Talk:Der Ring des Nibelungen

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is a part of the Opera WikiProject, a collaboration to develop Wikipedia articles on operas and opera terminology, opera composers, librettists and singers, directors and managers, companies and houses, and recordings. The project talk page is a place to discuss issues, identify areas of neglect and exchange ideas. New members are very welcome!

To do: Mention some of the important leitmotifs. Maybe Leitmotifs in der Ring des Nibelungen, with MIDI files?

this note is not originally mine, I found it on the article page and moved it here.MikeCapone 21:10, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Contents 1 Das/Der 2 Why German titles? 3 First Studio Recording of the Ring? 4 Characters lists 5 kupfer 6 Recordings 7 Adaptations/Parody 8 Trivia 9 Orchestration 10 Removal of Trivia section 11 Ending of the Ring

[edit] Das/Der

This is something that has always perplexed me to no end — shouldn't the title be Der Ring der Nibelungen, given that Nibelungen is plural, not singular? StradivariusTV

I think Nibelungen is singular, with the -en indicating the genitive. But don't ask me why it doesn't end with an -s David Sneek 12:29, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The Nibelung in the title is indeed singular: in english it is the "The Ring of the Nibelung", and the Nibelung in question is Alberich: the title could usefully be translated as "Alberich's Ring". However there is also a possessive tense in there: the Ring *of the* Nibelung, and in German this results in the use of "des" rather than "der". Dogbertd 3rd May 2005

To elaborate further, der Nibelung is a weak masculine noun, which means that in this instance when the genitive case is used to indicate possession, it takes a suffix of -en instead of -s or -es to show that it is a weak masculine noun. The same is also true of words ending in -ist, such as der Polizist. Ed_Solomon 11:19, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Why German titles?

Why are Wagner's works kept at their German titles? Is there any special reason to abrogate Wikipedia:Naming conventions (use English) in this case? Zocky 00:37, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

"only use the native spelling as an article title if it is more commonly used in English than the anglicized form" - the titles of Wagner's operas are more often used in the native form in English than the translated form. This is often the case for works of music (Beethoven's "Hammerklavier" sonata, Puccini's "La Fanciulla del West", etc). Dogbertd 08:47, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] First Studio Recording of the Ring?

Was Solti's really the first studio recording of the Ring? Furtwängler's 1953 Ring in Rome was the first, I believe, although I am not sure whether Moralt's 1948-9 Ring was done in the studio. I think it is rather silly how people find the need to elevate the Solti Ring any higher than it already is...

The Furtwangler 1953 Ring was designed for radio broadcasts and wasn't actually meant for release on LP, unlike the Solti, which was designed from the start to be issued on LP. Hence the Solti *was* the first. I also believe (but may be wrong) that the Furtwangler wasn't released until after the Solti was finished. I think the statements in the article on the Solti reflect the facts (it really was voted "recording of the century", etc), but if you can show otherwise, please amend. --Dogbertd 16:11, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

I see that the article was changed to show that Solti's was the first stereo studio recording. Thank you for making the appropriate changes.

(George I.

[edit] Characters lists

A question was raised about whether the individual operas should have character lists, in addition to the big list on this page. Per Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Opera#Include singers at premieres? I've been adding premiere casts, and because of different premiere dates and the fact that different roles of the same character were created by different singers (e.g., while Sophie Stehle created Fricka in Rheingold, Anna Kaufmann created her in Walküre), I think a single list would become cluttered. So I favor individual lists on the four opera pages, but I'm not wed to this if there's disagreement.

I agree. A full list could easily take up an entire page, and would seriously disrupt the flow of any article. This page already says that the synopsi (synopses?) are at the subpages. --Alexs letterbox 08:57, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] kupfer

shouldn't Harry Kupfer be mentioned in the "contemporary productions"-section? he is pretty well known at least here in germany; and his productions are a good example of the "modernize the setting"-strand, which are further remarkable because they were originally developed in the gdr. i don't dare to write anything into an english article, so maybe someone else could do so...

I would include Kupfer only if you think his stagings are in some way significant or important - it's probably not necessary to include every director who has ever staged a Wagner opera in this section unless you think they have particular merit. I suppose at some point we'll have to have a separate page on Ring productions, and I'd agree that Kupfer should be in that.--Dogbertd 07:39, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

I must confess to have never seen the Kupfer Ring at Bayreuth, but from what I have read, it was one of the more important Rings since the centenary Ring (and certainly more successful than Peter Hall's flop, which does get a small mention). --Alexs letterbox 23:57, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

The Kupfer was certainly reckoned a success by comparison with the Hall, but there's some debate about whether Hall's attempt to present a "realistic" or literal interpretation of Wagner's stage directions was fully supported by the Bayreuth management. However there's a big difference between the Kupfer and the Hall which might make it worth including: you can watch the Kupfer performance on DVD, while the Hall has vanished unrecorded into history.--Dogbertd 15:09, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Recordings

