Talk:Leck mich im Arsch

message: :<Ceiling_Cat> now I need a freely licensed version of Lick me in the ass
:* Ceiling_Cat looks for a musician
:<MessedRocker> ask mindspillage
:<MessedRocker> she won't file a sexual harrassment claim with human resources AT ALL
:<Ral315> Ceiling_Cat, usually you have to pay extra for that.
:<Ceiling_Cat> ROFL
:<Ral315> And it's tough to find one who'll play that, so you've gotta shop around.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Raul654 (talk • contribs) 21:58, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'd like to hear Mozart's "rimjob" please. Comradeash 09:57, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Amusing convo

message: The score seems to indicate it is to be sung as a round. --Random832 22:25, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe that is correct. -- !! ?? 22:34, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  round 

message: First, if this is a title it needs to be in caps. Second, for clarification and to disambiguate it, shouldn't it say parenthetically something along the lines of "Mozart canon" or "composition"? VanTucky (talk) 22:28, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: (1) No, we do not ever make article names all caps except acronyms; (2) No, we do not disambigauate unless there ambigiousness. Raul654 22:31, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Disambiguate it from what? I don't think people would type "Lick me in the ass" into Wikipedia and hope to find the anal-oral article. I would personally go for "Leck mich im Arsch", preserving the original name, but that would lose the fact that the title is so amusing. violet/riga (t) 22:32, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: According to the dictionary of idiom (now linked), a better translation is "kiss my arse" or "get stuffed".  But this title is much the most amusing (and used in various sources). -- !! ?? 22:33, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't mean making the letters all caps like THIS. I mean capitalizing the words to a title. Titles should always be capitalized Raul. It's simple grammar. See One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest or The Spy Who Loved Me (film). I think disambiguating it might prevent the kind of off-hand objection/deletion that has occurred in the article's recent history. VanTucky (talk) 22:37, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, I thought you meant all-caps, i.e LICK ME IN THE ASS Raul654 22:40, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Easy mistake. VanTucky (talk) 22:41, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

text: How often do you "shout" that, Raul? ;)  violet/riga (t) 22:43, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: ...if it wasn't for my horse.... Raul654 22:44, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: LMAO! - Ta bu shi da yu 08:13, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmm... given the subject matter, I'd better clarify. L = Laughing. - Ta bu shi da yu 08:13, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  rename? 

message: Must get this up to FA status before next April. This would make the most awesome April Fools FA ever. Raul654 22:51, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Mozart fictitious connection to Tourette syndrome (TS) via scatological language on the mainpage as April Fool's joke; hmmmm, doesn't do a lot to assuage my concerns about having TS anywhere near the front page, and is exactly the sort of thing that I've always worried about.  But then, I could be wrong; it could be a backdoor approach to better awareness of correct information about coprolalia. I recall some folk questioned at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Tourette syndrome why Mozart warranted mention at all in the TS article, and I had to remind them that this was the nasty rumor that wouldn't go away and continued to get widespread publicity.  TS will surely be the butt of this joke.  SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:31, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Uhh... you said butt. heh heh Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 21:16, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: April Fools

message: I have a recording of this!  Nicol Matt and the Chamber Choir of Europe.  Its on the Brilliant Classics box set of Mozart's complete works.  The first disc of Volume 8 is "Canons" and K231 and K233 are two of the forty-one tracks.  K231 is 1:58 and K233 us 1:46.  Pretty choral canons.  If I didn't know the words, they'd sound like something sung by a choir in church.  Here's the music match page for the disc: .  A canon discussion is here (including the scatological ones):   DavidRF 00:35, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Uh, what is your point? Nobody is suggesting this is a hoax. Raul654 01:50, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recordings 

message: I don't suppose someone would like to make an image of the first few measures of the score for use in this article? Raul654 06:33, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There's already a link to the score in the article. Although I could use a music notation program to make an image of the first few bars, I can't quite see how that would improve the article. After all, this is a minor work, it's not an article on LvB 5th which shows the famous da-da-da-daaa. Do you know of any other Wikipedia article showing incipits? Michael Bednarek 14:05, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I expect it's fairly common. Here's one - Six Moments Musicaux (Rachmaninoff) - I reviewed for GA the other day. Also, Goldberg Variations. –Outriggr § 20:37, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, there's nothing at all wrong with having a libre image of a part of the score. It helps enhance the article. Especially as this is a canon. Remember, the articles need to stand alone for themselves. ELs are helpful, but shouldn't be considered in getting the article to its highest quality. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ 20:52, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's rather impractical exactly because it is a canon. To illustrate the structure of this canon (remember, it's for six voices), all 24 bars need to be shown. Look at the score and tell me which bars should be shown in this article to enhance its understanding. Again, this is a minor work, miles away from the examples given (LvB, S.Rachmaninoff, JSB). Michael Bednarek 05:08, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Score?

