Talk:The Baden-Baden Lesson on Consent

message: This page got off to a bad start when DionysosProteus overwrote an article by Kleinzach after two days with a REDIRECT to an article DP had created some three months before; that article still was a stub consisting of one line. DP then included the material from KZ's page on this one and expanded it further.
Subsequently, an edit war broke out over the structure of the article. KZ reorganised the material, breaking up the single lead section into a lead and a section "Performance history"; this edit was summarily reverted by DP, reverted by KZ, reverted by DP again, reverted by KZ again with some additions regarding perfomance history (Clown scene controversy between PH and BB); that version again was summarily removed by PD, doubting the veracity of the reference. KZ reverted to his version, adding a specific instance of an already cited source.
KZ then changed the text "… by the German dramatist [BB] … Seven of its scenes were set to music by [PH]" to "… with a text by the German dramatist [BB]] … and music by [PH]". This edit was then reversed by PD, a reversal which also undid a number of intervening wholly uncontroversial edits.
;Structure
I think WP:LEAD fully supports KZ's view on the structure of this article. The current lead is too long. It lends itself perfectly to "Lead" + "Performance history". Reverting actions by DP without giving consoderation to the elements of a previous edit feel like WP:OWN and lack WP:AGF. On one occasion, article improvements outside the scope of this dispute were irresponsibly caught up in the DP's revert action.
;Clown scene
I assume KZ's source says what he claims. In that case, the disageement between BB and PH is important, and the fact that the work didn't get performed again until 1958 is poignant. KZ first thought this section had also been dropped in DP's most recent reversal; in fact, it had been placed into a different paragraph. KZ has since acknowledged that this passage has not been removed.
;BB vs PH
I find the original wording "Seven of its scenes were set to music by [PH]" rather baffling — doesn't the piece consist of exactly seven scenes? On the other hand, (and this is my impression from reading quite a lot of Brecht's works as well as reading secondary literature about Brecht and Hindemith — all of this is of course wholly WP:OR), the Lehrstück is more likely considered a Brecht piece than a Hindemith piece. As the sentence with the "seven scenes" seems disingenious to me, KZ's latest proposal on how to phrase that sentence seems appropriate. In fact, I can't see how any person could object to that wording.
;Additional remarks
*The German title of the piece is Das Badener Lehrstück vom Einverständnis — it should be quoted as such. Schott published the Hindemith score under the title Lehrstück — KZ's original titel for the article.
**Why was it necessary to use "Baden-Baden" in the English title? To avoid ambiguity? Well, if Brecht didn't find it necessary to avoid ambiguity in the German title, why should a translator? I know that this is indeed the prevalent title in English literature, but I would also point to Der Jasager, Der Neinsager, Kuhle Wampe, Die Verurteilung des Lukullus, and a bit further away Erwin und Elmire and many other titles in German literature as models for using the original title for articles.
**Lehrstück is here translated as "teaching play"; I suggest to consider "didactic play" as well — this is widely used in the secondary literature.
;What's to be done?
*I think the article's lead is too long and tries to cover too much; a section "Performance history" should be split off.
*The authorship of the piece should be described per KZ's proposed wording above.
*A wikilink which got reverted for Oszkár Kálmán should be re-instated.
*Wikilinks for Josef Witt and Theo Lingen should be added; an interwikilink for Valeska Gert should also be considered (and the title of her film was Der Tod).
*The spelling of "Lehrstuck" in the 3rd sentence shoul be corrected. 
*The :Category:Bertolt Brecht plays should be removed — it's a parent category of the :Category:Lehrstücke by Bertolt Brecht. --Kleinzach 00:05, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with that analysis. If there are any specific objections anyone wants to make to any of the points made by Michael Bednarek, can we go ahead and make them? Otherwise I think we should make it a roadmap for revising the article. --Kleinzach 00:28, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Generally pages are removed from a parent category to prevent overpopulation, which is hardly a concern.   Will we soon have to depopulate :Category:Lehrstücke by Bertolt Brecht when a subcategory for Schulwerke is created? Sparafucil (talk) 08:38, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Outside view

