Talk:Karlheinz Stockhausen

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Good article Karlheinz Stockhausen has been listed as one of the Arts good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can delist it, or ask for a reassessment.
April 14, 2008 Good article nominee Listed
This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:


Contents

[edit] Poetry

Cam, luckily for me the poetry is in German. Hyacinth 20:39, 14 May 2004 (UTC)

It exhibits a preoccupation with certain bodily fluids and the bits which produce them. I think it's meant to be erotic. Maybe in a live performance in the right environment it works, but listening to it on a CD at home, I'm just worried th neighbours might hear. Interesting piece, though. --Camembert

[edit] suggestion

Someone should look into the whole business concerning Stockhausen's publishing house. I think that the publishing house is part of the Stockhausen foundation and that the recording company is part of the publishing house. In that respect it is not enough to say that Stockhausen founded the record company "to make this music permanently available on compact disc". Rather, one should think of it as part of a concept, with which Stockhausen wants to make his life's work permanently available. Interesting in this respect is also, that Stockhausen bought back the rights for the publication of his pieces, both for scores and recordings ("Gaining access" sounds to passive, I think).

In general I think the article is very good!

[edit] quotes

I'm saddened the quote on BBC radio - whoever said it escapes me - isn't in the article. The one that goes, after a composer had heard any Stockhausen, he says "No, but I believe that I have trodden in some."

Sir Thomas Beecham said it. --Mandel


[edit] suggestion: images

Very interesting article! Thanks for writing it! Could anybody add some images? Musicmaster

There's now one. Hyacinth 20:47, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Nice

Where can I find information about his students? Thanks for posting. Melbrooks

Where can I find the official homepage of Stockhausen? I would appreciate a nice answer. --Koril 13:56, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Is this the one? [1] - Runcorn 17:16, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes it is, and this is where you can order his releases.

[edit] POV?

I removed this. Feel free to put it back if you like...

"It is also worth noting that in the broad scheme of electronic music one could make the argument that Stockhausen and his fellow musique concrete composers got a hold of a bunch of audio equipment that they did not even begin to understand, but managed to talk their way out of arguing whether they're music was good or not by saying it was avant garde art. Please see http://www.di.fm/edmguide/edmguide.html."

Adambisset 15:26, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

No, leave it out.--Runcorn 19:29, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Why is it not acceptable to raise questions about Stockhausen's place in the musical world? Many, many fine musicians feel that he is a perfect example of the emperor wearing no clothes.

Adding criticism is fine, but it must be sourced. You must give names and formal publications of those who have criticized Stockhausen. Saying just "many composers" or "many critics" violates WP:WEASEL. CRCulver 00:43, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
OK, fair enough. But is it OK to point out that some of the jargon used by Stockhausen and others when discussing his music (including in the article here) is meaningless? (For the record, I am a professional composer, have a doctorate in composition from Juilliard, and I teach at the University of Montreal. So if I don't understand it, it is NOT due to lack of training.) 64.229.129.200 20:35, 29 October 2006 (UTC) Alan Belkin
No, it's not okay. Making claims about Stockhausen based on your own views violates WP:NOR. Everything on WP must be cited from external sources. Surely there's formal scholarship out there that you could use, and since you have access to a university library I imagine it would be quite easy for you to put together some good additions here. CRCulver 21:01, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
Furthermore, though this particular case cites a URL, the claims of technical incompetence are not found on that site. (Yes, I did look through that incredibly sloppy site *thoroughly*.) Jerome Kohl 01:37, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
Furthermore, musicians' opinions on composers are of no validity. --194.82.45.23 20:23, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
Do you have a source for that statement, or is it original research?--Runcorn 14:15, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] New Age

Category "New Age" musicians? Really? Is there any source that cites him as a member of this category, or even makes a plausible claim? Antandrus (talk) 22:09, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

I would have to go back to the book and check, but I think this connection is made in Wolfgang Martin Stroh's book, Handbuch New Age Musik: auf der Suche nach neuen musikalischen Erfahrungen (Regensburg: ConBrio Verlagsgesellschaft, 1994). Is it Wiki protocol to require a published source to authenticate a category (as it is for article content)? If not, then consider the New Grove definition of "New Age" in comparison with Stockhausen's music and public statements, especially from 1968 onward:

An ideology based on the belief in the ultimate cultural evolution of human societies through the transformation of individuals. . . . its manifestations involve a great variety of techniques, including sound and music. A particular link is invoked connecting music, meditation and mind.

A search on Amazon.com for books on "New Age music" turns up the collection of Stockhausen essays, translated by Tim Nevill, Towards a Cosmic Music (1994). Amongst Stockhausen's compositions, the most obvious candidates for classification as "New Age" are Stimmung, Sternklang, and the American Indian Songs ("In the sky I am walking") from Alphabet für Liège. However, a number of other compositions (or portions of them) could also plausibly fit: some of the Aus den sieben Tagen pieces (most notably "Goldstaub" and "Litanei 97"), Trans, Ylem, Tierkreis (at least, in many performances), Sirius, Atmen gibt das Leben, many portions of Licht (amongst others, the "Invisible Choirs" from Donnerstag, the "Greetings" from Montag and Dienstag, "Michaelion" from Mittwoch, the electronic music from Freitag, "Lichter-Wasser" and the "Sonntags Abschied" from Sonntag), and, more recently, Natürliche Dauern (the "Third Hour" of Klang). Jerome Kohl 17:40, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Any information in an article can be challenged if it is not properly sourced. A category provides information - there is no logical difference between adding a category about New Age and saying explicitly in the article that he is New Age.--Runcorn 20:58, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the clarification. How does one properly source a category, or is this something that should be added only if the article content makes an explicit, sourced reference? (BTW, I was not the person who added that category--I simply can see its plausibility for some of the composer's works.)--Jerome Kohl 18:52, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
If the category has been queried, either mention the fact in the article or add a reference that specifically addresses the point and flag it "Stockhausen is New Age".--Runcorn 22:40, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Notable students?

This list seems to have a lot of redlinks. If they are all notable, can someone produce articles on them explaining why they're notable?--Runcorn 17:06, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps "notable" is a contentious category. As the person who uplinked 25 of those 27 names, I suppose the burden is mainly on me to produce those articles. Or perhaps it would be better to change the section heading to something less liable to cause controversy, like simply "students"? This raises an issue with which I have been struggling for some months now, ever since I read further back on this Talk page a request for such a list. The names already posted are of composers who attended a regular course of composition study with Stockhausen, either at the Cologne Conservatory, the University of Pennsylvania, or the University of California Davis, or who studied privately with him in Cologne. I have another 75 or so names of people who attended intensive composition workshops under Stockhausen at Darmstadt or the Cologne Courses for New Music in the 1960s, another 40 composers who state in their resumés or press releases that they studied with Stockhausen in some capacity (in some cases, this amounts to nothing more than attending one of his Darmstadt lectures), and another 14 who are known to have attended his Darmstadt lectures, but who do not generally claim to have studied with him. All of these categories include names that are indisputably "notable", as well as names that may be "notable" perhaps only in their home countries, or only within certain circles. For example, many of the names which were totally unfamiliar to me turn out to be famous (or relatively famous) pop musicians, an area in which I have no expertise whatever. So, what are the criteria for inclusion? Put up the whole list of more than 150, and let the wikicommunity start trying to whittle it down? --Jerome Kohl 17:37, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

