Talk:Pierrot lunaire

message: Is the correct capitalization of this "Pierrot Lunaire" or "Pierrot lunaire"? My French is too bad to even be pardoned, but I usually see the latter.... Mindspillage (spill your mind?) 03:56, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It looks like the correct complete title is Dreimal sieben Gedichte aus Albert Girauds Pierrot lunaire.  So lower case 'l'.  French rarely uses caps ... perhaps moveth the page we must. Antandrus 04:03, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  "Must" seems to be taking its time. :)  --  Jack of Oz [your turn] 21:35, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps in this case the longer the better?—Jerome Kohl (talk) 22:12, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  The Augustinian approach: Lord, give me chastity and continency, but not yet awhile.   :)  --  Jack of Oz [your turn] 23:00, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Something like that, though I had in mind the corporation, rather than the CEO of the moment: "We're the Catholic Church, we have no need to hurry."—Jerome Kohl (talk) 23:04, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Capitalization of title

message: What is the justification for describing this work as containing Klangfarbenmelodie? Is this a musicological view? The author should take a look at the corresponding Wikipedia article for the more usual understanding of the term. 
Incidentally, the poems of Pierrot lunaire are written in rondell form, not rondeau form (!). And Schoenberg's fear of the number thirteen has evidently been ignored by whoever added that information about numerology.
:It is not Klangfarbenmelodie (perhaps the author confused this with the pieces for orchestra?); you should remove that point. I don't know poetic forms, so I won't argue the "rondeau" point either, but may I ask, what does Schoenberg's triskaidekaphobia have to do with the numerology section though? Does it have any significant relationship to the piece? - Rainwarrior 00:41, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Correcting descriptions 

message: I am very confused as to why it is an "extravagant claim" that many ensembles adopted this set of instruments.  There are many many such ensembles around today (eighth blackbird, Da Capo Chamber Players -- which has been around for more than 35 years!, Ensemble Alternance, etc.), and it is considered by many to be the most common grouping for contemporary music outside of the standard classical ensembles.  Such groups have existed since at least the time of the Pierrot Players in 1965.  I think this should be included as a major legacy of Pierrot.  What would be the best way to include this information? Pre10s 05:00, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Look, the claim is only "extravagant" because the cited source does not confirm any of this information. By all means add Eighth Blackbird, and the rest, but please cite sources documenting their existence.--Jerome Kohl 06:23, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

text: I see that you have now done exactly as I suggested, Pre10s. It looks good to me.—Jerome Kohl 17:55, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for your vigilant help! Pre10s 22:23, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Instrumentation

message: The section "English translation" seems to be directly lifted from here . Since the source doesn't indicate copyright status, I'm assuming that it doesn't conform to policy to just lift it onto the article. In any case, it was completely unformatted, and I've removed it.Classicalclarinet (talk) 12:07, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Possible copyright violation 

message: Re: "There was some criticism of blasphemy in the texts, to which Schoenberg responded, 'If they were musical, not a single one would give a damn about the words. Instead, they would go away whistling the tunes'.[4]":
This isn't very clear, and I'm guessing it's because the antecedent of Schoenberg's "they" is missing--that is, my best guest is that Schoenberg means if those critical of the putative blasphemy in the texts were musical.... If this is the case, the article needs to say so. (Syntactically it appears that texts is the antecedent of musical, and it may well be, but this isn't clear either.)
:Yes. Unfortunately, the source cited for the quote is second-hand—one of Charles Hazlewood's BBC radio broadcasts—which makes it nearly impossible to track down the original source of the quotation (which was certainly translated from German). I have misgivings about the reliability of such sources generally, though Hazlewood is more dependable than some.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 00:00, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Confusing quotation 

message: In §  Music and text, the repetition pattern of lines within the poem was described thus:
:with line 1 a refrain (A) repeated as line 7 and line 13, and line 2 a second refrain (B) repeated for line 8. 
To me, this was difficult to follow, and by describing the repetitions line by line obscured their fit into the structure of the stanza. I have changed it to
:with the first two lines of the first stanza (1,2) repeated as the last two lines of the second stanza (7,8), and line 1 additionally repeated to close the third stanza and the poem (13). 
--Thnidu (talk) 17:38, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rondeau structure 

message: In my humble opinion, the voice should not be described as "narrator" but rather as "reciter". In the score, the voice part is titled "Rezitation", not "Erzählung" ("Narration"). Also I would like to add that the WP article Narration to which the term is linked in the infobox is irrelevant for the role of the voice in this piece: the voice is reciting poems, not telling a story. Carlotta Nardi (talk) 19:41, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Go ahead, do it, say "per talk" in the edit summary. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:51, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Narrator ? (in infobox)