message: OK, I've put the move request in -- to the German name, since that seems to have the most consensus.  Listed at WP:RM, and this section is for comments.  My preference is for the German name too, since the English name only seems warranted if there is a standard translation well known in musicological circles, and that doesn't appear to be the case. Mike Christie (talk) 21:56, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *If you have a reliably-sourced notable mention of it in English, that would help with a consensus on translation, so that we aren't engaging in original research.  SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:17, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

text: *Comment This is not a vote. "It's fine the way it is" does not address the concerns present. VanTucky Talk 06:38, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *Excuse you. Rudeness! I am quite aware of how these proceedings go, and I believe it's just fine the way it is. I have no concerns, therefore as far as I'm concerned, in my mind, it's "addressed." Mike H. I did "That's hot" first! 06:54, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *Please WP:AGF. It may appear rude on the page, but text often can, and nobody but VanTucky knows how the comment was intended. --Nathan (Talk) 00:07, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

text: I'm on it.  -- RoySmith (talk) 14:04, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, page move is done, and I updated the Did you know? link to point to the new title (first time I ever edited the Main Page :-)) -- RoySmith (talk) 14:14, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: PS, it seems obvious that the first sentence of the article now needs to be updated to reflect the title change.  I'm neither a student of German nor of classical music, so I'll leave that to those more qualified to decide the best way to fix that.  -- RoySmith (talk) 14:18, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:   SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:00, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Requested move

message: Consensus is pretty clear, and there is a huge backlog (at least a week) at requested moves.  What are we waiting for, more sensationalism on the main page?  We need an admin to complete the move to Leck mich im Arsch.  SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:54, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm on it.  -- RoySmith (talk) 14:04, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, page move is done, and I updated the Did you know? link to point to the new title (first time I ever edited the Main Page :-)) -- RoySmith (talk) 14:14, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: PS, it seems obvious that the first sentence of the article now needs to be updated to reflect the title change.  I'm neither a student of German nor of classical music, so I'll leave that to those more qualified to decide the best way to fix that.  -- RoySmith (talk) 14:18, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:   SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:00, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Question on move

message: It looks like the editor who made this change doesn't understand what a PubMed (PMID) link to a journal article is.  I changed it back to the correct cite template.  SandyGeorgia (Talk) 10:51, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cite journal 

message: In Amadeus (film), there's a scene near the beginning of the movie where Mozart is playing backwards-talking games on the floor with some woman (maybe that was his future wife?) and asked her to Kiss my ass (backwards).  I'm guessing that's a subtle reference to this song that the in-crowd all got and went right over my head? -- RoySmith (talk) 16:43, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Mozart's baudy sense of humor is well-known from his letters.  It wasn't isolated to this composition.  DavidRF 17:03, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

text: And if you'll read the article, you'll notice the original lyrics weren't even known until 1991, well after the movie was made. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ 17:18, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reference in ''Amadeus''? 

message: Wait a second.  If another song was the same phrase followed by "nice and clean" doesn't that strongly suggest that the phrase was not being used in an idiomatic fashion? ←BenB4 02:10, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As the article says, "Later research has indicated that the latter composition is probably the work of Wenzel Trnka (1739-1791)". So no. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ 03:13, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not convinced the work of a local contemporary doesn't show the same kind of usage. ←BenB4 07:15, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: To me, a different use of the phrase in a literal sense doesn't suggest either way whether someone else meant it in a figurative sense.  One person could say "kiss my ass," and mean it figuratively, and another person might say, "I'm going to bend over so you can pucker up and kiss my ass," which of course implies the literal, but that doesn't really mean anything.  Hell, the same person could say both in different situations, one time meaning it literally and the other figuratively. --Jaysweet 21:24, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Leck mir den Arsch fein recht schön sauber 

message: cool article...it would make a sweet rock song (LICK ME IN THE ASS!!!!!).  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.82.78.103 (talk) 05:08, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  sweet 