My advice, as someone who knows a lot less about Stockhausen than you do but maybe more about Wikipedia, is to make a list of people who have genuinely studied with him, not just attended a couple of lectures. See where the redlinks are. On the classical side, you will have a good idea whether they are worth articles; if not, omit them. If there are pop musicians you are unsure about, post their names here and on WP:VPM for comment.--Runcorn 21:45, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the advice, it is much appreciated. I'm not quite sure what you mean by "see where the redlinks are". I do see them, and have created two articles just today to help address the problem in this particular instance. My experience with Wikipedia is still very small, but I do know that there are in general a great many redlinks for people that I would regard as more notable than some others that have bluelinks. For comments from others who read this Talkpage on the redlink names presently in this section, would anyone care to tell me whether they think Alden Jenks, Will Johnson, Mark Riener, or Julian Woodruff are notable or not? (They were all in Stockhausen's Davis, California seminar in 1967, according to Jonathan Kramer's article, "Karlheinz in California", in Perspectives of New Music 36/1, pp. 247-61 and, though I have heard (vaguely) of Jenks and Johnson, the other two are not familiar names. --Jerome Kohl 22:51, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

What I meant was that editors expert in Stockhausen should produce a list that includes only who should be there because they really were his students, then see what redlinks remain. I suspected that many of the redlinks would be deleted.--Runcorn 22:45, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I see what you mean now. It is remarkably difficult to sort this sort of thing out in some cases, since gaining access to conservatory and university student records is not really possible, for confidentiality reasons. Many individuals believe it will boost their standing to say they have studied with a celebrity, even if their contact was very tangential. Still, I take your point, and agree that at least a few of the redlinks will be deleted. There remains the serious question of just how "notable" is "notable"? For example, is being a professor of composition at an American university sufficient to count as "notable"? Does winning one international composition prize qualify? If so, then all but possibly two of the remaining redlinks should remain, and "go blue" in the end.--Jerome Kohl 23:03, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
How am I doing so far?--Jerome Kohl 09:17, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Looks fine to me!--Runcorn 18:04, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

I notice that an anonymous contributor has added Peter D. Pecere to the "notable students" list. I find nothing at all about him, apart from the fact that he joined the American Composers Alliance in 2005, and had an unnamed piece performed (or at least, scheduled to be performed, the online notice mentioned but did not name "two casualties" on that program) recently at a regional conference of the (American) Society of Composers. Unless someone can explain how he qualifies as "notable" (as well as when and where he studied with Stockhausen—see above), I propose his name be removed from the list, as has been done with several redlinked names in the past.--Jerome Kohl 19:21, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

It has now been a month since the addition of Pecere to the list of "notable students". Because I have failed in several further attempts to learn anything further about him, and no one else has offered any evidence of his notability, I have removed his name.--Jerome Kohl 20:00, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

In the section "Stockhausen in popular culture" there's a reference to Richard Wright (Pink Floyd keyboardist) of being one of his students. Why is Wright not mentioned among the Notable Students instead? Also, do you know anything more specific about what kind of relationship he had with Stockhausen? Did he just attend a few lectures/workshops, or did he study privately with him (doubtful)? -- Ettorepasquini 21:19, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

This unverified claim has now been removed, since no one has come forward with any sort of documentation after nine months. I note that the Wikipedia article on Wright states only that he studied at Haberdashers' Aske's School and the Regent Street Polytechnic College of Architecture, making no claim that Stockhausen ever taught at either of those institutions.--Jerome Kohl 18:13, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Re: "Or perhaps it would be better to change the section heading to something less liable to cause controversy, like simply "students"?":

If they aren't notable, why have them? The list as it stands now is just ridiculously long. Wikipedia is not supposed to be a telephone book. We should mention at most five or so or his most famous students--if we're going to mention any at all--, and they should be mentioned (if at all) within the body of the article, as part of a complete English sentence or two. TheScotch (talk) 09:48, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

It would be helpful to have nominations here for the five or so most famous or noteworthy Stockhausen students. If enough editors submit candidates, it may be possible simply to leave those five or so that are common to the most sets of nominations. Otherwise I'll be left to my own devices. TheScotch (talk) 09:17, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
Notability is of course Wikipedia policy. However, I don't see anything there about specific limits on numbers. Stockhausen was arguably the most influential composer of the second half of the twentieth century. Doubtless this influence extended to many non-notables, as well as to non-students, but it strains credibility to restrict this list to only the five judged to be "most notable", when it includes so many well-known figures.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 21:02, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

The problem is that this sort of endless (and mere) listing clutters articles. Good writing is selective; it doesn't throw as much random information at the screen as it possibly can. I've only heard of a few of these persons, and I very much doubt anyone else has either. Which ones individual musically literate editors may have heard of will likely vary, but if enough editors submit candidates, we should be able to whittle away the special circumstances (that is, that they may have themselves studied with or be related to one or two, and so on). TheScotch (talk) 18:37, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm not at all clear what you mean by "they may have themselves studied with or be related to one or two". We have already had a dearth of input on this subject (see the very long discussion above, dating back to Runcorn's request for notability verification, from November 2006), which makes it unlikely that more than one or two other editors is likely now to come forward with opinions on relative notability. In turn, this raises the WP:NPOV issue. That said, it does appear that at least a few of the names on this list are self-nominated, or have been appointed by others, perhaps on the basis of a Wikipedia article about them (since almost all are now bluelinks). This may provide a point of departure for your proposal to whittle down the list. If any of these persons do not meet the criteria for WP:N, then clearly they do not belong here, nor, I imagine, should their vanity articles remain on Wikipedia.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 19:04, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Re: "I'm not at all clear what you mean by 'they may have themselves studied with or be related to one or two'.":

These are probably bad examples because they may suggest that the former Stockhausen students in question are not notable enough to be worth their own wikipedia articles, which is largely irrelevant to my concern. My concern is simply that the list as it stands is so long that it's cluttering the article. I picked the number five arbitrarily; what I would actually like is a number that fits comfortably into a sentence (an actual proper English sentence) that begins, "Stockhausen's students include...."--or a similar construction.

My "special circumstances" simply means that a given editor may have heard of some of these computers as a matter of pure fortuity; he may have only happened upon them. This is in contradistinction to La Monte Young, for example, with whom pretty much every musically literate person is presumably more or less familiar.

Re: "....which makes it unlikely that more than one or two other editors is likely now to come forward with opinions on relative notability":

Well, if no one does, I may "be bold" and pick the few myself that seem to me to be most famous. TheScotch (talk) 20:13, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Because there are now only bluelinks on the list, I suggest that you read the linked articles, many of which were written or expanded by myself, following Runcorn's advice. They should give some idea of the relative notability (not "fame" or "celebrity", BTW, which is quite a different thing). You will discover in doing so that by no means are all of these people notable as composers, or even in the field of music (three are best known as painters, though two of those are also composers). Some are extremely prominent in their own countries, while others are known more widely, but less well in any one particular place. I think you will find it difficult to objectively narrow this list even to ten names, let alone the number five you suggest. In fact, glancing over the list now, I count 23 names that seem to me just about equally notable, at the top end of the scale, out of the 67 presently there, and you will probably come up with at three that are not part of this group, and tell me they are more notable. A year or so ago I asked Runcorn what the criteria ought to be for notability, in the hope of avoiding the kind of "well, my feelings are just the opposite of yours" confrontation that may be shaping up here.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 22:29, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
I wrote my note below prior to seeing the note above from Jerome, so I wanted to add a response that I agree with his concern, that notability criteria are difficult to come to agreement about. I suggest we just leave it at the criteria of - if they are notable enough for an article (blue link), and in that article it shows that they actually were a student of his, then they can stay on the list. That way, it's objective and easy to decide. If notability is questionable, then that would also apply to their article itself and there is a formal process for that. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 00:51, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
I don't have a strong position on this, but I'd like to point out a some issues that may come up with your suggestion:
  • all of the students have blue links, so they are notable enough for Wikipedia articles
  • determining relative notability or importance of the students could be seen as WP:OR, unless the choices are referenced.
  • generally with music articles, the "notable artists" or similar sections attract less active editors who like to mosey around and add an name or link here and there. That's not a problem in itself, but you may find that if you prune the list, you might see it grow again right away.
  • at least as it is now, we have a consensus on this page to only include names that have Wikiarticles; if some are removed, what will be the criteria?
I recommend either leaving it as-is, or, if you feel it's important to make it smaller, perhaps include only names that can be referenced with a footnote (that would add a lot of footnotes though, and much of that info is probably in the individual articles already). --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 22:03, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Re: "the "notable artists" or similar sections attract less active editors who like to mosey around and add an name or link here and there.:

My wikipedia experience suggests that framing this in an actual English sentence will significantly reduce the likelihood of this sort of thing. Dangling lists invite additions ad infinitum.

