Talk:Tristan und Isolde

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.
Tristan und Isolde is part of WikiProject King Arthur, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to King Arthur, the Arthurian era and related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary on the talk page to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.

Something needs to be said about this opera's importance. It is a fact that Tristan und Isolde was the most discussed artwork of the 19th century and had an absoulutely revolutionary effect on the history of Western art. 21:02, 18 October 2005

I think this would be very worthwhile if you can find and quote supporting evidence for this claim. Tristan had a huge impact on western music, true - and I think this could be expanded upon. But did it influence other art forms, and if so, how? --Dogbertd 10:52, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Page move

This page appears to have been moved in contradiction to the policy Wikipedia:Naming conventions (use English). Hyacinth 21:42, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I don't really understand why someone has removed the Shepherd and Steersman from the cast list? They are usually cited in any cast list when you see T&I in the opera-house , and will also usually be included in the cast list for a CD recording. Unless there's a strong objection, I'm minded to put them back. Dogbertd

[edit] Historic Recordings

I added the reference to the Karl Elmendorff 1928 recording at Bayreuth. An interesting note: In 1929, when this album was released on phonographic records, it cost $28.50. In 2005, that is equivalent to $300. Heck, you can buy an iPod for that kind of money and, besides that, the same recording can be currently purchased on CD for $20. We live in fine times indeed to be able to enjoy this music without having to spend our life's savings.

This is the original review from the 1929 issue of Time Magazine:

TRISTAN UND ISOLDE, recorded at the 1928 Bayreuth Festival (Columbia, $28.50†)—Wagner's love opera recorded for the first time in accordance with sacred Bayreuth tradition. Able Karl Elmendorff conducts the Bayreuth orchestra; Nanny Larsen-Todsen, recent soprano of the Manhattan Metropolitan Opera, sings a clear, well-styled Isolde.

†Prices listed are for entire albums, which include several records. Where the price is not given, it is 75¢, standard rate for popular 10-inch records.

Dtaw2001 03:09, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Spoiler warning

I hardly think that an opera written over 150 years ago, based on a story known for hundreds of years prior to that requires a spoiler warning. Most of the other opera plots on Wikipedia do not include this spurious warning, and I don't see why Tristan und Isolde should have it. You would hardly be reading the plot if you were scared of finding out the ending! I have removed it (again) and will continue to do so unless I hear a good reason why it should be there. --Dogbertd 16:09, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Karajan 1952 performance

Sorry to be a bore about this, but Tristan und Isolde was not performed at the 1951 Bayreuth Festival (Der Ring and Parsifal were the only operas performed at the first post-war festival). It was performed 5 times at the 1952 festival, under the baton of Karajan, who refused to come back thereafter (Jochum conducted the 5 Tristan performances in 1953). I can cite several references for this (have a look at Frederick Spott's History of the Bayreuth festival), but mostly it's because the Orfeo recording I have - which is published in conjunction with the Bayreuth Festival - says quite clearly that the recording was made in 1952 and not 1951.--Dogbertd 20:20, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

There's also a link to a MIDI file of the Tristan chord on the Tristan chord main page... it might be a good idea to add that link here, but I don't know how to do it.

Done.--Dogbertd 15:55, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Contemporary Critics

The first paragraphs mentions what 19th century critics thought about the work , shouldn't the article include what 20th century and contemporary critics thought.... if no one objects I will be adding those opinions.Amfortas 14:22, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Good idea: the more the merrier!--Dogbertd 15:32, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

  • Ok , I'll start working on that... Amfortas 02:33, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Anecdote

I recall hearing at a lecture on Tristan und Isolde that there was one performance in which the soprano singing Isolde "wore out three Tristans in a night" — that is, a different tenor sang Tristan in each act, so exhausting was the part. If anyone knows anything more about this anecdote (and has a reliable source for it) it might be worth adding to "Trivia". —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 19:08, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

How can this entry omit that a major movie is based on this opera? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.16.157.194 (talk)

The movie is based on the legend, not the opera. --Alexs letterbox 20:55, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

The soprano in question was Birgit Nilsson at the Met. She recalls it in an interview, which I have heard as an appendix to my DVD of Strauss' Met "Elektra". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.105.6.50 (talk) 12:12, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Copyright violation?