A new recording of the complete cycle done when it was performed in Adelaide a couple of years ago is being gradually released (at least in Australia). I don't have the details, just read a review in the paper. However, that will have to be added to the list of recordings

We will have to wait when it the last opera is released. It is noteworthy as the first cycle released on SACD, but I have not been able to obtain a copy (The operas are $120 each!). --Alexs letterbox 07:47, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Adaptations/Parody

A famous parody of the Ring Cycle is "Der Ring Gott Farblonjet" (Yiddish ~ loosely "The ring Gott misplaced"), by Charles Ludlam composed for the Ridiculous Theatrical Company (off-Broadway). Der Ring Gott Farblonjet is in fact listed by Wikipedia under CL's works. See NY Theater Review [1] The RTC is now defunct, but there was a revival, see [2] It is certainly very funny and deserves a Wikipedia mention. -- 65.242.144.24 14:17, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

In my opinion, the Ring Cycle has been parodied so many times (and is so open to parody), that a list of all parodies (including the one you mention) would be unnecessary and add nothing to the article, which is long enough as it is. Also, Der Ring Gott Farblonjet only receives 76 google hits, raising the issue of notability.

Fair enough. I got 301 Google hits for DRGF so I don't understand your number of 76. FWIW Wikipedia already has a page for Charles Ludlam, and DRGF is listed there as one of his plays. It would cost nothing to put a link from there to here and vice-versa. No matter. -- 65.242.144.24 20:14, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

You would need to put it in quotes into Google, otherwise you would get pages that just have those words anywhere. However, I have thought a bit, and given that we have four one sentence notes on adaptations already, it would be unfair to include this one. I still oppose the inclusion of trivia-like sections as unencyclopedic. --Alexs letterbox 07:59, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

I did not insert the sentence into the main page. I have no strong opinion. I merely brought it to Wikipedia's attention, given that Wiki has an entry for Charles Ludlam, which mentions DRGF as one of his plays. BTW what was the criteria for including the other adaptations/parodies? (Anna Russell and Disney I can understand, they are famous.) (Addendem: I counted more than 76 Google links with Der Ring Gott Farblonjet in contiguous order. I stopped at about 112. This merely proves my life is so sad I have nothing better to do than count Google links.) -- 65.242.144.24 14:17, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Admittedly, there is really no criteria for inclusion in a trivia section. I would remove the section entirely, but would have no justification in doing so. We might as well let it be. --Alexs letterbox 07:42, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

What's Opera, Doc?, starring Bugs Bunny and Elmer Fudd, may be the classic send up, the one so successful it may have closed the door on future parodies of the ring. --Phil Wolff 04:48, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Trivia

Alexs has suggested that the inclusion of trivia-like sections is unencyclopaedic. I think this point is interesting and worthy of further discussion here. Do the other editors of this page feel that the Trivia section should be removed? Where would we include thos snippets of information that don't fall naturally into the other sections we already have (eg. the points on the translation of the title into English, which does seem to cause confusion amongst English speakers)? Is there a Wikipedia standard on Triva sections?--Dogbertd 08:44, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps I should move this discussion to the Wikiproject. WP:WPO --Alexs letterbox 07:48, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

I would think that parodies, trivia, adaptations to other media, and other derivative work are as important to understanding music and myth as the original works. --Phil Wolff 04:48, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Maybe let the trivia and derivative works section build up until big enough to warrant a page of its own. --Phil Wolff 04:48, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Orchestration

Does anyone know the size of the orchestra for which the Ring Cycle was scored? 152.23.84.168 16:08, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

I'll add it to the page, but its complicated (eg. in some passages the 3rd flute is added as 2nd piccolo, some horns take some tuba parts) --Alexs letterbox 02:56, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Wagner was also credited for experimenting with the serpent (an instrument). I expected such an instrument in this huge opera. -- A Wang ^{(talk/contrb.)} 19:29, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Removal of Trivia section

I have removed the following:

==Trivia==
*The Nibelung of the title is the dwarf, Alberich. Der Ring des Nibelungen could be translated as: Alberich's Ring.[citation needed] 
*The German title is often mistakenly written with the article der repeated, Der Ring der Nibelungen, which means "The Ring of the Nibelungs" (plural, understood as the race to which Alberich and Mime belong).
*Nerdcore rapper MC Front-A-Lot released a song regarding his experiences attending a performance of The Ring. He expresses initial disappointment that the opera wasn't about Hobbits and ultimate joy when the final act delivered a very pleasing conclusion.

The first two points are not trivia. The first has had the fact tag for some time, and the second is irrelevant as the correct spelling is used in the article's title. The third is unsourced and adds nothing to an understanding of the Ring in general (whereas the fame of Russell's interpretation merits an inclusion). --Alexs letterbox 08:41, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

This is certainly fine by me. I thought these bits really were very trivial indeed.--Dogbertd 18:46, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ending of the Ring

This section has been removed from this parent article and snythesised into the material to be found in the article Der Ring des Nibelungen: Composition of the text. Please make future edits on this topic to the daughter article.--Dogbertd 16:05, 7 December 2006 (UTC)