Talk:Der Ring des Nibelungen

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article falls within the scope of the Richard Wagner WikiProject, a collaboration to develop articles on the composer and his operas. The project talk page is a place to discuss issues and exchange ideas. New members are welcome!
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the Project's quality scale.  See comments for details.

Contents

[edit] To do?

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)

[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)

  • Well said, thank you for bringing in the weak ... uh ... declension? I remember being confused by the hymn-tune titled "Lobt den Herrn", with "Herrn" looking suspiciously like an archaic spelling of the plural "Herren", suggesting the title should mean "[You-all] praise the gentlemen". The den should have tipped me: you can't construe Herr(e)n as an indirect object, so den is inconsistent with construing it as plural. Both singular accusative and plural dative forms are ended with -en for weak nouns. But the case for the word "Herr" is irregular for the singular accusative form as "Herrn", whereas the plural dative form is "Herren" as the general regular rule. So once you've gotten your head around the existence of "weak masculine nouns" (another one of those means "gentlemen", "Mr.", or "lord"), the singular masculine accusative is all you've got left. So the real translation has to be "[You-all] praise the Lord", or "Praise ye the Lord." Obviously. Honest. (And even if you can't remember how to decline a strong noun.)
But it's worth saying a little more, about how easy the original error is. Nibelung (any member of the race (dwarves?) whose home is Nibelheim) -- and for that matter Volsung Wälsung (any member of the race/family that Siegmund and Sieglinde are supposed to be founding when they commit, simultaneously, adultery and incest) and the Gibichung -- looks an awful lot like the special class of German feminine nouns that are formed from verbs using the suffix -ung. An example that comes to mind is die Besetzung from besetzen (roughly "the occupation" from "to occupy"), and to discuss the occupations of Poland and Czechoslovakia, you'd use the plural Besetzungen: "the day of the occupations" would be, IIRC, der Tag der Besetzungen. So it is very natural to expect Nibelungen to be the plural of Nibelung.
--Jerzy•t 08:13, 30 July 2007 & 02:50, 1 August 2007 (UTC)(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)


There's a basic mistake in the Recordings section of this article: conductors conduct -- not only the orchestra -- but all the singers, too; i.e. the whole thing.--80.223.18.180 20:07, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

