Talk:Salome (opera)

message: This section seems to be clearly lifted from something else, perhaps a poor paper written on the subject, but in any case most of it isn't directly relevant to the topic at hand.  Some of the information may be useful, but it then probably belongs on the Salome page not the Salome (opera) page, and in any case deserves some serious revision.  I don't have time now so maybe someone else can take care of this (Eeesh 19:46, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed.  I think the best solution is just to revert it.  If the contributing editor sees the revert and this discussion, perhaps they will move the material to the Salome page and edit it down.--Paul 20:23, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Morphing of Salome From the Bible to Strauss 

message: I've added some notes about the required range for a Salome.
I hope no-one objects. AdamChapman 15:39, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Note about the range

message: I will remove the angry template from this article in that Norman Del Mar is a superb source and anyone who says otherwise is by definition ignorant.--208.74.247.253 (talk) 08:22, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: *The tag was not placed to cast doubt on the source. Wikipedia's policy on all information is that it be supported by multiple sources. As one of the most important operas, this article should be one of the better opera articles in the wikipedia. In order to be considered a WP:Good Article multiple sources need to be used.Nrswanson (talk) 08:57, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Single source 

message: Is there no English translation of this libretto available in the public domain? It is conspicuously absent from every libretto archive and R. Strauss page that I've found. Westknife (talk) 09:06, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: *There very well could be one but the trouble is finding it. The opera project makes a habit of linking to an English as well as foreign language libretto if both are available. If you find an English translation online by all means add a link to it in the external links.Nrswanson (talk) 19:00, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

text: Found a previewable Google Book of the libretto with English translation. Will add to page. Pfly (talk) 18:42, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: there is an online Chandos booklet with translation English libretto, pages 94-116Byronmercury (talk) 16:17, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Libretto 

message: One of the least controversial edits I've ever made - I thought! - was to consolidate the Instrumentation section with its links to all the articles on individual instruments, and remove some scroll-intensive white space. Instead  my little edit was reverted by Justin Tokke, see  with an edit summary saying "You ARE kidding right?". Well, no, I wasn't. I was tidying up what I thought was a rather minor part of the article. Maybe Justin Tokke, can explain why this section should occupy so much space? --Kleinzach 04:57, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe try again without the "small" tag? It looked reasonable to me, excepting the small text. Pfly (talk) 06:28, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: My thoughts exactly. The "small" tags made it a rather shocking sight. Michael Bednarek (talk) 06:32, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: There was a concensus on instrumentation sections a while back. They are to be formated in one of two ways: in paragraph form for small orchestras (as done in Beethoven Symphonies or in list form for large orchestras (as done in Mahler Symphonies. Salome clearly is a large enough orchestra to warrent the latter. The "are you kidding" thing was regarding the small text. That's just ridiculous. Justin Tokke (talk) 06:37, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: OK. Fair enough. I'll try again as suggested without the small tag. --Kleinzach 07:01, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: No. It should be in the organized list form as used in the other articles. The bullet point list has been removed in all instrumentation sections on Wikipedia. I'm reverting. Justin Tokke (talk) 13:39, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't understand the reference "as used in the other articles". Which articles? Regarding the claim that "The bullet point list has been removed in all instrumentation sections on Wikipedia." - my understanding is that there are are 15,000 classical music-related articles and the formatting of instrumentation sections hasn't been discussed once at project level. P.S. Woodwind is a collective noun - that's why I corrected it. --Kleinzach 13:57, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: It was discussed on Wiki Project Classical Music in 2006. What other articles? Symphony No. 8 (Mahler) in an exmaple. Look at all the major works. Vauge, I know, but I don't feel like writing down EVERY link to them. Justin Tokke (talk) 15:38, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Wiki Project Classical Music discussions in 2006 (a long time ago!) are archived, see Classical Music Archive 1 but I can see nothing at all about instrumentation sections. Where is it? --Kleinzach 22:44, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: My error. It was in 2007: [Music Archive 3]. Justin Tokke (talk) 23:04, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

text: "Current consensus favours dividing instruments into their families in large works, while preserving a paragraph format."
--Kleinzach 04:38, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Then we should agree to use this format and not create long lists of instruments....  Viva-Verdi (talk) 14:10, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: OK. I've done another version which I hope follows the guideline exactly. Please point out any problems with this. Thanks. --Kleinzach 15:36, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

text: I fully support this format.  It is much better than a long list of instruments, even one with columns. Viva-Verdi (talk) 19:09, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: S p r e a d i n g  o u t  the [[Salome_(opera)#Instrumentation|Instrumentation]] section

message: I don't know whose error it is (it may have been Wilde's) but "Herod's palace at Tiberias on Lake Galilee, Judea" makes no sense geographically.  At the time of the story, LAKE Tiberius was the eastern border of the PROVINCE of Galilee, and Judea was a separate province to the south.
"Make love" used to mean "declare love for" and that's the sense that the summary meant.  It means something different nowadays.  Somebody should change the phrase; the storyline is lurid enough as it is.
CharlesTheBold (talk) 03:05, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Problems in the plot summary 

message: Is there a reason there's no discography?  Anyone mind if I start one? SingingZombie (talk) 08:08, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Go ahead.....no problem. It is certainly needed. Viva-Verdi (talk) 18:40, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Discography?

