Talk:Tannhäuser (opera)

message: I suggest something like this, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:25, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Be aware of the egghunter. Minor point: there's no need to italicise  or  – the template will do that. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 03:54, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thank you. Italics taken. If you mean the link for opera, - I think most readers interested in this work may know what an opera is and are helped more by the link to Wagner's "operas" some of which he didn't want to have named operas ;) - When we deal with a choral work by Bruckner, we link to his such works, not general. for example. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:55, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

text:  done --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:58, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

text: I followed the examples on the Ring operas and others, not added by me, and those of all Verdi operas, also not added by me. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:45, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Infobox? 

message: This seems to be a WP:OR listing, with no evidence or citations, or definition of what 'noted' might mean; or indeed any indication of what its point or purpose might be. All the important items are already mentioned and described as appropriate in the newly-updated synopsis. I am therefore deleting it  on the gorunds of cruft and repetition.--Smerus (talk) 10:23, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Another issue of broader implications than this page, since I see something similar on many opera pages--Michael Goodyear (talk) 21:40, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: For example? Not, I am sure on any opera articles which have been given GA or FA status.--Smerus (talk) 08:15, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

text:  Probably not, admittedly I have not done a search on those categories. --Michael Goodyear (talk) 13:57, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  'Noted excerpts' 

message: For clarification, I have deliberately separated stage directions and kept the italics in the original, from my paraphrase of the ensuing actions and words.--Michael Goodyear (talk) 22:24, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: This italicisation makes the synopsis very difficult to read, and is contrary to Wikipedia practice. Also it is not clear from the above whether the stage directions are translations of Wagner's originals (in which case citations would be apprpriate), or are yours (or another authority's) interpretation of them. Can you  please clarify your clarification?--Smerus (talk) 08:13, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: In fact, here is the opening set of stage instructions, from the libretto which is cited in the article's external links:
Die Bühne stellt das Innere des Venusberges dar. Weite Grotte, welche sich im Hintergrunde durch eine Biegung nach rechts wie unabsehbar dahinzieht. Im fernsten sichtbaren Hintergrunde dehnt sich ein bläulicher See aus; in ihm erblickt man die badenden Gestalten von Najaden; auf seinen erhöhten Ufervorsprüngen sind Sirenen gelagert. Im äußersten Vordergrunde links liegt Venus auf einem Lager ausgestreckt, vor ihr halb kniend Tannhäuser, das Haupt in ihrem Schoße. Die ganze Grotte ist durch rosiges Licht erleuchtet. – Den Mittelgrund nimmt eine Gruppe tanzender Nymphen ein; auf etwas erhöhten Vorsprüngen an den Seiten der Grotte sind liebende Paare gelagert, von denen sich einzelne nach und nach in den Tanz der Nymphen mischen. – Ein Zug von Bacchantinnen kommt aus dem Hintergrunde in wildem Tanze dahergebraust; sie durchziehen mit trunkenen Gebärden die Gruppen der Nymphen und liebenden Paare, welche durch sie bald zu größerem Ungestüm hingerissen werden. – Dem immer wilder gewordenen Tanze antwortet wie im Echo der
Gesang der Sirenen
What is in the synopsis in the article as it stands is rather different from this - e.g. there is no mention here of the rape of Europa. If you are going to cite extensively from Wagner's own stage directions, the citations should be clear and accurate and it would be helpful to differentiate them by enclosing them in quote marks (which would save the optical confusion of long passages in italics). You should also make clear what is Wagner's original, and what is the additions or interpretations of some other authority, of the stage directions.--Smerus (talk) 08:33, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

text: Clarified in bibliography and text. The link in external links is quite different, and appears to be a different edition to that used in the DGG recording. Indeed it is the Dresden edition, rather than the Paris edition!--Michael Goodyear (talk) 16:29, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Synopsis 

message: I have done some substantial work on this over the last week and it now looks more like a C than a Start. There is still a huge amount of work to do, eg thematic and musical analyses, relationships within Wagnerian canon. The literature is vast. However public interest has started to wane (at one point we had 3500 hits a day), so I will move on to other pressing projects for now. At the moment the issue as to whether bibliographies should contain 'Further Reading' or not is moot, since all entries are now incorporated into the article. --Michael Goodyear (talk) 16:21, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  October 2015 upgrade 