Re: "you will probably come up with at three that are not part of this group, and tell me they are more notable.:

Oh, a restriction to three would not be at all a bad thing.

"Re: A year or so ago I asked Runcorn what the criteria ought to be for notability, in the hope of avoiding the kind of 'well, my feelings are just the opposite of yours' confrontation that may be shaping up here'":

I think you're contradicting yourself. First you suggest that no one cares enough to submit nominations, and now you suggest that reducing the list will provoke a bloody battle. I think (probably tonight after Christmas shopping) I'll see which of these names have their own Grove entries. That should prove telling. TheScotch (talk) 18:53, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

There is no contradiction, but perhaps I can clarify: If there is an insufficient number of editors involved (say, just two), and they disagree, consensus is impossible to achieve. (Even if they do agree, it is doubtful whether such a small number can be construed as a consensus.) As for New Grove, that is a good start, though of course you are not likely to find notable painters in it, for example. I think I can save you some trouble. Forty-eight of the names in that list (that is a little more than twice the number I named as "equally notable") each have their own article in New Grove:

Amacher, Amy, Barlow (spelled Klarenz Barlow in New Grove), Biel, Boehmer, Buckinx, Cardew, Chatman, Davies, Decoust, Éloy, Eötvös, Fritsch, Gagneux, Gehlhaar, Gilboa, Grisey, Hassell, Höller, Huber, Kramer, Lachenmann, Laporte, McLeod, Maconie, Maiguashca, Mariétan, Marco, Méfano, Miereanu, Mizelle, Nunes, Peixinho, Pongrácz, Rihm, Schwertsik, Shapiro, Smalley, Souster, Sveinsson, Szathmáry, I. Tcherepnin, S. Tcherepnin, Tremblay, Vivier, Volans, Young, Zender

In addition, Constanten is found in the article on the Grateful Dead, while Holger Czukay (aka Holger Schüring) and Irmin Schmidt are found in the article on Can. Bahk is in the article “Korea” in the New Grove Dictionary of Opera. —Jerome Kohl (talk) 00:18, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
I agree with Jerome, the list of notable students is worthy If they're notable enough to have a blue link, and they were actually a student of KS, then they're worthy of having their name in the article. What's the problem with that? I don't think any of them should be removed unless it's determined that they did not study with KS or their links turn red. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 05:48, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Re: "...they're worthy of having their name in the article. What's the problem with that?":

It seems to me I've answered this question at least twice before. Inclusion is not an honor to be bestowed on the "worthy"; it needs to serve the article--it needs to convey valuable information about Stockhausen himself, and it needs to do so in a way that comports with good, uncluttered, compact prose. Dangling lists are--and ought to be--generally frowned upon in wikipedia. TheScotch (talk) 11:16, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

(ec) For readers interested in researching Stockhausen, the achievements of his students are relevant information and serves the article well. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 18:20, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Unsourced statements

I have just reverted this article from an edit by an apparently well-meaning but anonymous contributor, who removed (amongst other things and without stating any reason for the changes) one source reference from an article already tagged for having unsourced statements. As it happens, I was responsible for adding all of the material deleted in this edit, but I am not personally invested in any of it, apart from the correction of the long-standing mistake of presenting "Burg Mödrath" as if it were the name of a town (it is in fact a building). If this anonymous editor has reasons for the other deletions ("too much information", "irrelevant data", "incorrect statements", etc.) he/she should mention them here, where I would be happy to discuss them.--Jerome Kohl 17:40, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Better photo request

Can we get a better photo - that sideways shot is pretty bad. -asmadeus 00:54, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't have a better photo to offer, but I agree completely. Not only is it badly exposed, but Wikipedia guidelines specify that a portrait with the subject looking to the right should be placed at the left of the page (gazing into the center, instead of out beyond the margins). I repeatedly fixed this, but other people kept putting it back at the right. When the infobox was added, I could find no way of moving it back to the left, so I gave up.--Jerome Kohl 15:46, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

It's often very difficult to get a photo with no copyright problems.--Runcorn 21:49, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

You are right. Social websites could be a source of good stuff. E.g. I did a quick search on flickr.com and I found 5 photos. Three of them are "All right Reserved": 1st photo 2nd 3rd. I like the 2nd. There are 2 additional photos which are Creative Commons licenses, so there should be no problem using them... however they are sort of weird. Here they are anyway: 4th 5th. Go ahead and do more searches: once we agree on one we can just contact the author and find out. --Ettorepasquini 01:53, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
There is something very fishy about photos 4 and 5, because they are said to have been taken on August 25 and October 22, 2005, but are clearly snaps made of poster photos dating originally from the 1960s (Stockhausen is about 40 year old in the photos; in 2005 he was 77). I have seen both of these photos before (I think perhaps in Karl Heinz Wörner's book on Stockhausen), and it seems highly unlikely that they are free of copyright. My attempt to connect to the "some restrictions" link on the second photo resulted in an error message, which is not an encouraging sign.--Jerome Kohl 16:00, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Selected discography

Could someone who knows this subject please compile a selected discography? Maybe as a separate article. I would be grateful thanks. SmokeyTheCat 08:31, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

I have added an External Link to Bernard Pulham's excellent online discography (I was surprised to discover this was not already present in the article). This is the furthest possible extreme from a selective discography, so perhaps there is still useful work to be done, but it's a start.--Jerome Kohl 16:06, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Date of Stockhausen's death

I heard on the six o'clock news on Radio Four tonight (that would be, between 6 and 6: 30 in the evening, Greenwich Mean Time) that Stockhausen had died - and it is December 7 - but this article says he died on December 5 2007. Why this discrepancy? I live in the United Kingdom, if that helps. ACEOREVIVED (talk) 20:20, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

I'd say his death was announced today by the Stockhausen foundation, but he died two days ago. BTW, do we really need NINE footnotes to prove his death? -- megA (talk) 20:51, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
Initially, it seemed best to provide duplicates for confirmation. The BBC, for example, were reluctant to announce until they had confirmation from other news sources, while many of those sources were waiting for the BBC. Now, it does seem pointless, and they can be removed, perhaps moving one or two to External links. As for the discrepancy in date, yes, it was a matter of getting a press release written and distributed.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 01:17, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] keep out the trivia

just about to ask someone to remove "popular culture" and someone did it thx :)

it really cheapened the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.105.65.139 (talk) 13:25, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Some of it was cute, but I agree. Many of the pulp-fiction swipes still present under the guise of "Literature" could be deleted on the same grounds, don't you think?—Jerome Kohl (talk) 23:16, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
Yes, I do. TheScotch (talk) 12:17, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
I disagree. Some of it can be salvaged, and there is no consensus here for a wholesale deletion. ---RepublicanJacobiteThe'FortyFive' 18:08, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
I also like seeing the pop culture stories. I don't think it cheapens the article to point out that Stockhausen was on the cover of a Beatles album or whatever. It shows that his work has been noticed widely, not just in academic circles. Maybe the problem is more in the list-like fashion the section was written and if it were written more as a description of his affect on pop culture, with examples and some references, that would increase the quality of its presentation. I would dive in and do it if I had the time, but all I'm able to offer for now is the suggestion. In the meantime, why not undelete the section and put a template at the top of it asking for it to be "prosified" or "wikified" or whatever the appropriate term would be?--Jack-A-Roe (talk) 19:47, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm in favor of either wholesale deletion or of putting the "trivia" template on it and removing everything that seems to have little or no chance of eventually being included in the actual article — & I think that would be almost all of it. SethTisue (talk) 20:03, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Re: "there is no consensus here for a wholesale deletion":
There certainly was until you chimed in. In any case, wikipedia policy discourages trivia sections. If any bits of a trivia section are worth preserving that much of it should be placed within the body of the article. I agree with Seth that, however, that none or very little of this one is worth preserving. Also: Disguising a trivia section with a euphemistic title is a disreputable practice. (Note that I'm not repeating myself here; my other comment--"Yes, I do."--referred to the "pulp-fiction swipes".) TheScotch (talk) 09:07, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Stockhausen in literature