message: :Re: "More saleable"? How so? Prove it. In fact, source it. What's it doing there, besides adding a chatty tone?)
I'm pretty sure I didn't make it up when I added it here, but I can't find the original source again now.  I believe it was something to do with the publisher thinking it would be more likely that the buying public would spend money to acquire the music to a song entitled "Let us be glad" rather than "Kiss my arse".  Perhaps a dodgy Google-powered translation from a German source.  Never mind. -- !! ?? 11:18, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: "Saleable"

message: This edit delinked from the original article containing full information, and linked instead to an article with two sentences and a proposed merge.  Raul, are you saying you prefer that the article content be in the article Mozart and Tourette syndrome, even though no credible source indicates he had TS and the topic is already dealt with thoroughly as speculation at Sociological and cultural aspects of Tourette syndrome?  I'm not understanding the reasoning behind delinking to full info in favor of an article that is a proposed merge to that article.   SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:29, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Generally, you want to link to the most specific article possible. In this case, the scatological title and lyrics have been used as evidence to support the contention that Mozart had Tourette syndrome - I think that Mozart and Tourette syndrome is clearly a more relevant link than Sociological and cultural aspects of Tourette syndrome If someone wants to rework the prose to figure out a way of linking the other article as well, I don't have any problem with that - but as written, I didn't see how. Raul654 19:34, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, I'll wait to figure out where to park the text depending on what happens with Mozart and Tourette syndrome; I think it strange to have an article about Mozart's non-TS, and I suspect it was created because the eidtor didn't realize the content was already in the TS article, but if that article stays, I'll move the content there.  SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:42, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Mozart and TS 

message: Can someone please explain to me how in the world it matters that a source HAPPENS to use a certain version of the SAME word? This isn't a case where the difference actually means something different (like the aformentioned Night on Bald Mountain, or something where the tense might be different, etc). Again, this is the same word. Ass = Arse. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ 03:15, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: ...and since noone responded, at all, I'm going to have to assume the answer is that it's irrelevant, and any attempt at justification with it should be discarded. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ 12:54, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  'Souces' 

message: Melsaran disputed the reliability of the source text I gave to Goethe's play Götz von Berlichingen, which made this quote famous: http://de.wikisource.org/wiki/G%C3%B6tz_von_Berlichingen/3._Akt.
#I can't find anything in Wikipedia:Reliable sources that says Wikisource is unreliable.
#That Wikisource article is a proof-read version of the Reclam publication which is the standard edition used in German schools.
Melsaran then replaced my link to the source text with one from the Project Gutenberg: http://gutenberg.spiegel.de/?id=12&xid=859&kapitel=8&cHash=48a97f66532; this link has two flaws: 1. it links to the wrong scene of the play; 2. for reasons I can't guess, Gutenberg uses an expurgated version which replaces the very quote we're dealing with here by dots or dashes, so the reference doesn't prove anything.
I added the link to Wikisource again and corrected the link to the Gutenberg text so it points to the correct scene. However, I suggest the unhelpful reference to the Gutenberg text should be removed. Michael Bednarek 06:02, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The problem with wikis is that they can usually be edited by everyone and that they have little to no editorial oversight, therefore, there is no way to ensure that the content there is reliable. If this is simply a quotation from the play, then it shouldn't be too difficult to find the same quotation somewhere else on the internet (Wikisource must have gotten it from somewhere), right? I did a Google search on the play and I found the Gutenberg Project link, so I assumed it was the same; if it was slightly different, you have my apologies. Melsaran (talk) 10:53, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Disputation of reliable source text of Götz von Berlichingen by [[User:Melsaran]] 