message: Developing the (now minimal) synopsis would be a way forward with this - a synopsis of both the original version and of the later Brecht one. The present short list doesn't correspond closely with the introduction. We need to explain where the Clown Scene goes, where the film is used etc. Does anyone have any good information about either version? --Kleinzach 00:00, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Synopsis

message: The role of the speaker is given as "Gerda Müller-Scherchen". The Scherchen link goes to Hermann Scherchen. I'm not clear what this means. Does anybody know? Perhaps Scherchen's wife? --Kleinzach 00:08, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks. I've fixed the link so it's clearer. --Kleinzach 09:38, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Role of the speaker

message: While re-editing the article I removed the following because I wasnt sure whether "This" refered to the scene in Brecht's play or the scandalized audience at the premiere (which included Gide as well as Hauptmann!).
:This scene was later reworked by Heiner Müller in his Heartplay (1981).Müller (1995, 123-125).
Of course it should go back in; and article on Heartplay would be most welcome! Sparafucil (talk) 12:25, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The "scene" refers to the clown scene discussed. If it drew on the response of the audience, it would be described along the lines of "this event was dramatised by Heiner Müller in his..." etc. Not sure how that could be described to eliminate the ambiguity you perceive. DionysosProteus (talk) 14:14, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Heiner Müller 

message: I note the difference between Sparafucil's new version (which takes us forward on a number of points) and DionysosProteus's later revision, see
. In particular I see Sparafucil's reference to 'Gebrauchsmusik' ('functional' or 'applied music') has been replaced by DionysosProteus with 'Gemeinschaftsmusik' ('community' or 'amateur music'). Perhaps we can have an explanation? NB Skelton refers to 'Gebrauchsmusik' in the Grove (Opera) article on Lehrstück and has an article on it in Grove (Music). WP doesn't have an article (unfortunately) but there is a substantial section about it in Rise and Fall of the City of Mahagonny#Musical_and_Dramatic_Elements. --Kleinzach 00:33, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: the Mahagony paragraphs are a little suspect but there actually is an article; I've taken the liberty of altering your subject line with a link ;-) Sparafucil (talk) 02:48, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  I am restoring my revision because that's what the sources support. Brecht's objection, Willett explains, was to his conception of Gemeinschaftsmusik not Gebrauchsmusik. The more recent revision is not supported by the sources cited and doesn't offer alternative sources as evidence. Kleinzach, if you are confused by an edit, I suggest you consult the sources the edit offers as evidence before asking for an explanation here. DionysosProteus (talk) 16:16, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Gebrauchsmusik]] Vs. Gemeinschaftsmusik

message: # I dont have handy the date of BLvE's first publication, and
# I assume the 1958 production was sanctioned by Hindemith, but what version was used and what was the English title? Willett 1967 speaks of the Baden-Baden Cantata of Acquiesence and mentions a 1951 translation by  G. Nellhaus.    Are the three one and the same? Sparafucil (talk) 02:48, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: FWIW The title 'Cantata of Acquiesence' is used in number of books, for example The Cambridge Companion to Brecht By Peter Thomson. --Kleinzach 03:02, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: From ''Lehrstück'' to'' Badener Lehrstück vom Einverständnis''