Let's return to this section. It was proposed above that at least some of it should be eliminated on the ground that this section is also essentially a collection of trivia (if a more specialized one). I seconded that proposition but did not elaborate. Let me clearer now: I think the section as a section should be cut, and if any of the current content is deemed worth retaining, it can be incorporated into the article. TheScotch (talk) 19:02, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Does anyone object? TheScotch (talk) 12:11, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
Not me. I don't see anything there worth saving. SethTisue (talk) 15:21, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
Concur. I'm already on record as being in favor of deletion. Some of this "literature" is frankly of less literary merit that most of the material in the already-deleted Trivia section. Nevertheless, the point has been made that the sheer numbers of these trivial references demonstrate how pervasive Stockhausen has been in public consciousness, and it would be therefore worth considering inserting a sentence somewhere in the main text abnout this fact—the main trick being finding a single source (or at least, a manageably small number) to verify this fact.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 16:44, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, a quick check reveals that there are already two or three paragraphs (depending how you count) in the "Influence" section of the article about Stockhausen pervading the public consciousness as it were, so we seem to me fairly safe on that account (whether or not, as I suspect, these paragraphs want a bit of tightening). TheScotch (talk) 10:05, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

I moved a couple particularly appropriate examples from the literature section into a new paragraph in the influences section. With that change in place, I would concur if the remaining list of items in the literature section were removed. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 11:01, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Done. TheScotch (talk) 11:38, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Footnotes

I removed a "no footnotes" tag, as the article is (was) meticulously cited using Harvard referencing (I think by User:Jerome Kohl). Right now, the footnotes style coexists with the Harvard system but I'm too lazy to fix that... --Atavi (talk) 18:38, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

I've reverted two of the three footnote references to Harvard format, which is a lot easier than reformatting the 70+ in-text reference citations as footnotes. (It would be several magnitudes more work converting the refs to a full-footnote system, which some recent edits seem pointed toward.) The one remaining footnote (in the renamed "Footnotes" section contains an in extenso citation of the original German of material cited in English translation in the article. This seems a bit excessive for an Encyclopedia article, but the contentiousness of the material may justify it. This material was once deleted under Wikipedia BLP policy, but seems to have been quickly reinserted upon the news of the composer's death. Should this be debated all over again?—Jerome Kohl (talk) 23:13, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
Given that the 9/11 quotation can hardly be avoided in this article, and that nearly all references to it (at least in English) are inaccurate or out-of-context, it is surely better to give the full picture. Since I was unable to find a published English translation of his complete remark (which itself tells you something) I attempted my own: however my German is pititable and anyone is welcome to improve it. According to WP:V, where an unpublished translation is used in a Wikipedia article, the original language form must also be included. Grover cleveland (talk) 00:07, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
Yes, but WP:V says only "there should be clear citation of the foreign-language original, so that readers can check what the original source said and the accuracy of the translation," not that the entire foreign-language original needs to be quoted! Surely the citation of the source in MusikTexte should be sufficient, and if not that alone, then adding the weblink as well should be adequate.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 19:29, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
Interesting ... I had always interpreted "citation of the foreign-language original" to mean something like "footnote containing the content of the foreign-language original". If it simply means "reference to a place where the foreign-language original may be found", then the policy on translated quotations is effectively meaningless, since such a reference would be required anyway for general verifiability. I realize that this article seems to be a footnote-free zone, but I would think it would comport with the spirit, as well as the letter, of WP:V if the original German text were to be restored somehow. Cheers. Grover cleveland (talk) 17:05, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
The policy is not meaningless, because it does not require citing the original-language source when a reliable translation is referenced. In this case, there is no reliable translation, so the original source must be cited (note: this does not mean "quoted"). Since the German text is hyperlinked anyway, what is the point of having a second way of going to it with one click? As it happens, there is another problem: since the now-deleted footnote contained only the sections actually translated, whenever a sentence or phrase is added to or deleted from the translation, this must be done in the footnote as well. Then there is the question of original context, which happens to be a huge issue here.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 20:17, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
I'm still not totally convinced, but it's not something worth fighting over :) Grover cleveland (talk) 15:33, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 9/11 quote translation

Is this an official translation? Because there is one (minor) error in it: "Daß also Geister in einem Akt etwas vollbringen..." is translated as "The spirit achieves in one act..." whereas the correct translation would be "The fact that spirits achieve in one act...". And I think the conclusion Stockhausen draws out of it should be in there, too: "Compared to this, we are nothing, as composers." -- megA (talk) 19:14, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

No: as I explain above, no published translation of the entire excerpt could be found. Please improve and correct as necessary. Cheers. Grover cleveland (talk) 08:20, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
I'll try, although it's a bit incoherent. It's Stockhausen, after all... -- megA (talk) 10:31, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

I made the quote a little longer, on basis of the German wikipedia. Before he seemed to justify the attacks in some way, which he never did. The last sentence might be a little weird, I translated it directly from German:

"to kick the bucket" seems to be colloquial for "to die" - in German he used "abkratzen" which is also colloquial and slightly derogatory. If you have a better translation go for it.

the weird grammar is also weird and wrong in German. Hope it is understandable in English.

please correct, my mother tongue is German! --Kricket (talk) 14:25, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm confused, I looked at the German article and it says "Ihr könntet dabei draufgehen", not "abkratzen"...? SethTisue (talk) 15:07, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

According to the source this quote is based on (pdf file of the transcript), it is "draufgehen". I have never heard the version with "abkratzen" before. A check for vandalism on the German article seems necessary. -- megA (talk) 11:09, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
Oh, I am sorry. No vandalism in German wp and he did say draufgehen. Looks like I should better have been in bed yesterday. But "draufgehen" is also slightly condescending. I would not call "killed" an exact translation, but then again my English is not perfect. If you don't have a much better idea I say leave it as it is! --Kricket (talk) 16:42, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
Maybe "die as a result"? I used the passive voice to try to capture the "dabei", but maybe explicitly saying "as a result" would be better. SethTisue (talk) 17:19, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

[2] here is a link to a dictionary. to fall apart sounds OK if it really means "to die" and not something else and is fairly common. Otherwise I would recommend leaving it as it is. It is not such an important issue. --Kricket (talk) 19:13, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Reputation

The reputation of a musician is not just his influences on other music, but his influence on people generally. The more notable the musician, the more distinctive the music, the greater this is likely to be. Thus, significant references to his work in other significant works in other art forms, or even the awareness of his work as being distinctive and as likely to be known to a popular audience as distinctive, is e relevant content. I've restored a section of it. It should probably be re-edited as paragraphs. This sort of material is not considered trivia. DGG (talk) 21:44, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

I made some edits just now so the article now asserts that Stockhausen's name, if not his music, was known to a popular audience. (I use the past tense because I'm not sure how true that is today.) Perhaps some of the removed "trivia" could be mentioned in this context. Let's not let it get too detailed and lengthy though; a handful of representative examples is enough to get the point across. SethTisue (talk) 00:23, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Cause of death