message: In view of the seeming importance of the translation to many editors, and the desire to make it read idiomatically in all varieties of English, I propose that the sentence in dispute could best read "A literal translation of the song's title and lyrics into English would be "Lick me in the ass" or "Lick me in the arse". This solution of providing parallel versions could not be used in every instance of the dispute (such as later appearances of "ass"/"arse" in this article), but it might work on first mention which is probably the most important. Thoughts? Newyorkbrad 17:41, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is frustrating.  I'll try one last time.  The discussion should not be about whether the word is ass or arse (and I sure don't know where the cockamaney buttocks came from, as we've not seen that in any reliably sourced translation).  The issue is how reliable sources translate the entire phrase, which is much more than just the ass/arse word.  The big picture is that we should avoid original research translations on Wiki.  The even bigger issue is the way original translations are used to push POV on, for example, politial bios from figures in non-English-speaking countries.  I have seen and been involved in discussions where POV pushers ignore reliably sourced translations to alter one word as simple as ass/arse to turn a slogan to the favor of their POV.  We should never allow original translations on Wiki when reliably sourced translations are available.  This is not about ass/arse!  We have various versions of the entire phrase being tossed out here as translations; lick my ass, lick my arse, kiss my ass, kiss my arse, lick me in the ass, lick me in the arse, and it goes on.  We have several sources which give us clear translations (and I admit that I've lost track of them) and those are the words we should be using.  We shouldn't be opening the door for POV pushers to alter campaign slogans on politician's bios to favor a POV when reliable sources give us accurate translations.  In this discussion, we have (IIRC) New Grove, at least three medical sources, and a book which we can track down if this isn't sorted out (Simkin is a musician and a physician who researched the songs).  This discussion should not be about ass/arse or ENGVAR; it should be about the policy behind WP:V and reliable sources, so that we don't open the door for misuse of translations on other articles where the difference is more significant than ass or arse.  This discussion is not correctly positioned if people think it's about ass/arse.  We should use reliably sourced translations of the entire phrase, per WP:V.  Should I get the stupid Simkin book, or will it make a difference?  SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:18, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I didn't think there was a broader dispute as to what a word-by-word translation of the title would be, subject to the semantic quibbling. I don't think there is much relationship between the translation of this title and opening a door to POV pushers on political articles. But I am certainly not an authority on 18th century German and its idiomatic translation, nor on the locations where one can source same; forget that I ever said a word here.... Newyorkbrad 17:38, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If you think that wasn't discussed, then perhaps some of us didn't make the issue clear enough.  There are medical and musical sources which translate the names of the songs and historical sources which discuss the origin of the phrases, and several of us have consistently tried to focus the discussion on reliable sources and away from whether it is about ass or arse.  And I do think there is a relationship, having been involved in several discussions that involved just this type of original research, where the different translations of one word, such as ass/arse, contribute to POV.  It's a policy principle; we don't do original research on translations to English when we have reliable sources.  SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:44, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: How in the world can you even call this an OR issue? Again, this is a came of a variant on the same word. If a source used English Horn, but the person who inserted text used Cor anglais instead, would it need to be changed (as, in this case, the later is the one used on WP, and is the British varient)? Or how about if a source mentioned  'French' horn, but the person didn't like the term as many don't? Etc etc. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ 18:17, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  You're still focusing on one word.  It's not about the one word (ass/arse and now even buttocks, for gosh sakes); it's about the entire phrase.  For example, is it lick or kiss?  For example, does it include "in the" or not?  We need a discussion centered on the reliably sourced translations of the entire phrase, not a silly disagreement over one word, ass/arse.  And, the original research concern is not about this article as much as Wiki-wide policy on original translations; it's about making sure we use reliably sourced translations even for only one word in other, more significant issues that arise in other articles.  I do not understand why editors keep bringing this discussion back to a one-word (is it ass or arse) issue.  If it's only about ass/arse, I click unwatch, done, who cares; if people want to discuss reliable sources, I'll get and read the Simkin book because I can use it to expand the TS article or help with this one.  We should put up a list of how the reliable sources translate it, and use the highest quality sources.  SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:02, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: AFAIK only Walter Scott translated Goethe's drama Götz von Berlichingen (the source of the phrase) into English. I can't find his text on the internet, and it's not in any library here in Queensland - only in Sydney, Melbourne and Adelaide. Could someone else have a look at their State or University library? There is of course a good chance that it might not resolve this issue if it omits the word altogether, the way the German text used by the Project Gutenberg does  Michael Bednarek 05:51, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Compromise solution to wording issue? 

message: Well, I was listening to Robert Greenberg's lecture, Great Masters: Mozart—His Life and Music, and he in fact, quoting Maynard Solomon (I believe), uses the word ass. Now, this isn't directly related to the piece, but the phrases "Lick my ass" and "lick my ass nice and clean" and IIRC "anyone who doesn't like it can kiss my ass" (or something)...and well, it was obviously talking about this phrase, at the least. Just something. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ 17:33, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Is this an attempt to light a fire under our ass arse buttocks? --Jaysweet 17:36, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  More fuel for the fire... 