message: I've started to edit this related article and would appreciate contributions from editors here. In particular, I'm wondering whether this should be described as a radio cantata. Thank you. --Kleinzach 01:44, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: It should not, no. If you consult the editorial notes for that piece in the standard critical edition, it details the ways in which it was described at each stage of its development. DionysosProteus (talk) 14:51, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: 'Standard critical edition'? I think that needs explaining. In any case no such work is currently referenced. --Kleinzach 13:37, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  Since you've been referred to the standard critical edition on many occasions before, I can only assume your query is, once again, disingenuous. Had you consulted the sources offered for this article, you'd be familiar with that for the other work, since they both appear in the same volume. If you're confused by the designation, I suggest you consult the wider critical literature on Brecht. DionysosProteus (talk) 14:18, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The references for Der Lindberghflug are only to the German Wiki article and the review by Steve Schwarz. That's all. --Kleinzach 23:59, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: It's called a Radiolehrstück für Knaben & Mädchen in bb's collected plays, and a Hörspiel in the PH Werke.   The latter is of course radio play , though there is an independent English article on Hörspiel.   Der Lindberghflug seems to be a unique genre, I dont know that it would be worthwhile to write an article on participatory radio drama for schoolchildren, though attempts are welcome.  In the meantime, maybe  radio-lehrstück  is a good compromise (I'm pretty certain the literature in English doesnt use the plural of Lehrstück; that page needs moving and a dab link to BLvE).   Be sure to read the letter to Ernst Hardt (#148 in Mannheim's translation) on staging Lindburgh! Sparafucil (talk) 08:35, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Der Lindberghflug]]

message: removed Carl Koch (husband of Lotte Reiniger) as director of the film as added . However, these sources seem to indicate otherwise: Der Tod, Deutschland 1929, Experimentalfilm, Brockmann, Stephen; Mayer, Mathias; Hillesheim, Jürgen (ed). 2008. Ende, Grenze, Schluss?: Brecht und der Tod. p. 114. The latter also suggests Danse Macabre as a translation of the film's title and points to the fundamental difference and confusion between the Lehrstück by Hindemith/Brecht and its revision by Brecht to Badener Lehrstück vom Einverständnis — murkier and murkier. Michael Bednarek (talk) 06:55, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The source given in the article is a reproduction and translation into English of notes from the programme to the 1929 performance. That programme reads "Film Dance of Death by Valeska Gert (cameraman: Karl Koch)." Given that the same programme for the first performance announced that the work was "unfinished", it's not quite accurate to imply that there was a final version that was revised subsequently. DionysosProteus (talk) 14:50, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: In the circumstances, there isn't much difference between calling Carl Koch the director, or the cameraman. He evidently made the film so his name should go back in. --Kleinzach 15:43, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  The issue is not whether his name belongs in the article or not, but for what he is credited. The programme says that the film is "by Valeska Gert." Unless there is an equally reliable source to settle the question, that should be how it is described. DionysosProteus (talk) 17:09, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The program does not credit anyone with direction, and it's ambiguous whether "von" refers to "film" or "dance".   The filmportal reference above carefully distinguishes between "Kamera", "Regie", "Produktionsleitung" and "Aufnahmeleitung" and there is no reason to doubt Carl Koch's credit for Regie and  Valeska Gert's for Darsteler.   I can find no source showing that she ever directed anything. Sparafucil (talk) 22:13, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

text: @DP: The quasi-religious adherence to one particular class of sources to the exclusion of all others is preventing this article from useful further development. Michael Bednarek (talk) 08:15, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

text:  Michael, citing reliable sources is the cornerstone of Wikipedia's claims to reliability. Religious thinking is, by definition, founded on the exclusion of objective evidence. My insistence on reliable sources in print in English that are consequently available to any editor to examine and confirm information offered here cannot, by any stretch of the imagination, be called "religious." Sparafucil, I agree that it is possible that the translator has eliminated an ambiguity in the original programme note and in so doing distorted the information. However, we need a reliable source of the kind detailed above to confirm that. In lieu of that, we ought to go with the most-reliable source available, and so far, that is the editorial notes to the standard critical edition of the work. DionysosProteus (talk) 14:05, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: DP,  wikipedia does not exclude German from reliable sources, either primary or secondary.  My curiosity is aroused as to the exact wording in the SCT (for short;-)) but Ulrich Scheinhammer-Schmid: Schmeiß die Beine vom Arsch” Bertolt Brecht und der Totentanz. in Ende, Grenze Schluss? Brecht und der Tod ed. Brockmann, Meyer & Hillesheim (link above) leaves little room for doubt. Sparafucil (talk) 05:09, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Carl Koch