Re: "The cause of death, according to his surroundings, was said to be a sudden heart failure.":

I don't know what "according to his surroundings" means or is intended to mean. It almost sounds as if someone wants us to think that Stockhausen's "surroundings" reported Stockhausen's cause of death, which of course is absurd. Or is it that Stockhausen's "surroundings" contributed somehow to his heart failure? For now, I'll remove "according to his surroundings" and await clarification. TheScotch (talk) 07:01, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

It sounds to me like a poor translation (Babelfish has got a lot to answer for!) from the German "Umgebung", which can mean "surroundings", "environs", "vicinity", but in this context would be better translated as "associates", or "acquaintances". You have done just the right thing, in my opinion—I was on the verge of making the same edit myself, more on grounds that the vague "associates" is tantamount to weasel words. I suppose that Wikipedia policy dictates a verifiable source for this, which shouldn't be difficult to find, since the cause of death has by now been reported in hundreds of newspaper obituaries.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 18:53, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Cologne Conservatory

When Stockhausen studied and taught there, it was called "Staatliche Hochschule für Musik". There is nothing like a "National Conservatory" in the Federal Republic of Germany, you might translate that as "Cologne State Conservatory". Nowadays it is simply called "Hochschule für Musik", officially translated as "Cologne University of Music" (see their homepage). I think it is fine to use just "Conservatory". 77.10.213.124 (talk) 18:41, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes. As explained in one edit note, "National Conservatory of Music" is the translation used in the composer's official biography. If the Hochschule's homepage traslates it as "university", then I wonder what word they use to translate German "Universität". I agree that "conservatory" is the right word to use, but I don't think that "Cologne State Conservatory" will work, since there is no state of Cologne. What's wrong with just using the German name, possibly with a parenthetical "(Cologne Conservatory of Music)"?—Jerome Kohl (talk) 21:56, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
In fact, many people use "Musikhochschule Cologne" in their cv. Maybe the best solution… 77.10.196.37 (talk) 13:32, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Citation style

I see that User:DannyDaWriter has tagged this article with the citation-style template, and so must believe that "The references in this article would be clearer with a different or consistent style of citation, footnoting, or external linking." However, he has not put the expected explanation here on the article's talk page, so it is not clear which of these options he is criticizing. As one of the major contributing editors to this article, I can say with confidence that (1) the citations are consistent in style, (2) there is no footnoting at all for sources (because the reference system used is Chicago style, which uses the in-text author-date format), and (3) the external links are also consistently formatted. Eliminating these options leaves only the possibility that the tagger believes the style of citation should be changed to improve clarity. My opinion is that the citations are perfectly clear as they are, but I invite DannyDaWriter's views on the subject, as well as any other editor who agrees or disagrees with him. However, I also wish to call attention to the section "Footnotes" earlier on this discussion page, and to point out that the Wikipedia style manual at Wikipedia:Citing_sources#Citation_styles states:

There are a number of citation styles and systems used in different fields, all including the same information, with different punctuation use, and with the order of appearance varying for the author's name, publication date, title, and page numbers. Any style or system is acceptable on Wikipedia so long as articles are internally consistent. You should follow the style already established in an article, if it has one; where there is disagreement, the style or system used by the first editor to use one should be respected.

With respect to the bit about differing system used in different fields, readers accustomed to, e.g., the Vancouver system (preferred in many scientific fields), may not find as clear the format of The MLA Style Manual (for the field of linguistics); and those accustomed to the Bluebook format used in the field of law, may not find the ones preferred in the humanities to be as clear, and vice-versa. FWIW, publications in the humanities (under which the present article falls), in the United States as well as the UK, tend to follow the Chicago Manual style or its close relatives, such as Hart's Rules and the so-called Harvard referencing style (also preferred in the fields of sociology and psychology).—Jerome Kohl (talk) 16:30, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

I concur and have removed the tag. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 06:04, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
Thank you. It is always best in these situations to have the agreement of at last one other editor.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 07:51, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
Yes indeed... As an aside: There are a couple references in the article I noticed that did not fit the Chicago style, I'm wondering how you recommend we handle them. I noticed they were in-line external links to web pages, but that's not a manual of style preferred method, so I changed them to footnote-style citations, since they are not published books. You can see them in the footnotes section if you want to review how I handled them. I didn't want to add them to the main references list because they aren't published books, they're web pages; they are reliable sources that can be used, but they would seem out of place in the list of books. I thought for webpages the footnote method works OK, though you're welcome to change them to a different method if you prefer. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 08:01, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
I have noticed your changes, and they seem sensible for the time being. I think that at least one of them (perhaps both) can be changed to Chicago style by putting the links in the References section, rather than at the intext citations. I'll have to think about this for a bit, though.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 05:59, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
OK, I thought about it, and also discovered that one of the two items was already in the References list. The other was easily added and, in the process, expanded to include both the original printed source and a second, slightly expanded version of the text, as well as the external link. The footnotes have, consequently, been replaced with intext Chicago-format citations, matching the others in the article.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 19:37, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
Looks good. Thanks for taking care of this. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 21:15, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
My pleasure. FWIW, I try wherever possible to treat web pages as if they were merely a convenient (and perhaps only temporary) way to access material published in a book, journal, newspaper, or other print medium. This proved actually to be the case for the Cosmic Pulses programme note, though the link doesn't make that absolutely clear (the webpage URL does include the phrase "cosmic_pulses_prog", and I remember when it was first put up it had an identifying link on the Stockhausen website's front page, which has since been removed). I also happened to have attended the German première and so have a copy of the booklet with the second version of the text. The other item was the one already in the list of References, where I put it some time ago. I expect that it will eventually appear in print, in one of the forthcoming volumes of the composer's Texte zur Musik.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 23:59, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] GA Fail

I am quick-failing per quick-fail criterion #1, as this article because it does not meet Wikipedia requirements for verifiability. The article needs to be sourced thoroughly before it is ready for GA level. GaryColemanFan (talk) 04:31, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Would you please elaborate ? This article has approximately 100 in-line references in the Chicago style, with almost every fact sourced to a particular reference. It would be helpful if you would provide some examples of statements in the article that you feel are unsupported. Thanks. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 05:33, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
What can I say? I was wrong. So many articles have been listed lately with no citations that I assumed this was another one of them. I glanced quickly over the article, saw no references, and didn't even think of Chicago style. I apologize for my haste and my mistake. Since I removed it from the list of Good Article Nominations, I suppose the best thing for me to do is perform a full review. Best wishes, GaryColemanFan (talk) 14:18, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
I will begin the review later, but one thing that will come up is the length of the lead. According to Wikipedia:Lead section, it should be much longer and summarize all of the key points of the article. If you would like to work on this while waiting for the full review, please feel free to do so. GaryColemanFan (talk) 16:09, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for your clarification and for the suggestion about the lead. I nominated this page for "Good Article" review because I've been impressed with the careful and accurate referencing and attention to detail, especially by Jerome Kohl who's done excellent work on this page. I don't know if he's interested in expanding the lead or not, and I didn't tell him or anyone else I was nominating the article, I just nominated because I thought it's better than most articles. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 21:20, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
I'm considering what needs to be added to the lede in order to summarize "all the key points". I am not a great fan of "much longer" introductory paragraphs, however, so I will be trying to be as efficient as possible. If other editors jump in before I get there, that's fine with me—many hands make light work.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 23:37, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 9/11 statement section

From a formatting viewpoint, the section heading "September 11, 2001 statement controversy" causes the entire Table of Contents to be much wider than needed, which in turn crowds the text of the article.