  • It's something of a convention to refer to these performances by the conductor's name (the Solti Ring, the Karajan Ring, etc). I think it would be too unwieldy to include the details of all the cast members for each of the performances listed. Maybe the preceding text could pick out some of the most significant Wagner singers associated with some of the performances, if you think the cast are getting a raw deal?--Dogbertd 20:17, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
  • I Do think the Cast is getting a raw deal, but after someone deleated the cast lists I posted, I suggest an abriviated list. so here's what I think should be on there: Wotan, Brunnhilde, Siegfried, the Welsung twins, Fricka, Erda, Mime, Hagen, Loge, Waltraute and the Giants. Maybe the Gibitches, and in spedcial cases where a big stars sings a small role (like when Joan Sutherland sang the Woodbird in the Sotli Siegfried. Anyone object to that? -- User:TvsFrank13
Yes. The page would become quite unwieldy if we included all the soloists (which is effectively what your list does). This is not the Penguin CD guide. It is an encyclopaedia. I would suggest just mentioning Wotan, Siegfried and Brünnhilde. (BTW, I'm interested to know why you include the Giants, but the Gibchungs are only a maybe?). --Alexs letterbox 00:07, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
I agree with Alexs that the main article is probably not the place for this level of detail. However it wouldn't IMHO be out of place to have a separate article on Recordings of Der Ring des Nibelungen which includes details of "starry" casts and such like.--Dogbertd 15:32, 5 August 2007 (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)
    1. Alberich's Ring is not an accurate translation -- Alberich is of the Nibelung family/race, but not the only Nibelung -- but is an accurate English restatement of the implicit meaning: he is the Nibelung with a credible claim to owning the ring.
      And treating it as a title is not a widespread enuf error to cover: the first 30 of 103 unique and 286 raw G-hits on the phrase, i found [3] using the phrase in asking the question we asked above at #Das/Der [sic!: should read "Des/Der"], but no instances of it being used as the English title. (It does however appear in some of those hits as if it were translating some German phrase -- i haven't looked up to check it -- used by Wagner in the stage directions and/or dialogue.)
    2. A pair of G-tests shows that about 10% of Web pages commit the "double Der" (read aloud, ha-ha) error, which suggests that being overwhelmingly exposed to the correct title is not enuf to make people remember the correct title: the error is seductive, bcz a little knowledge is such a dangerous thing. (In fact, it's worse than previously stated; i'm adding a little more to the section i mentioned above under 1.) No, it's not trivia, but it is worthy of mention.
    3. The rapper & the hobbits are indeed off-topic in this article, which is enuf reason to remove them to this talk-page section. (Their being unsourced would justify a fact tag on them, but it is abusive to give "unsourced" as a reason for removal, without also arguing there is reason for presuming the info is false, e.g. at least "seems implausible". We delete for falsehood; we delete tentatively -- sincerly soliciting contrary evidence -- for either tentatively appearing false, or tentatively appearing unsource-able after making a sincere, even if not thoro, attempt to turn up some sourcing.)
--Jerzy•t 06:38, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
"Alberich's Ring" is not a correct literal translation, but it does show very clearly what "Der Ring des Nibelungen" means (ie that we're talking about the Ring that belongs to a single person who is a member of the race of Nibelungs - ie. Alberich) - and it was used as the title of one previous English translation of the libretto (Jameson, I think). This fact appears in Magee's book on Wagner and Philosophy, and so can be verified. I confess I was tempted to put it back, since it makes the meaning of the title absolutely explicit, but then I got sidetracked. --Dogbertd 08:18, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
I agree as to the virtues of the phrase: information is lost in translating of the phrase that serves as the German title, bcz the hint given by "des" doesn't get reflected in the English translation of the phrase, and it probably is obvious to many more German speakers than English speakers that a "Nibelung" is some kind of person rather than, say, a brand or model of car, or a historical event ("Risorgimento" meaning "unification of Italy"), or a metonym like "Srebrenica" (meaning "tragedy of oppression and neglect") or "Somalia" (meaning "utterly failed project"). But "Alberich's Ring" is not a translation, since it adds information to the title in the form of naming rather than describing the owner; i think it's worth making the distinction between a translation of a title (e.g., "The Ring of the Niebelung" or maybe even "The Niebelung's Ring"), and a substitute title (whether in the same or different language), just as we would never call The Professor and the Madman (American edition) a translated title for The Surgeon of Crowthorne (original UK edition). So i'd rather have it said that "Alberich's Ring" has been used as an English title for The Ring, and accurately describes its subject matter. And doing so may be a valuable addition; with such a change of wording, i'd have no objection to restoration.
--Jerzy•t 07:15, 1 August 2007 (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)

[edit] Orchestration

I remember seeing a photo of Siegfried Wagner at Bayreuth with seven harpists for the Ring (the seventh for use in emergencies!). It's been a while since I looked at the full score. Does anybody know the exact details of the harps in the score (I know for certain that they appear in Siegfried and Gotterdammerung)?

There are six harps at the end of Rheingold, when the Rheinmaidens are complainign about the corruption in the upper world. 136.148.1.142 22:35, 26 March 2007 (UTC) Peter

[edit] Redemption Through Love/Glorification of Brunnhilde

I think the discussion of the musical ending should include a mention that Wagner called the so-called Redemption Through Love motif, the Glorification of Brunnhilde, it appearing first when Sieglinde praises her. Adorno's argument is then shown to be crass as what Wagner is doing is highlighting her significance above Wotan and Siegfried both of whose music ends before hers. 136.148.1.142 22:33, 26 March 2007 (UTC) Peter Cohen

Right, and note that it is a variation on the "Brünnhilde as woman" motif, which in turn is a variation on the Valkyries motif. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.214.59.212 (talk) 22:05, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Links to YouTube?

Would you consider links to YouTube videos of the Operas appropiate for this article. GreaterWikiholic 02:26, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

It really depends if the copyright question has been addressed, see Wikipedia:Copyrights#Linking_to_copyrighted_works —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Alexs letterbox (talk • contribs) 02:40, 22 April 2007 (UTC).
So does YouTube have any video of pre-1911 performances? [wink]
--Jerzy•t 04:42, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Redirect list

In light of the variety of plausible misspellings, i'm listing the current Rdrs, in some case with notes.

