with The Threepenny Opera? --Kleinzach 15:39, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

You'll have to be more specific if you wish your concerns to be addressed. Which sourced information has been removed, exactly? There is not yet sufficient volume of material to justify splitting the current information in the way you suggest, and the re-arrangement of the material that you made with that edit was illogical because it artificially separated material that belongs together, where it refers to the conditions and processes of the original production. Quite how the current wording "belittles" Hindemith's contribution - he provided music for seven of the scenes, no? - escapes me. Are there other contributions he made not currently detailed? If so, feel free to add them. I haven't had the opportunity to get to an academic library re:Threepenny, but you can be sure that it most certainly won't remain in the opera categories once I have checked sources. Please do not reverse the arrangement of the material without addressing the concerns expressed some time ago on the talk page. DionysosProteus (talk) 17:45, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Either this page is open to all to edit or DionysosProteus owns it. So which is it? --Kleinzach 01:55, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Really, if you're going to ignore the arguments and confine yourself to idiotic remarks like that, don't bother. You claim that material has been removed but fail to detail it; you re-arrange the material illogically but fail to address the issue when raised; you consistently mis-represent my actions, describing them in ways that are patently false; you complain about the way works are described quite obviously without being familiar with the works in question in any way; you add information without providing a source in sentences that are already sourced, giving the impression that those sources support the new information when they do not. Just what is it that you're playing at? You're perfectly free to add information to the article, provided that it is sourced, accurate and clearly and logically expressed. When you fail to meet those criteria, you should expect to have your edits challenged. DionysosProteus (talk) 12:02, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Pro-Brecht text compared to Skelton (Grove) and suggested NPOV versions

In view of the repeated deletions of my edits ([5] etc.), here is the difference between the versions.

This is the Pro-Brecht introduction that DionysosProteus insists on using:

"The Baden-Baden Lesson on Consent (German: Badener Lehrstück vom Einverständnis) is a Lehrstück by the German dramatist Bertolt Brecht, written in collaboration with Slatan Dudow and Elisabeth Hauptmann. Seven of its scenes were set to music by Paul Hindemith."

This is the introduction to the article by Geoffrey Skelton in the New Grove Dictionary of Opera (note the different title which appears in all the Hindemith references):

Lehrstück ('Lesson on Consent'), Music theatre work by Paul Hindemith to a libretto by Bertlot Brecht; Baden-Baden, Stadthalle, 28 July 1929.

Skelton also writes: "[Lehrstück] has since established itself as one of the strongest works of Hindemith's Gebrauchsmusik (more aptly described as 'Music to Sing and Play')."

This is my suggested NPOV introduction giving equal 'billing' to both Brecht and Hindemith:

"The Baden-Baden Lesson on Consent (German: Lehrstück, or Badener Lehrstück vom Einverständnis) is a 'Lehrstück' ('teaching-play'), with a text by the German dramatist Bertolt Brecht (written in collaboration with Slatan Dudow and Elisabeth Hauptmann), and music by Paul Hindemith."

Perhaps we can have some opinions from other editors? --Kleinzach 04:26, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

The last phrasing seems unobjectionable; paramount is the fact that we're writing for a general audience. In the New Grove Dictionary of Opera it wouldnt be that surprising to see Shakespeare mentioned in passing in the lead to Othello! ( I havnt checked but suspect that if Verdi didnt get top billing it's Rossini's fault.) What should be clarified is the nature of the collaboration: in Round Heads and Pointed Heads (as in The Horatians and the Curiatians) Brecht considered Eisler's collaboration on the text essential, even beyond the normal composer intervention that occurs in setting words. What proportion of text is sung here? Sparafucil (talk) 22:03, 16 January 2009 (UTC)