message: Quotes From 
* Another example of a propensity towards foul language (coprolalia) is Mozart’s cannons titled "Leck mich am Arsch" ("Lick my ass"), composed when he was 26 years old.[34] Joseph Lange, who was an actor with the Burgtheater company and Mozart’s brother-in-law (husband of Aloisia Weber, Mozart’s earliest girlfriend and sister of his wife Constanze) and who had very close relations with Mozart, wrote about Mozart’s vulgar platitudes. However, he believed that Mozart’s inane and immature behaviour was a byproduct of the creative intensity surrounding his process of composition: "Never was Mozart less recognisably a great man in his conversation and actions, than when he was busied with an important work. At such time he not only spoke confusedly and disconnectedly, but occasionally made jests of a nature which one did not expect of him, indeed he even deliberately forgot himself in his behaviour....Either he intentionally concealed his inner tension behind superficial frivolity, for reasons which could not be fathomed, or he took delight in throwing into sharp contrast the divine ideas of his music and these sudden outbursts of vulgar platitudes, and in giving himself pleasure by seeming of make fun of himself".[35] [36]
*Although coprolalia is a characteristic feature of TS, and recent studies indicate its association with activation of various areas in the brain such as the left middle frontal and right precentral gyri,[37] this language abnormality is not universally present or specific for TS.[38] Some investigators, in fact, believe that the scatological features exhibited by Mozart may simply represent a style of speech and silliness that was acceptable behaviour in the population of the South German middle class or was influenced by his family.[36] [39] Mozart’s scatological language may have been just a reflection of his satirical, hypomanic humour and intentional rather than involuntary or could have been an influence from his mother’s "Salzburgisch" humorous characteristic.[40]  
* 34. Lange J. Reminiscences (1808). In: Deutsch OE, eds. Mozart, a documentary biography . Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1965: 503.
* 35. Deutsch OE. Mozart, a documentary biography . Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1965.
* 36. Landon HCR, ed. The Mozart compendium. Ann Arbor: Borders Press, 1990: 102–10.
* 37. Gates L, Clarke JR, Stokes A, et al. Neuroanatomy of coprolalia in Tourette syndrome using functional magnetic resonance imaging. Prog Neuropsychopharmacol Biol Psychiatry 2004; 28: 397–400.[CrossRef][Medline]
* 38. Lawden M. Gilles de la Tourette syndrome: a review. J R Soc Med 1986; 79: 282–8.[Medline]
* 39. Karhausen LR. Weeding Mozart’s medical history. J R Soc Med 1998; 91: 546–50.[Medline]
* 40. Davies JP. Mozart in person: his character and health . New York: Greenwood Press Inc, 1989.
(Jankovic is a well recognized TS expert, unlike Simkin.)  SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:55, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  New journal study from Jankovic 

message: Articles meeting the featured article criteria and passing WP:FAC in time can be considered for the April Fools' mainpage, as discussed at Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2008-03-03/Dispatches.  SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:27, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  For consideration 

message: I find the lyrics version given under the "Alternative lyrics" heading, using the Goethe/Götz von Berlichingen allusion, extremely implausible. This is almost certainly not an original text by Mozart but a later, humorously bowdlerised adaptation. Note that the collection of canon texts at  also contains another passage that only makes sense from a later perspective ("Soll das denn Mozarts Urtext sein?! [...] Nein, der Mozart war ein feiner Mann!"). Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:59, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Why implausible? Goethe's drama premiered nine years before Mozart wrote this, and the line in question entered immediately the German language, so much so that in polite society it was sufficient to utter "Götz" to convey the meaning. The top of this article explains how the text was changed from its original (here listed as "Alternative lyrics") to the bowdlerised version (here listed as "Lyrics"). The first line of that expurgated version shouldn't really be there; I suspect the NME score shows it only for identification purposes - it is meant to start with "Lasst uns froh sein". This is all very similar to what happened to Leck mir den Arsch fein recht schön sauber where the two versions are properly labelled. Michael Bednarek (talk) 12:33, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

text: "The textual attestation of three canons of the first group (KV 231/382c, 233/382d undd 234/382e) is particularly poor, as their only sources are the textual incipits of the original texts provided in the Breitkopf catalogue. The original texts were replaced with new ones by either Breitkopf or Härtel."
 