Maybe we could use the abbreviation "9/11" instead: "9/11 statement controversy" - that would allow the TOC to be more narrow and better for the layout. While 9/11 is not a global notation for a date (in Europe, it would be written 11/9/2001), the symbol 9/11 is known worldwide as an identifier for that incident, so I think it would be appropriate to use that abbreviation.

Another suggestion about that section: currently, it's in the biography section of the page and at the same outline level as " Career and adult life". It seems to me - it was just one event, not a whole part of his life, so that is too prominent. I suggest either making it a sub-section of "Career and adult life", or perhaps moving it down on the page to be a subsection of "Reception". Or, maybe it doesn't need a separate heading and can fit within " Career and adult life" without emphasis.

I'm not sure, these are just some thoughts on it... though as it is now, it seems very prominent, and the long title is crowding the page, so whether it's moved or not, maybe "9/11 statement controversy" would be a better heading. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 00:58, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

The newly expanded lede seems to help a bit with this. Though it seems a bit odd to adjust the length of a section title solely because of the way it makes the TOC appear, it does seem to me to be a bit on the long side. I also agree that putting it at the same outline level as "Career and adult life" is inappropriate. I don't think it really belongs under "Reception" but, rather, as part of the "Career and adult life" section, which you suggest as an alternative.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 06:30, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Re: "Maybe we could use the abbreviation "9/11" instead: "9/11 statement controversy"'":

I think that would be too informal for an encyclopedia. For that matter, since a date is not an event, I don't think the current title is appropriate either (length aside). TheScotch (talk) 17:29, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, "9/11 statement" or "September 11, 2001 statement" isn't just a date, though the compound modifier ought to hyphenated (since the second case involves an open compound, an en-dash would be used): "9/11-statement controversy" or "September 11, 2001–statement controversy". However, I agree it is an awkward title. What do you suggest as an alternative?—Jerome Kohl (talk) 17:41, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Re: "Well, "9/11 statement" or "September 11, 2001 statement" isn't just a date...."

I mean the "9/11" or "September 11, 2001" part. I know that the event is often referred to by the date, but I think this is slang--and, for that matter, distinctly intellectually lazy slang. (1. By "the event" I mean the World Trade Center attack, not the event of Stockhausen's remarking about the World Trade Center attack. 2. This date, by the way, happens to be significant to me for an altogether unrelated reason, and I may not be the only one.)

Re: "What do you suggest as an alternative?":

I suggest referring to the event rather than merely to the date of the event. I'm still pondering about a specific title (and I'll let you know if I come up with a good one), but even something like "Trade center attack comment" would be much better. (The terms statement and controversy or synonyms aren't strictly necessary. One or both can go if with them the title appears verbose.) TheScotch (talk) 17:59, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

I see you have changed the section title. Though it has not mde any noticeable difference to the length issue, I suppose the new one is no worse than the old. However, why the word "commentary"? It makes it sound like a sportscast.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 16:38, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
I recommend this new version: "Comments on the 9/11 attacks" and have placed that on the page for now. Combining "9/11" with the word "attacks" removes any ambiguity and makes the phrase universally recognizable. Regarding the concern mentioned that "9/11" is too informal, the Wikipedia page National Commission on Terrorist Attacks (formal title) is redirected to the title 9/11 Commission, which shows that the term is sufficiently formal and notable to identify the incident according to the consensus of the editors working on that article. That's also how the Commission is widely identified by the news media. I ran some Google searches and found a variety of books that mention Stockhausen's comments, using the term "9/11" or "9/11 attacks" in their discussions. Here are a couple examples: Harris, Lee, Civilization and Its Enemies: The Next Stage of History (page 4), and Graafland, Arie, Crossover: architecture, urbanism, technology (page 474) - there were more but I did not have time for more research. (as an aside, Graafland has the translation and also mentions the NY Times article). --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 05:24, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] GA Review

As with the other GA reviews that I do, this will be done a few sections at a time. I'm busy these days and can't make it through the full article at once, so I post my concerns as I go. Feel free to work, ask, or comment about them anytime (no need to wait until I'm finished the full review). As per the suggestion on the Good Article Nominations page, I like to do some copyediting as I go, so I won't post here about comma splices and stuff like that. If I see it, I fix it. With that said, my observations about the first few sections:

General:

  1. Is there a reason that the picture is on the right and the table of contents is on the left? I don't know if there is a guideline about this, but I've never seen an article formatted like this before. Every other article that I've sen has the picture on the right and the table of contents on the left.

Lead:

  1. The lead is still short for an article of this length. The recommended length for a 72K article is four paragraphs. If you would like, I can make some suggestions about what could go in the lead once I've finished reviewing the rest of the article.
  2. From the lead, “In addition to electronic music—both with and without live performers—his works, composed over a period of nearly sixty years, eschew traditional forms and range from miniatures for musical boxes through works for solo instruments, songs, chamber music, choral and orchestral music, to a cycle of seven full-length operas.” would be easier to follow if it was split into two sentences.

Childhood:

  1. In the first paragraph of the “Childhood” section, “institutionalized” could use a wikilink.
  2. In the second paragraph of the “Childhood” section, the hidden text disputes the claim about Stockhausen working as a cobbler. Is it possible to find out one way or the other? For the purposes of the GA review, I can pass it as is (the statement is simply that one source claims that he worked as a cobbler, and I believe that the source does make the claim…whether he worked as a cobbler or not, I don’t know, but the article doesn’t say that he did), but it would be better if you could resolve the dispute.
  3. Later in that paragraph, does the citation from Kurtz cover Stockhausen using his mother’s death as inspiration in Donnerstag aus Licht?
  4. In the last line of the “Childhood” section, “he” could refer to either Karlheinz or his father.
  5. I’m not a fan of parentheses, as I believe that it disrupts the flow of the article. I don’t see that it is necessary to use them for either of the parenthetical statements in the “Childhood” section. I recommend removing the parentheses and keeping the sentences as part of the regular text.

Education:

  1. In the “Education” section, I am wondering about “began attending Messiaen's courses and Milhaud's classes.” Could that be combined to avoid repeating courses and classes, or is the distinction important?
  2. Later in that paragraph, there is another parenthetical statement: “(In 1962 he succeeded Eimert as director of the studio.)” I see no need for the parentheses.
  3. In the same paragraph, are references available for Stockhausen’s work at NWDR or Die Reihe?

Family and home:

  1. In the “Family and home” subsection, it is unclear what happened to his first marriage. Did he remain married to Doris when he married Mary?
  2. The first two paragraphs should probably be combined, as they are quite short. Single-sentence paragraphs are discouraged.
  3. Are references available for the information about his wives and children?

"Space music" and Expo 70:

  1. The first sentence is long. I would recommend splitting it after Hymnen.
  2. "radically" seems like point of view.
  3. The sentence that discusses "Music in space" doesn't seem to be covered by the Kurtz and Föllmer references. If one of them mentions this information, a reference after that sentence should be used.
  4. My understanding is that the comma should come after the quotation marks around "gardens of music". Feel free to correct me, though.
  5. The quotation at the end of the section should be introduced somehow. For example, "According to one source,..." or "Stockhausen biographer Michael Kurtz wrote,..."

Publishing activities:

  1. This section doesn't have any references.

Comments on the 9/11 attacks:

  1. Did the same journalist ask both questions? If so, the second mention should be "the journalist". If not, it should be "another journalist". Repeating "a journalist" doesn't sound right. If it isn't known who asked the questions, perhaps rephrasing it to "Stockhausen was also asked..."
  2. The first block quotation needs to be introduced. For example, "Stockhausen replied:"
  3. Stockhausen's first quotation ("I pray daily to Michael...") needs a reference immediately after the quotation.