I think the synopsis sounds very familiar to me. Might it be taken word to word from liner notes of some CD release of the opera? Böhm's version had similar synopsis, I recall. Probably the same text appears elsewhere too. Can somebody check it? --128.214.205.4 15:09, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

I made a special effort to rewrite what was (to me) an old-fashioned synopsis previously on this page ("the treacherous Melot" and so on). I can assure you I worked essentially from the original German libretto, and at no time did I crib from any liner notes or other version of the text, precisely because I wanted the Wikipedia version to be free of copyright issues. If you think I've stolen text from elsewhere, I'll be interested to see it, and will be happy to change it into a form of words that does not infringe anyone else's copyright. --Dogbertd 15:21, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
OK, I believe there's no problem. I just felt strongly that I had read the same text before. --128.214.205.4 13:27, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
I know that there are other opera sites online which take their synopses directly from Wikipedia. Perhaps you saw it there. Incidentally, I checked the synopsis from the Bohm Tristan CDs, and it's nothing like mine, so at least there's no possibility I unconsciously used phrases I'd read elsewhere.--Dogbertd 15:13, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Removal of Trivia

People, can we make an effort to remove the Trivia section? The guidelines at WP:TRIV suggest that information in trivia sections should be incorporated into the main text or removed. Some of the trivia here is very trivial (eg. attempts to note every use of material from Tristan in films or rock music) and I think should be removed.--Dogbertd 13:19, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I support that. The Opera Project guideline reads: When it comes to anecdotes, influences on pop culture, and other peripheral content or "trivia", information should only be included in opera articles if it is likely to be of interest to a typical reader of the article. Hope that helps. -- Kleinzach 14:39, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Recent edits to Audio section

Is anyone besides me concerned that this now looks a bit like the "Penguin Guide"? Does each recording require some opinion, and is this appropriate for an encyclopedia article?--Dogbertd 17:36, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree. I do not believe an encyclopedia should contain obvious opinions, even if they are referenced. It is a grey area, but I believe they should go. --Alexs letterbox 22:31, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
Well, in that case the entire section should go. Anything other than a complete discography is original research unless we can produce published opinions explaining why each recording is notable enough to be included. And I resent the comparison to the "Penguin Guide": the comments were from Brown's discography and were written by someone who actually knows what he is talking about. Cheers. Grover cleveland 16:56, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
I think your position is rather extreme - if it doesn't include every recording it's OR? One could equally well argue then that if the article doesn't reference every book written on Wagner and on Tristan und Isolde then the article itself must be OR and so should be deleted! What we have at the moment states very clearly that the discography is selective and actually references both Brown's book and web-site. Personally I thought the inclusion of these quotes to be very close to advertising, and it was for this reason as much as anything else that I removed them. My suggestion would be that you start a new page on "Recordings of Tristan und Isolde" which we could reference from here. One way or another this article would still have to include some comment on "classic" recordings like the Flagstadt/Melchior, the Furtwangler on EMI and the Nilsson/Windgassen/Bohm because every survey of recordings of T&I acknowledges them as such - including the reviews by Alan Blyth and Robin Holloway, which I've included as references. And they too certainly know what they're talking about.--Dogbertd 18:52, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Contradictions

The first sentence under "Reactions" reads, "Although Tristan und Isolde is today performed in major opera houses around the world, critical opinion was not always favorable," while the first sentence under "recordings" reads, "Tristan und Isolde has always been acknowledged as one of the greatest operas." What's with that? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.114.162.151 (talk) 03:22, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Some critics of that time were able to acknowledge that the work was great, without liking it or admiring its message. But if you think there's a better way to express this in the article, then please fix. I'd agree it does look contradictory at first glance. --Dogbertd 10:27, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

I think that it is more the critial opinion about the specific performance not about the opera as whole. Look at the problems with the current (March '08) production of Tristan und Isolde at the Met. --Joncaves (talk) 02:07, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Instrumentation

I have removed the following from the Instrumentation section. I find these sentences impenetrable.