Bad titles (bypassing urgent)


Bad titles (but as of 04:42, 30 July 2007 (UTC), unused in main namespace)


Good titles

  • The Ring of the Nibelung [English standard title; Good translation]]
  • The Ring Cycle [accurate & recognized description]
  • Ring Cycle
  • Wagner's Ring [recognized description, but may deserve a Dab, for sake of at least a few Web uses as short title for either Wagner's Ring and its Symbols by Donington (amusing: German title is Richard Wagners „Ring des Nibelungen“ und seine Symbole) or J. K. Holman's Wagner's Ring : a listener's companion & concordance.]
  • The Nibelung's Ring
  • The Nibelung’s Ring::used-by [smart quote? If so, probably needs bypassing]
  • Ring of the Nibelung
  • Ring des Nibelungen
  • Wagner's Ring Cycle
  • Ring des Niebelungen

Mis-cased titles (probably harmless if piped reasonably)


IMO, further Rdrs are needed for the combinations of

  • both in English and German,
  • with or w/o the initial definite article,
  • for
    the standard spelling Nibelung,
    (my own favored) misspelling w/ ..ie.. in place of the ..i.., and
    Shaw's English variant of The Perfect Wagnerite, omitting the ..e.. to produce "Niblung".

(They total 12 in number; some are extent but i think most are absent.) --Jerzy•t 04:42, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Meaning of "Nibelung"

Wagner's use of "Nibelung" for Alberich is an entirely new one, not supported by his sources, so far as I am aware. The Nibelungs were, in fact, the people called "Gibichungs" in Wagner's opera - the royal line of Burgundian kings of Worms. For some reason, Wagner decided to change this around, and it's worth discussing this in the title section. john k 13:53, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Okay, looking at the Nibelung article, I see that there were some early sources which applied the term to the Dwarfs, but that most modern scholars believe that the original usage was for the Burgundians. But this should be mentioned here, no? john k 14:00, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] JRR Tolkien

On the 'RING OF THE NIBELUNGS' movie website, it says that J.R.R. Tolkien had said that "the Nibelung saga was an inspiration for his Lord of the Rings trilogy." Yet, this Wiki page had said that Tolkien had denied this. Which one can we believe? Wiki, or the official ROTN website? Sir Sanjuro 19:04, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

This article's assertion regarding Tolkien is not sourced, so it needs a citation added, or it should be removed. Many of the other unsourced statements in the article need to be tied to their presumed sources in the references given. --Blainster 17:02, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
Tolkein might well have said that the "nibelung saga" was one of his inspirations for LOTR, however the comment in this article refers to the erroneous belief that Wagner's Ring cycle (something entirely different) was an inspiration for LOTR. I'll try to add that reference when I remember.--Dogbertd 11:43, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
I don't think it is controversial to say that the Nibelung traditions in Nibelungenlied and in the Poetic Eddas were an important inspiration for Tolkien. However, once when Tolkien was faced with the allegation of plagiarizing Wagner, he responded with something like "the ring is round and there the similarity ends". We need to separate between the Nibelung tradition, which most assuredly was a major inspiration, and Wagner, which he denied as inspiration.--Berig 11:50, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
I've added the requested reference, and also provided a link to the relevant section of The Lord of the Rings.--Dogbertd 12:56, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 4 channel and surround sound

Were any of the recordings made during the 1970s done in quadraphonic or 4 channel sound? Which ones are available in some other type of surround sound format? --Blainster 17:02, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] ROH ring circle 2007

Hi guys. At the moment in Covent gardens a very successful performance is running. I saw the first circle (2,,5,7, and 9 of october 07) and I was thrilled. I m trying to add a note for the performance but i ended up people talking about vandalism???? Could someone else write something about this production please in a way that it will not end up in a dispute - as i am not an expert in writing critics- because really your contemorary performances part is wrong absolutely inaccurate and incomplete as it doen t include this very important circle in covent gardens, and who knows what else. Thanks. Italiotis 21:36, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

You changed "Wagner wrote the libretto" to "Wagner wrote the alphabet" in that edit. Hence the vandalism fix tag. Tomixdf 07:21, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Sorry Tomixdf i did not made this change. Of course that was a serious vandalism from whoever did that and i completely agree with you. But it wasn t me.