Death:

  1. Can you add a reference for Stockhausen having just finished the two works?

1950s:

  1. A reference is needed for the second sentence of the first paragraph.
  2. Halfway through the second paragraph, there is a mention of "the fourth". Clarifying what this means (the fourth movement?) would make the article more accesible to all readers.
  3. Near the end of the second paragraph, "ground-breaking" seems like point of view.
  4. In the third paragraph, the sentence that begins with "His position as "the leading German composer of his generation" (Toop 2001) was established..." needs a reference at the end.
  5. References should be used at the ends of the fourth and fifth paragraphs.

1960s:

  1. In the middle of the second paragraph, can you add a wikilink to "tape" in order to clarify?
  2. This section needs more references: The first paragraph is unreferenced. Everything but the last two sentences in the second paragraph is unreferenced. In the third paragraph, references are needed for Stimmung and Wandelmusik as well as the claim that Sternklang and Alphabet für Liège followed the ideas of Wandelmusik.

1970s:

  1. More references are needed: Stockhausen using formula composition through the completion of the opera-cycle Licht in 2003; Tierkreis and In Freundschaft becoming his most widely performed compositions; the sentence about Wolfgang Rihm; and the final sentence of the section.

1977-2003: #A reference for the description of Licht is needed. #The final sentence of the first paragraph needs a reference. #The second paragraph is unreferenced. #The third paragraph is unreferenced except for the link after the first sentence. #I am confused as to why this link appears in this manner. Is there a reason why it isn't formatted link the other online references? #I am also wondering why this section is so short compared to the others, as this covers a period of 26 years. Are Licht and Helikopter-Streichquartett the only things worth mentioning (they might be, but I'm not sure)?

2003-2007:

  1. A reference is needed for 21 of the works being completed before Stockhausen's death.
  2. Everything except the 13th hour is unreferenced.

Theories:

  1. My only concern with this section is that the final sentence of the first paragraph is unreferenced.

Musical influence:

  1. In the third paragraph, Brian Ferneyhough's quotations need references immediately after them. I know this seems redundant, but it is required by the Manual of Style.
  2. Paragraphs should be longer than one sentence. I recommend combining the paragraphs about Bertwistle, Andriessen and the jazz composers into one paragraph.
  3. In the final paragraph, clarification is needed for "This is also the case". The previous sentence mentions someone having used the name "Holger Schüring", so "this" appears to refer back to that sentence ("[Being known as Holger Schüring] was also the case for German electronic pioneers Kraftwerk").
  4. The three "citation needed" tags at the end will need to be dealt with.

Wider cultural renown:

  1. A reference is needed for the second sentence.
  2. The mention in Flow My Tears, The Policeman Said should be referenced, if possible. I know it happens on page 101 in the 1993 Vintage Books edition (ISBN 067974066X), but I don't know the publication city. Update: it was New York.
  3. The quotation from The Crying of Lot 49 should be referenced. I'll see if I can find my copy, but it might be packed away right now.

I know this seems like a lot, but it is a long article. You've been doing a great job at addressing these, and I will give time for the rest to be addressed. The review can now be considerd "On Hold". Please ask if you have any questions about these. Best wishes, GaryColemanFan (talk) 01:56, 5 April 2008 (UTC) -

I will try to take your questions in order. First of all, your copyedits so far have been excellent. Only in one case did you go beyond the evidence of cited sources.
Is there a reason that the picture is on the right and the table of contents is on the left?
I think you mean "picture on the left and TOC on the right" and, yes, there is a reason, documented in the note at the head of the article (which only shows in edit mode). It is in fact according to Wikipedia MOS (as well as style manuals in general) that profile portraits should face into the text. It has been a problem ever since that particular right-profile portrait was offered as a replacement for a possibly copyrighted one, that well-meaning editors who have only read the first sentence of the relevant portion of the MOS have changed the arrangement to R-portrait, L-TOC. I and two or three other editors repeatedly noted the problem, and I finally inserted the warning note.
Lead: I am already on record as opposing length for the sake of length. If the lede can do its job without coming up to guidelines, then I am all for keeping it short. If there are things in the article not already summarised in the lede, then I agree they need to be added. I'll see if I can come up with a way of splitting the complicated sentence into two simpler ones.
Childhood: I see that you have already dealt with your first query. The hidden text disputing the claim of cobbling was inserted by me. Proving non-existence of something is always much more difficult that proving existence. My point was that there are a number of authoritative sources for Stockhausen's biography (his own writings, and the Kurtz biography in particular), none of which mention this particular detail. The cited book, which is journalistic in character, does not itself give a source for this claim. The citation from Kurtz does, I think (though I will have to re-check it), cover the autobiographical material in Donnerstag. I will check the ambiguous "he" and allegedly excessive parentheses.
Education: There is an issue of difference between Messiaen and Milhaud, which involves the terminological difference you specify only marginally. Kurtz and Goeyvaerts make it clear that Stockhausen only attended two or three sessions with Milhaud before quitting in disgust. It appears that these were "lessons", rather than part of an organised course of instruction. Messiaen's analysis classes, on the other hand, seem to have been part of a conservatory or university curriculum, but Kurtz and the other sources are somewhat vague about this. Later, the parentheses can easily be removed, though I am contemplating moving this information out of "Education" and into the career section, whee it belongs. There are copious references for his work at (N)WDR and Die Reihe. I will look some up and add them.
Family and home: "it is unclear what happened to his first marriage. Did he remain married to Doris when he married Mary?" There is no evidence that I know of, one way or the other, as to whether a legal divorce from Doris was obtained before Stockhausen married Mary in 1967. Once again, it is much more difficult to prove a nonexistence than an existence. At the time of their marriage, Karlheinz was a Catholic, and Doris had converted from Protestantism for the sake of the marriage. As Catholics, they would not have recognised divorce but, by 1967, were either of them practising Catholics any more? As I said, I know of no source that cites legal documents in this case, one way or the other. "Are references available for the information about his wives and children?" Yes, there are. I will endeavour to provide some.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 04:28, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Replies to specific GA review points