message: If the article is gonna include the long thing about how hard it is to sing the title role, why not also mention that Jochanaan is one of the hardest roles in the helden-bass-baritone repetoire, as hard in its way as Wotan!  And Herodes is no walk in the park either.  Very skilled tenors are required--Gerhard Stolze, Set Svanholm, and the legendary Max Lorenz himself (whose heldentenoring was strong enough that it kept him out of the concentration camps in spite of his being a promiscuous bisexual married to a jewess)!  It's as hard in its way as Loge.   And the ensemble of quarrelling Jews is a bloody mess if the conductor hesitates even a tenth of a second.  In fact the only one who seems to have not too difficult a time is the mezzo, Herodias.
I guess that would be hard to source, but Jochanaan and Herodes are legendary chokers for all but the most advanced vocalists. SingingZombie (talk) 09:09, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Role of not Salome

message: Why is this categorised under Classical music riots?  --  ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ [your turn] 11:55, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, we certainly need some evidence that the opera provoked a riot.  Patrons putting pressure hardly qualifies.....Neither does the Lord Chamberlain's ban.  Viva-Verdi (talk) 15:28, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

text: I don't think "riot" is right either. It "provoked critical discord", as Puffett's book Salome puts it. He also writes: "the premiere was a triumph (more than one review called it a 'sensation'). The artists took thirty-eight curtain calls. By the end of 1907 the opera had been heard in more than fifty German and foreign cities, and fifty times in Berlin alone by 9 November of that year." The problems were things like performance bans, objection from churches, "hullabaloo in the papers". Certainly it caused some "scandal", but no "riots". Pfly (talk) 17:21, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Riot?

message: When I came to this site, I wanted to see Salome - not the f… boring composer. It is simply ridiculous that every opera by Strauss is illustrated by Mr. Strauss himself. I want to see SALOME, and the head of Jochanaan - but NOT Mr. Strauss.--Meister und Margarita (talk) 23:44, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: As there is no response to my request I will shortly change the image. If you have any suggestions, please note them here.--Meister und Margarita (talk) 21:22, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I advise you to talk to project opera if you want a change, and to be patient. Traditionally, operas have a side navbox with the image of the composer (and a hidden link to his operas, frequently overlooked). An infobox, , with flexibility in the image (see examples), has been developed in 2013, but was not welcome for enough project members for me to leave the project. See the talk of Rigoletto and Siegfried to get a feeling for the discussions to be expected, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:43, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I concur with Gerda's advice to discuss fundamental changes to this article's layout at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Opera. Further, M&M might have overlooked  to their edit. (RLY?) -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 05:18, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: In approaching "opera", I advise further to be gentle and patient, because the topic caused sighs already. In a different matter, a year of not speaking about a topic worked miracles. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:04, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

text: Sorry to walk into this - should have read the talk page first. I have added yet another "boring" picture of the composer, plus the playbill.  The portrait: I have been trying to put contemporary pictures of Strauss on each opera page (he lived so long...and the opera template has a picture dating from his mid-30s predating all of his operas except Guntram). Please feel free to remove the steichen portrait or move down to the "music section". The playbill: I personally like these contemporary touches.  It obviously belongs next to the "Roles" table.  I also love the Holbein poster. This could be moved up to the top.  I was going to suggest the rather funny cartoon of Strauss holding his head on a platter...Byronmercury (talk) 12:48, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the Steichen photograph is somewhat repetitive and unnecessary and should be removed. The playbill is a great addition to the article. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 13:19, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree with MB on the Steichen pic. Viva-Verdi (talk) 14:49, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

text: Steichen removed. Put Holbein up to spread out pictures...Byronmercury (talk) 15:19, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Horrible Pic 

message: As there is a consensus now on Opera talk to use the composer templates on the bottom of the article and to use a pic in the top part, I would like to hear from which pic to use. I propose to use one of the two already in use - as there seems to be consensus that these two images are a good illustration of the opera within the . So should I use the poster of 1910 or the premiere at the Met from 1907. I will follow the wish of the majority. But please let's find a solution within a week. Thanks--Meister und Margarita (talk) 07:47, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: The Hohlwein poster has apparently some copyright problems outside the US. Please be patient until the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Opera comes to a consensus. Spreading that discussion over several other talk pages doesn't help, nor do your inexpert edits and creations of templates, like  & .  -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 11:59, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: That Hohlwein poster is now at Commons under the unfortunately named :File:Flickr - …trialsanderrors - Richard Strauss-Woche, festival poster, 1910.jpg. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 04:27, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

