Talk:Der Rosenkavalier

message: Norman Del Mar writes that Strauss took no part in the writing or arranging of the Suite: . Michael Kennedy says the same thing (1995, p. 179), saying that Rodzinski arranged the piece (the passage is viewable on GoogleBooks but only in the "result" form, not as a snippet or preview ; if you Control+F kennedy it will take you to it). (Both authors disparage the piece.) If this is true, this Wikipedia article should reflect that, and not pretend that Strauss had anything more to do with the work than approving it or allowing it to be published. Since the currently cited reference is not clickable and therefore not immediately checkable, I'm inclined to believe Del Mar and Kennedy, both noted for their research into Strauss and his life and works. Softlavender (talk) 07:09, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: So the current phrasing "So popular was Der Rosenkavalier that Strauss made several concert versions of numbers from the work and, in 1944, produced, with the assistance of the Polish conductor Artur Rodziński, the Rosenkavalier-Suite …" is without foundation? The reference for that, "Jefferson, pp. ??" is not exactly confidence inspiring. Two random program notes, Toronto, LA Phil, have each their own view and don't firmly support either position. I think we should at least acknowledge Del Mar and Kennedy. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 13:22, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: OK thanks Michael. I will try to figure out a way to re-word it and re-cite it. Thanks for the program notes. If there are any more really reliable and clickable sources, I invite anyone to please let us know. Softlavender (talk) 21:36, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

text: By the way, the Jefferson source cited becomes even more suspect, because it's actually viewable on GoogleBooks but the word "suite" does not even come up when searching within it, nor does any part of Rodzinski's name.   Honestly, this throws into question all of the citations sourced to the Jefferson book (particularly since none of them are given page numbers). Softlavender (talk) 08:23, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

text: Strauss DID have 'something' to do with it! It's his music, or at least 90-95% of it - and he did approve it to be published, so he either liked the results, or his wife was pushing him for more income.  I'm not sure exactly what linking parts were composed by the arranger, but they have to be short bridges to the themes of Strauss himself.  Personally, I like the suite - but I can see the two biographers' position as well. -HammerFilmFan  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.111.45.222 (talk) 15:44, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  1944/45 Suite not written by Strauss 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Der Rosenkavalier. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140714131721/http://www.tso.ca/en-ca/Plan-Your-Experience/Programme-Notes/Suite-from-Der-Rosenkavalier.aspx?ID=4807&pID=4438 to http://www.tso.ca/en-ca/Plan-Your-Experience/Programme-Notes/Suite-from-Der-Rosenkavalier.aspx?ID=4807&pID=4438
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:08, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Why do we have an uncited Instrumentation section for this opera? Is it common to have instrumentation sections in opera articles? Is the instrumentation unusual? Anyway, I'm going to mark it as uncited, and unless someone comes up with a good reason to keep it, I'll probably remove it after a period if it remains uncited. Softlavender (talk) 06:25, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, apparently the instrumentation came from German Wikipedia, and presumably from one of those citations. I'm not going to tag it. But should we leave it, or keep it? Without an inline citation someone could come along and wreck or change it and nobody might notice. Softlavender (talk) 06:40, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: The instrumentation is a bit unusual and attracts some commentary in the literature, so including it is not unreasonable. The score could be cited, which would fall foul of WP:PRIMARY. I don't think any secondary sources for the full orchestration can be found (although Michael Kennedy describes the off-stage band in a 2011 study guide), and I think that something like this at Boosey & Hawkes or this at Schott Music would still be considered "primary". -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 07:39, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, I'm not concerned whether the source is primary or secondary; I just think the section should have some sort of citation somewhere so that down the line when the inevitable vandal or troll botches the section up and none of us are alive or on wiki, someone can catch it and match against an actual list of instruments. (This is one reason I find instrumentation lists in general problematic; people are always changing little details of them without explanation and there is no source to check against). Softlavender (talk) 17:20, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with your sentiment. Using the score as reference is problematic, because hardly any contains a list of the instrumentation. Using a publisher's information requires to be familiar with shorthand for orchestra instrumentation and its application for the publisher in question. I'm going to add the three mentioned above to this article – without checking.  -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 04:48, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why do we have an (uncited) Instrumentation section for this opera?