I was just reffering to the the reference regarding covent gardens. I will reinclude a simple reference for that. Thanks a lotItaliotis 08:24, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

I've cleaned up the entry a bit. Then again, it is rather pointless to have a large list of contemporary performances of the ring in the article. IMO a performance should only be added if it is in any way special or revealing. In what way is that the case for the Covent Garden performance? Tomixdf 11:36, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree. The title of this section is notable contemporary productions. I've seen quite a lot of this one, and don't really see what is notable about it - unless you count Bryn Terfel's first Wotan or Pappano's first Ring.--Dogbertd 13:32, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
I agree that this one is nothing special and I don't really see how it is distinguished from other ROH productions such as the Hotter one in the 60s, either of the Friedrich ones in the 70s and 80s or the one in the 90s whose producer I forget. Of more interest may be the fact that the same producer did a Ring in Japan.
I think we might benefit from a bit of thought about the section as a whole. A paragraph on Bayreuth is appropriate, but it might do with a mention of how oftne they change productions. Then we can mention how large companies (ROH, the Met, Vienna, presumably) tend to have a production in their repertoire all the time and turn over stagings at whatever rate and contrast this with how smaller companies (Canadian Opera, Chicago) tend to reserve productions for special occassions and also a mention how smaller houses in Germany tend to regard staging a Ring as a more normal thing to do than those in other countries. And we need references.--Peter cohen 13:51, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Opera Vs. Music-Drama

The article begins by describing Wagner's works as "a cycle of... music dramas", and then, in the next sentence, refers to them as "operas". Syntactically, this suggests that the terms "Music-Drama and "Opera" are synonymous. Most Wagnerians would take issue with the blurring of that distinction. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.115.153.68 (talk) 22:16, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps, but are these articles intended for Wagnerians only, or for the general public, who will look upon all of these works as operas? I think the more general term "opera" is going to be more widely understood. --Kyoko 22:23, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
I agree -- one or the other should be put into a parenthetical, without equating them. The uninitiated reader who types "ring cycle" into wikipedia after watching bugs bunny wants to know within the first sentence that these are operas. Fireplace (talk) 01:26, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Setting

Does anyone know around what years the events occur in the cycle? I was thinking maybe early 11th century. Any ideas?

The characters who have historic basis lived during the Age of Migrations.--Berig (talk) 12:29, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
The Ring begins in "mythical time" with no human characters appearing in Das Rheingold. Later the cycle is base on usch sources as Nibelungenlied which appears to be set in the 5th or 6th centuries.--Peter cohen (talk) 13:44, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Few major or minor chords??

I have corrected the number of Double Basses in the Ring from 12 to 8 (12 Basses, that would sound like mud! - obviously a typo and nevertheless not found in the score) but being new to Wikipedia I'm not certain on how to rewrite the bit about the scarcity of triads. To say that simple major or minor (i.e. consonant) chords are rare in the Ring is misleading as they can be found on practically every single page. There is harmonic suspension and a great deal of chromaticism, but Wagner's music in an extension of tonal practices and can still be analyzed using conventional methods although I will admit that parts of Tristan are slipperier. The beginning of Rheingold is nothing but a huge Eflat chord that goes on for over 4 minutes. There are places where he extends 7th chords for an awful long time to create tension, but there is no specific avoidance or for that matter rarity in his use of major or minor triads Batonpower (talk) 00:53, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

In the end I was a big boy and I rewrote the passage. Batonpower (talk) 22:43, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. In the longer term, we need to find a proper source to reference this to. I guess you might be a conductor and able to understand a lot of this stuff yourself. But, Wikipedia policy says that we should rely on published reliable sources rather than the understandings of contributors themselves, whatever their expertise.--Peter cohen (talk) 12:03, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
Good to know, but I bet the original sentence did not come from a published source in the first place - it was way too naive. Anyway, I'll see what I can find, but it could be difficult: it's a bit like finding a reference saying that Pandas are never pink. I'll give it my best shot. Batonpower (talk) 17:27, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
You're probably right there. I do intend to work further on improving the Ring articles myself one day using sources such as the ENO opera guides and Cooke's I saw the World End but having extra people with a musical education involved rather than just intelligent laymen such as I claim to be will both provide a better understanding of what the sources are getting at and hopefully a knowledge of a wider range of literature.--Peter cohen (talk) 17:57, 22 January 2008 (UTC)