text: It's no fun to discuss with you as you constantly try to degrade me and my work. If you are not happy with any templates, improve them. And in addition you deny all reality that does not fit into your mindset. Of course there is a clear majority in favor of moving the templates of the composers and their pics to the bottom of the page - as it is standard in most Wikipedias all around the world. Now you come with another story: The Hohlwein-Poster and it's copy rights. Obviously this work can be used in english Wikipedia - otherwise it would not be in use. The question of the copy right does not belong into this discussion, this is another cup of tea. Mister Oberlehrer, in the case of Novikova you could have corrected the link as you did some editing in the Novikova-article. All this is a repeat performance of the German WP discussion in the Soldaten, in my eyes very frustrating, destructive and sometimes even mean. Please be a little nicer and AGF.--Meister und Margarita (talk) 13:40, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I understood your question was referring to the Hohlwein poster and my remark was a constructive answer to your question. When images are placed in navigation boxes, they might appear on featured articles where the requirements for copyright status are much stricter. If I attempt to improve your work, you revert it and answer with outbursts like you did at  and bizarre expressions of a persecution complex at Template talk:Hofmannsthal operas. I  your erroneous link to Julia Novikova at The Magic Flute's Second Part on 28 November 2013; he article Julia Novikova (soprano) was  six months later on 16 May 2014. AGF right back at you. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 14:08, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: And on May 19th, 2014 you did some edition work in both the English and the German version of Novikova. And the pic did not remind you of The Magic Flute's Second Part? And you did not mention her performance at the Salzburg Festival in the english stub, nor include the pic. Sometimes it is very difficult to assume good faith, but I will try.--Meister und Margarita (talk) 14:15, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree with you undoing my work. You really make AGF a very hard task.--Meister und Margarita (talk) 14:22, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  For a Consensus on Salome Pic 

message: Sorry for my bad english!
I found some information in this text which, in my opinion, are rather an interpretation, and doesn´t really belong in a synopsis. 
This dance, very oriental in orchestration, has her slowly removing her seven veils, until she lies naked at his feet. 
1) What exactly is "oriental" in a modern orchestra with strings, clarinets, french horns, bassoons, modern timpani etc.? In fact, even the music doesn´t sound very oriental, a certain part of the dance even sounds more like a valse triste from the late 19th century. There are not the typical ornaments, not the typical harmonic minor scales you would expect. 
2) "slowly removing her seven veils", "until she lies naked at his feet". Is there any proof for that? In the score there is one stege direction which says: "Salome dances the Dance of the seven veils". It says nothing about removing those veils, neither about "slowly" removing them. This can be an interpretation, but there is no proof for that. Also, in the score there is another stage direction at the end of the dance which says, that Salome rushes forward to Herodes falling to his feet. There is NO mention of her being naked. Again, this is an interpretation without any proof.
My suggestion for that part would be: "Salome dances the Dance of the seven veils" - just like Oscar Wilde and Richard Strauss wrote it in the play/score.
In a revolting display, Salome now declares her love for the severed head, caressing it and kissing the prophet's dead lips passionately.
1) "caressing it". Also an interpretation, no stage direction who tells her to do that. 
2) "kissing the prophet´s dead lips passionately". In fact, when she kisses the head of Jochanaan, the stage is dark (because the moon gets dark right after Salomes long final monologue) and you can´t see her kiss the head, you only hear her say "Ah, I have kissed your mouth". Therefore "passionately" is also just an interpretation.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by DerFigaro (talk • contribs) 19:22, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Interpretations in the synopsis without proof 

message: Can you please explain why you restored dead redlinks to non-existent Wikipedia articles Irene von Chavanne and Riza Eibenschütz that I unlinked yesterday? Chrisdevelop (talk) 14:15, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: As I wrote in my edit summary, I restored valid interwiki links. Those singers do have articles on the German Wikipedia, and other articles here mention them, thus WP:REDYES applies. I noticed that you removed valid red links elsewhere, too; you might want to reconsider those edits. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 14:50, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: Revision 844620247 - reverting of unlinking dead links

message: Please procure a link to Rudolf Jäger, who created the role of Narraboth in Dresden. Verstummte Stimmen (talk) 17:07, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rudolf Jäger 

message: I'm wondering about archiving this Talk page as it is getting rather long and old, which limits its usefulness. Views please? Best to all, DBaK (talk) 14:44, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Archive?