message: We seem to have our knickers in a twist about the bibliography. Firstly, it is better to separate by sources and then by additional reading (that is, if you can justify the additional reading, see discussion above). Take a look at the layout  at Richard Wagner, which is a featured article. Secondly, don't confuse different editions. The crappy old (and incomplete) translation of Wagner's 'Mein Leben' online is quite different form the complate and more accurate translation by Andrew Gray which I included as a separate cite - recent editing seems to have confused these two editions. Please sort out. 
Presenting readers with a huge list of texts, some of which have been cited in the article, and some of which haven't, is confusing for the reader and militates aginst the clarity which Wikipedia strives for. and sorting them on a WP:OR basis as 'Books by and about the Wagners', etc. is also not helpful. Any text which is listed and not cited should have a careful explanation as to why it is important/relevant. Leah Garrett's book for example is absolute rubbish and totally underserving of a mention. Our mission is to inform, not to overload with a ton of cruft. Thanks, --Smerus (talk) 16:26, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Bibliography

message: Substituted at 07:37, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Assessment comment

message: The section presently headed 'Game Theory Analysis' had its title changed by me to 'Tannhäuser's motivations' - as its contents refer not only to games-theory but to Jungian interpretations. This has been reverted twice by an editor without explanation.  I am referring the issue to WP:OPERA to seek other editors' opinions.--Smerus (talk) 12:26, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not a particularly fleshed-out section. It was originally called "Analysis", and added by : . I'm even wondering if it should actually exist in such a tiny form. I think it should be expanded somewhat, from the citations given (and others if found); unfortunately the first two are not linked or visible. In any case, the section should not be called "Game Theory Analysis", when in fact that is only one of several analyses referred to. It should probably be reverted to the original title. Softlavender (talk) 13:08, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes ideally there should be a larger section (titled 'Reception' in many opera articles) which gives an overview of critical comment on the opera (and where appropriate of performances), which could include views on T's motivation. I will see what other citations I can find. In the meantime I will await any other comments before considering reverting the section title.--Smerus (talk) 19:31, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

text: NB the title 'Tannhäuser's motivations' has now been restored by Kirkmc him/herself. As pointed out by Softlavender, other analyses are referred to in the paragraph, not 'just one'. In any case I am intending to expand the section over the next day or two.--Smerus (talk) 08:57, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Motivations 

message: I corrected the identification of this theme in the section on the Overture. The famous Pilgrim's Chorus used there is the one from Act 3, Scene 1, not to be confused with the hymn sung by the pilgrims in Act 1, Scene 3. --Michael Snow (talk) 00:39, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pilgrim's Chorus 

message: Hi! One short mention: the right full name of Tannhäuser is "Tannhäuser und der Sängerkrieg auf Wartburg" without the second "der". This mistake is often done even in Germany because it sounds a bit strange missing the article at this place. Greetings!  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.204.137.89 (talk) 08:58, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Changed to it both times (was one before). --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:00, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  The correct full name  

message: Somebody more capable than me should correct the English "translation" of "Der Kampf der Sänger" - this entry has it as "The Singer's Contest" - that is not accurate. "Der Kampf der Sänger" more accurately translates to: "The Competition/Contest between Singers," or, at the very least "The Singers' Contest." What stands now has no lexical meaning!  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.36.157.248 (talk) 17:53, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: "translation" of "Der Kampf der Sänger"

message: The article mentions waldhorns (a German word) but the link is to the natural horn (Naturhorn in German). In the German Wikipedia these are two different instruments. Mebden (talk) 16:39, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: The German Wikipedia at :de:Horn (Blechblasinstrument) mentions "Waldhorn" as an alternative name for a French horn. As a native German speaker, I think that's confusing and wrong. A Waldhorn is e.g. the :de:Parforcehorn or the post horn, horns without valves. The link to "natural horn" for the stage band is IMO correct. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 00:52, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Waldhorns? 

message: The whole of the first act presents the goddess Venus as a sensuous temptress. In the third act, Wolfram sings an aria about the purity of the Evening Star, comparing it to the Elizabeth and the Virgin Mary. Wagner would surely have known that the Evening Star is the planet Venus. It would be OR to point that out in the article, but has no quotable expert ever pointed out that remarkable fact, and its significance, if any? --Hugh7 (talk) 03:19, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: It's mentioned at "O du mein holder Abendstern". -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 04:21, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
thread_title: The Evening Star is Venus - significance?

message: Hello! This is to let editors know that :File:Tavola 5,_bozzetto_di_Gebrüder_Brückner_per_Tannhäuser_(s.d.)_-_Archivio_Storico_Ricordi_ICON011721_-_Restoration,_crop.jpg, a featured picture used in this article, has been selected as the English Wikipedia's picture of the day (POTD) for June 19, 2023. A preview of the POTD is displayed below and can be edited at Template:POTD/2023-06-19. For the greater benefit of readers, any potential improvements or maintenance that could benefit the quality of this article should be done before its scheduled appearance on the Main Page.  If you have any concerns, please place a message at Wikipedia talk:Picture of the day. Thank you!  — Amakuru (talk) 09:54, 16 June 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Featured picture scheduled for POTD