Wagner's statement: "The string instruments are exquisitely well and strong to fill.")
Noteworthy is the fact that the final chord of "Tristan" is not as usual from all the instruments in the Tutti played. The English horn, pause, what Richard Strauss led to the interpretation: "The poison is out ..."

--Alexs letterbox (talk) 22:53, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Localization and Various Editing

I'm sorry about the color/colour mishaps. I've reverted the language to its previous setting, that of colour.

I pruned the article today, and will continue to add onto the article for a while. Hopefully we can get it to GA quality or even to FA. Sutherland4l (talk) 22:17, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

  • Welcome to T&I. You might want to look at the assessment of the article for ways to improve it [1]. Incidentally, I think you'll find that our US friends will react unfavorably to your use of favour...--Dogbertd (talk) 22:02, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
I'm a little confused by your comment there, Dogbertd. I thought the status quo ante was UK spelling. And therefore it should remain there. I even did some changes and encouraged User:Sutherland4l that way. But the assessment is a good recommendation. I wonder what I and my colleagues said.--Peter cohen (talk) 22:10, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
Well I noticed that several of the sections written by me (in UK english) had a while back been changed into US english. And, as you know from the discussions on copyright on recordings (see [2]), it does seem to be US law that applies to Wikipedia, so I think we have to take it that Wikipedia is American and should be expressed in US english. I just didn't want newcomers to waste time amending spellings that will subsequently be "corrected". As for the assessments,<on hobbyhorse> I still think these a bit harsh - I still struggle to see how T&I can be an "excellent all-round article" and yet only rate a B </off hobbyhorse> however we'll have to do what we can to improve that!--Dogbertd (talk) 15:21, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#National_varieties_of_English is quite clear on this. To paraphrase it there is a form of squatters' rights whereby the first edit that defines which variety of English is used determines the article's nationality for the long-term, the exceptions being that the subject of the article has higher priority (Winston Churchill uses Brit English, Jimmy Carter American, Joan Sutherland Australian etc.) and, if someone can find a decent phrasing that makes the national variety undetermined, that is preferable as everyone can be happy with it.
As for the ratings, we managed to talk the categories down a bit from the original proposal. I think originally B started at 70 which would have meant that T&I barely scraped it. In my write-up I have tried to direct people's thoughts towards the next rating (GA) which isn't determined within the project anyway. A good lead section and the referencing were certainly key issues in my past experience. I think also that giving the individual category marks makes it easier for future editors to see where most marks can be picked up for reaching A.--Peter cohen (talk) 21:54, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image

The page on Tristan und Isolde currently has an image titled "Tristan und Isolde" by Ferdinand Leeke - it looks on closer inspection to be the entrance to a bank and I am having a hard time working out how it relates to the opera or to Wagner. If no one objects I may just remove it. --Joncaves (talk) 02:11, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

This is the result of a reckless edit at WIkicommons. I have put in a request for the admins to fix it there.--Peter cohen (talk) 11:00, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
Now fixed.--Peter cohen (talk) 12:08, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Premiere Date Discrepancy

The article for Ludwig Schnorr von Carolsfeld states that the premiere was June 6th. This article says the premiere was June 10th. Can anyone clear this up? DavidRF (talk) 14:35, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes. My copy of "New Grove Wagner" has the 10th. The article on von Carolsfeld is wrong.--Dogbertd (talk) 16:49, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
I see you fixed it. Thanks. DavidRF (talk) 18:21, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Opera vs Music Drama

Is there a reason opera is used to refer to this (and perhaps other akin Wagner works) and not music drama (Gesamtkunstwerk), the term Wagner used to describe his "complete work[s] of art"? I don't know what is currently en vogue with music writing, but according to "Listen: Brief Fifth Edition" by Kerman & Tomlinson, they make specific use and reference to music drama and Gesamtkunstwerk when speaking of the Romantic Operas Wagner composed... --Ikyork (talk) 22:04, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Parsifal lists both. I'll add the same here. DavidRF (talk) 23:43, 3 May 2008 (UTC)