  • RE: picture is on the right and the table of contents is on the left -
This is based on WP:MOS#Images: "Exception: Wherever possible, images of faces should be placed so that the face or eyes look toward the text, because the reader's eye will tend to follow their direction. Portraits with the face looking to the reader's right should therefore be left-aligned, looking into the text of the article." --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 03:41, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
Sounds good to me. Thanks for the clarification. GaryColemanFan (talk) 03:47, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
  • RE: Family and home: "Are references available for the information about his wives and children?"
I have added 18 references. I believe they cover all of the previously unsourced facts. In the process, I uncovered a few more details, which have been added as well.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 21:53, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
  • RE: Childhood: "does the citation from Kurtz cover Stockhausen using his mother’s death as inspiration in Donnerstag aus Licht?"
No, it does not. I have added the citation from Kurtz that does.
"In the last line of the “Childhood” section, “he” could refer to either Karlheinz or his father."
I have corrected the ambiguity with a direct quote from Kurtz.
"I recommend removing the parentheses and keeping the sentences as part of the regular text."
Agreed. It has been done.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 22:48, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
  • RE: Lead: From the lead, “In addition to electronic music—both with and without live performers . . .” Would be easier to follow if it was split into two sentences.
I have broken this in two.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 23:53, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
  • RE: Education:
I have addressed all of the issues raised.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 23:53, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
  • RE: Publishing activities: "This section doesn't have any references."
It does now.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 04:10, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
  • RE: "Space music" and Expo 70: "The first sentence is long. I would recommend splitting it after Hymnen."
Done.
"'radically' seems like point of view."
Agreed. We'll let the reader draw his/her own conclusions, now based on Stockhausen's own description.
"The sentence that discusses "Music in space" doesn't seem to be covered by the Kurtz and Föllmer references."
It may or may not be, but better references are now substituted.
"My understanding is that the comma should come after the quotation marks around 'gardens of music'. Feel free to correct me, though."
Technically, this is an issue of British vs. US norms. In the present article, 17 instances of UK comma/quote-mark usage against 3 of the US version (three more occur within direct quotations, where they must be retained) proves you right. This raises the question of whether British standards ought to be applied elsewhere, as well.
"The quotation at the end of the section should be introduced somehow. For example, 'According to one source,...' or 'Stockhausen biographer Michael Kurtz wrote,...'"
Done.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 05:24, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
  • RE: Theories: ". . . the final sentence of the first paragraph is unreferenced."
Am I looking at the wrong spot? The first paragraph ends "(Stockhausen Texte 1:99–139)", which looks like a reference to me.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 22:07, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, I haven't had a chance yet to go back and cross out the ones that have been addressed. You added that reference yesterday. GaryColemanFan (talk) 22:10, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
  • RE: 1950s: "A reference is needed for the second sentence of the first paragraph."
One has been added.
"Halfway through the second paragraph, there is a mention of 'the fourth'. Clarifying what this means (the fourth movement?) would make the article more accesible to all readers."
It means "the fourth of I–IV". I thought that was obvious but, since it appears not, I have now added a complex explanation in place of the simple one.
"Near the end of the second paragraph, 'ground-breaking' seems like point of view."
Yes, it is. I was assuming a single citation was all that was necessary for one sentence, but in case it is not, I have now separately cited each and every item and—to be on the safe side—made it a direct quote instead of a paraphrase.
"In the third paragraph, the sentence that begins with "His position as 'the leading German composer of his generation' (Toop 2001) was established..." needs a reference at the end."
Well, I see one there now. Did I only add this recently?
"References should be used at the ends of the fourth and fifth paragraphs."
They have been added.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 23:21, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
  • RE: Death: "Can you add a reference for Stockhausen having just finished the two works?"
I can only find a ref for one of the two, and I have added it. Glanz was also mentioned at the time, but it may have been in a private email or some other uncitable source, so I have removed it.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 23:35, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
  • RE: 1960s: "This section needs more references"
I have put in at least one reference for every sentence in the section. I would say it is a bit over-referenced now, but if that is what Wikipedia requires . . .—Jerome Kohl (talk) 00:51, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
  • RE: 1970s: "More references are needed"
All specified places are now reffed. BTW, concerning "Space music" and Expo 70: "My understanding is that the comma should come after the quotation marks around 'gardens of music'", I addressed this a while ago, but I see it has not been struck through. Is there still a problem?—Jerome Kohl (talk) 20:39, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
The comma was still before the quotations marks. I moved it just now, so I have crossed it off. GaryColemanFan (talk) 20:53, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
Oops! I was so preoccupied with moving all the other commas, I forgot to fix the main one! Thanks!—Jerome Kohl (talk) 21:53, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
  • RE: 1977-2003: "A reference for the description of Licht is needed."
One has been added, but not everything in the description is covered by it. Frisius's article/book chapter needs to be added, but I don't have the details handy just now.
"The final sentence of the first paragraph needs a reference."
This, too, is now "partially" reffed. Furthers refs need adding for the named works apart from Lucifer's Dream.
"I am confused as to why this link appears in this manner. Is there a reason why it isn't formatted link the other online references?"
I have no idea what the editor who inserted this (long before my time, I believe) thought he was doing, but this whole paragraph was moved from another location in the article, and needs re-integrating, or perhaps deleting, in connection with:
"I am also wondering why this section is so short compared to the others, as this covers a period of 26 years. Are Licht and Helikopter-Streichquartett the only things worth mentioning (they might be, but I'm not sure)?"
The Helicopter Quartet is actually a part of Licht, which was just about "all" that Stockhausen composed in these 26 years (though seven full-length operas come to quite a lot). However, the reason this section is so short is that, once upon a time, all of the sections were about this length. The others have been expanded, mostly by me, but this one has been left to last, partly because there is a separate article on Licht. I will see what I can do to flesh it out.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 20:20, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
I have converted the Helicopter Quartet ref from an external link to a proper citation, and added the print version of the text in the References list. This section still needs expanding and balancing, and refs are still missing from some claims made about the Helicopter Quartet, not all of which can be verified from Stockhausen 1996c (e.g., the later performances in Salzburg and Brunswick). I'm still working on this.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 16:17, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
One idea would be to add a link to Licht as the "main article" and leave the section in this article as is. For example, my main work is in professional wrestling articles. If you look at Randy Orton, you'll see that the section on "2002–2003" begins with a link to Evolution (professional wrestling) and 2006–2007 begins with a link to Rated-RKO. That ensures that the information is readily available but reduces the need for duplicating material. GaryColemanFan (talk) 20:32, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
Sure, I've seen plenty of examples like that, and it would be pointless to simply duplicate the material in the dedicated Licht article here. A "main article" link is a good idea, but the 1977–2003 section is still out of proportion to the others, and could be judiciously expanded. I also find it odd to have this section dominated by the Helicopter Quartet, which is after all only one component scene of one of the seven Licht operas. It's rather like the proverbial dog-wagging tail. There is also an article dedicated to this quartet, so perhaps the material here should be minimized with a direct to that more ample article. I'll see what I can do, but it may take a couple of days.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 00:49, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
  • RE: Musical influence: "The three 'citation needed' tags at the end will need to be dealt with." and Wider cultural renown: "A reference is needed for the second sentence."
I have deleted two of the three claims in the first case, since no one (including myself) has been able to discover any suppoert for them since last November. I have also deleted the virtually meaningless sentence from the 'Wider cultural renown section, on grounds that, though difficult to prove, it is probably true for a great many composers that their names are better known than their music and, conversely, what would it mean if the music were widely known and the composer's name hardly at all (e.g., it is almost certainly true that more people know the tune "Happy Birthday" than have ever heard of the composers)?—Jerome Kohl (talk) 22:06, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
Addendum: The first paragraph is now completely reffed, save only for the claim about Michaelion, which will be done shortly. The "fleshing out" is proceeding, and refs have been added for most of the Helicopter Quartet material—not yet for the claim about life-long flying dreams, though everything else in that paragraph is covered by the ref at the end.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 19:53, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
The 1977–2003 section is now reffed to the gills. It is still potentially subject to some expansion, though I think it now balances the other sections fairly well. This now leaves only the lede, which still looks adequate to me, even if the "formula" demands some padding out.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 05:56, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
You've done a great job of addressing the concerns I brought up. There is still a "citation needed" tag at the end of the "Musical influence" section that should be dealt with. As for the lead, I still don't think it summarizes all of the key points of the article. I feel that it should contain some brief information about his education and most significant works (one paragraph total), as well as a mention of his death. I'm not looking for a big expansion, but I think adding another paragraph would help the article quite a bit (and will probably help with the layout, as well). GaryColemanFan (talk) 06:18, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
Many thanks. I have now added some material to the lede, following your suggestions. The result may not yet quite add up to the quantity specified by the wiki guidelines, but it seems to me that the spirit (if not the letter) of the law has been satisfied.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 05:00, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
I think it provides a much better overview of the article. I'm happy with it. The only remaining thing is the citation for the Melody Maker interview. Because this is hard to find and is a very minor item overall, I decided to rephrase the sentence and place the statement about the interview in hidden text. If anyone can find a reference or simply wishes to rephrase or delete the statement about Chris Cutler citing Stockhausen as an influence, please feel free. Thanks for your hard work on the article. It now meets the Good Article criteria, and I have promoted the article. If anyone feels this review is in error, please feel free to bring up your concerns at Good Article Reassessment.
Finally, I am reviewing articles to help cut down on the blacklog at the Good Article Nominations page. It would be great if you could perform a review as well. Best wishes, GaryColemanFan (talk) 14:19, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for your kind words, and for all the pointers for improving this article. I have never performed a review on the Good Articles Nominations page, but I will have a look at it and see if I can help.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 22:32, 14 April 2008 (UTC)