Talk:Das Lied von der Erde
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
due to religious and social issues This famous anti-Semitic firing is mentioned like this at Wikipedia in order to be NPOV? Wetman 18:34, 1 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- It's written like that because nobody has bothered to change it, I guess. --Camembert
Contents |
[edit] Instrumentation
I played this last night, and fixed a couple of obvious errors in the instrumentation list here. In addition, there is one snare drum ("kl.tr.") roll in the Dover score - however, the drum is not mentioned in the list of instruments at the front of the score, and the publisher didn't sent us a part!
Also, the 3rd movement (two different editions of the score) specifies two piccolos, unison throughout. With deep respect for my flautist friends, there is an obvious intonation danger, and we only used one yesterday; I bet that's a common practice. David Brooks 18:19, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Analysis
I'm not an expert on Mahler, but is not the analysis totally subject? At least cite some sources of reviews whereupon such an analysis is reached as the general consensus.
[edit] Analysis (2)
I meant "subjective". The analysis is totally subjective. This article is not told from a neutral point of view.
Ilike1954rcamodels 01:58, 18 October 2006 (UTC)ilike1954rcamodels
[edit] I Agree
This article is definitely far too opinionated and filled with original research. Of course, personally, I don't mind that sort of detail in an article since I believe that anyone should be able to tell when something is an opinion or not, and they can ignore it if they so please. I personally like having the opinion there in case someone does find it interesting, like me. Having said that, I recognize that such techniques are not consistent with wikipedia policy, a fact which takes precedence in the end. I probably wouldn't be bothering to join in here, however, if the article (no longer extant) that I began on the Song-Symphony hadn't been utterly lambasted with bouts of complaint about original research. I therefore feel that an article such as this, being (in my opinion) even worse than my own on the aforementioned subject, should certainly be subject to revision. Now after all of that ranting, I must sheepishly confess that I do not have the time currently to revise it myself (although if I did, I am sure that loads of ravenous critics would instantly tear my corrections to shreds just as they did my previous contributions). I will, however, post an uncyclopedic template on this article for the time being, in hopes that someone will take it upon their brave selves to actually do the dirty work. Finally, to the person that wrote the phrases to which we here object, I feel extreme sympathy for you, as I have experienced such criticism in the past. Unfortunately, however, the greater good must be served, and our opinions have no place here. Europus 01:12, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Edits
I replaced the non-neutral material in the article's introduction with an actual definition of the piece. I only found this definition on a web page after searching for some time, however, and someone who has more reliable sources on hand should check it to verify its correctness. Thank you.
Europus 01:23, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] 'Unencyclopedic'?!? Abysmal, more like!
This is probably the worst music-related article I have ever seen on wikipedia. It needs wholesale revision. I have provided a better opening paragraph, but do not currently have the time to work on the rest. The 'Origins' section, for a start, requires almost total recasting: as currently constructed it contains hardly anything that is worth keeping. Pfistermeister 06:45, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