That means none of the texts is original, with either of the two canons. The Breitkopf/Härtel texts are those printed (in small and italics) in the NMA scores. Nowhere does the NMA mention either of the two texts I referred to; these are apparently not even the ones provided in those early editions, but even later adaptations. As for the implausibility: these texts only make sense, especially in the other case ("Is this supposed to be Mozart's urtext?") under a perspective where both Goethe and Mozart were already firmly established as a classical canon of high culture. I am not aware of any evidence that Mozart ever thought about himself in that way (or of Goethe, for that matter), or that he ever wrote texts on such a self-conscious meta level. And why would Mozart have referred to himself in the past tense? The texts are also both far too close to standard present-day German, not the Austrian dialect Mozart would have used. "Rufen wir nun ganz summarisch / hier wird Mozart literarisch"? Good lord, that's the lingo of an early 20th-century middle-class grammar school teacher, straight out of Die Feuerzangenbowle. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:42, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

text: P.S.: I now also read the section about the "rediscovery" of the texts in 1991. First off, the account of that discovery was seriously misrepresented (it wasn't original authographs that were found, etc.) Also, we have no indication of the actual wording of those 1991 texts. There's nothing that points to it being the ones printed in the "Brilliant Classics" booklet. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:55, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: According to this article , the text found in 1991 reads: Leck mich im A... g'schwindi, g'schwindi! Leck im A... mich g'schwindi. Leck mich, leck mich, g'schwindi etc. etc. etc. Nothing about Goethe and Götz. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:44, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Since you're uncovered good research, remember there's still time to polish this off for April Fools' mainpage, but the clock is ticking.  SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:47, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Heh, that would be "my" first FA! :-) Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:51, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  If you've got the research, and you're willing to move fast, I'll try to recruit help.  SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:53, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Alternative" Goethe lyrics 

message: David, can you please elaborate on that's how the edition referred to is set out? I don't understand what it means. Kingturtle (talk) 12:59, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: As mentioned above, the printed text we are quoting apparently contained "A...", rather than "Arsch", so we sould quote it in that form, and comment that "A..." presumably stand for "Arsch", rather than fill it in in the quote.  David Underdown (talk) 13:07, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The article explains that A... means arsch, but the article doesn't explain (or explain well) that A... is how the actual text of the document reads. That needs to be addressed. Kingturtle (talk) 13:11, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Well since the article uses Arsch (or equivalent English translation elsewhere) it seems to be the only explanation, and in any case, we are quoting the text as presented in the source available to us (the article), which is what we should do unless someone can actually track down the original.  David Underdown (talk) 13:31, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

text: I'm not saying change A... to Arsch; I am saying write something in there to let the reader know that A... is how it actually appears in the text being quoted. Kingturtle (talk) 13:41, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  A... 

message: This article and
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leck_mir_den_Arsch_fein_recht_sch%C3%B6n_sauber
should be merged.
Coughinink (talk) 12:13, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: — Why should it be merged, and why is that article redundant? The two canons are different works. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 02:14, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  merge with redundant article 

message: The complete text (without the etc.) is somewhere on the Internet. I think it was something like:
Leck mich im Arsch g'schwindi, g'schwindi!
Leck im Arsch mich g'schwindi.
Leck mich, leck mich, leck mich, leck mich, leck mich, leck mich, leck mich, leck g'schwindi, g'schwindi, g'schwindi, g'schwindi!
G'schwindi, g'schwindi, g'schwindi, g'schwindi!
Leck mich im Arsch g'schwindi, g'schwindi, g'schwindi, g'schwindi!
G'schwindi, g'schwindi, g'schwindi, g'schwindi!
but I'm not quite sure. (I haven't checked the text recently.) Double sharp (talk) 08:59, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh – it's available in full on the German article. Double sharp (talk) 15:44, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Complete text 

message: http://pitchfork.com/news/43861-jack-white-collaborates-with-insane-clown-posse-to-cover-mozart-for-real/  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.21.188.13 (talk) 21:57, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  what the...??? 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Leck mich im Arsch. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090219104835/http://www.integralemozart.info:80/telechargements/V8_Mozart.pdf to http://www.integralemozart.info/telechargements/V8_Mozart.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 19:22, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Leck mich im Arsch. 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/20090208200135/http://www.mozartforum.com/Lore/article.php?id=070 to http://www.mozartforum.com/Lore/article.php?id=070
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) 04:01, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Leck mich im Arsch. 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/20070722083646/https://www.baerenreiter.com/html/download/pdfs/Endbericht-NMA.pdf to http://www.baerenreiter.com/html/download/pdfs/Endbericht-NMA.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070814065232/http://www.mozartforum.com/Koechel%20part%203.htm to http://www.mozartforum.com/Koechel%20part%203.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070921173618/http://music.brilliantclassics.com/epages/joan.storefront/46e7959800359f06271dd5d385f406d2/Product/View/92540 to http://music.brilliantclassics.com/epages/joan.storefront/46e7959800359f06271dd5d385f406d2/Product/View/92540
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) 13:37, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified