Talk:Der Ring des Nibelungen: composition of the text

Ending of the Ring - duplication?
This very fine article has an extensive section on Wagner's troubles with writing the conclusion to Der Ring. There's also an extended section on the very same topic in the main article "Der Ring des Nibelungen." I wonder if we need to have this information in both places? Would it be better to merge the material from the main article into that which exists here?--Dogbertd 13:08, 14 November 2006 (UTC)


 * PS. I should say also that the first paragraph is written from a very strong POV (ie. that Wagner is a liar), and would be better replaced with something more neutral. Wagner's version of how The Ring came to be should certainly be included, along with all the evidence that says his version is unreliable, but to start an encyclopedia article with this perspective is probably wrong.--Dogbertd 14:04, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

I will recast the opening two paragraphs to reflect a neutral POV and add a citation for the argument that Wagner's account is unreliable.-- Eroica 09:36, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

On the matter of the conclusion of the Ring, perhaps the merged version belongs in the main article "Der Ring des Nibelungen", and this article should just have a brief summary (perhaps even a table listing the different versions with their dates and a few explanatory words)?-- Eroica 09:36, 18 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Well I agree that there should be a merged version, but I'm inclined to think it should be here rather than in Der Ring des Nibelungen. The main article is already quite long and the inclusion of my rather extensive section on the ending of the cycle seems to me to be out of place there. OTOH to include it here seems to me to be absolutely right: a general reader might not want to know all the dithering that took place in Wagner's mind over the final pages of the Ring, but someone already interested enough to read an article specifically on the composition of the text might well be interested. When I get some time I'll work on this. --Dogbertd 09:16, 21 November 2006 (UTC)


 * OK, I've merged the two into this single page and removed the section on the ending of the Ring from the main article. Hope this still looks OK.--Dogbertd 16:53, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Assessment comment
Substituted at 21:39, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Der Ring des Nibelungen: Composition of the poem. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061109173331/http://www.trell.org/wagner/ to http://www.trell.org/wagner/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 04:09, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

Rename
I spotted that this article was using the unusual title "Der Ring des Nibelungen: Composition of the poem" and (boldly) moved it to "Composition of Der Ring des Nibelungen". pointed out to me that this might be ambiguous, since "composition" could also refer to musical composition. I in turn suggest that perhaps "Literary composition of Der Ring des Nibelungen" might be an appropriate way of resolving that ambiguity without an awkward colon-based subtitle. Any further thoughts? {&#123; Nihiltres &#8202;&#124;talk&#8202;&#124;edits}&#125; 21:53, 12 September 2018 (UTC)


 * It is definitely ambiguous and the preexisting Der Ring des Nibelungen: Composition of the music makes this article misleading as they sound like they're about the same thing. In fact, the original title was likely made with the pairing of Der Ring des Nibelungen: Composition of the poetry and Der Ring des Nibelungen: Composition of the music in mind probably because I believe Wagner himself called his librettos "Poetry." I strongly suggest that it be changed to "Der Ring des Nibelungen: Composition of the libretto" as it becomes clear what the article is about and per WP:COMMONNAME that would use the more widely known term for the words in operas, "Libretto" vs Wagner's personal usage of "poetry." Thoughts? Aza24 (talk) 07:12, 6 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Libretto seems wrong in this case. The composer wrote the poetry himself, and it is poetry, not just some theatrical action. It needs a different title, but I agree that "composition" is misleading. Smerus? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:18, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I'd like the title to begin with "Der Ring", because that's what interested readers will search for. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:20, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Frankly, I would move the article back to the original title: "Der Ring des Nibelungen: Composition of the poem". Wagner thought of it as a poem ("Dichtung") and indeed read it out to his friends as such during its composition.--Smerus (talk) 08:52, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
 * "Der Ring des Nibelungen: Composition of the poetry” is definitely my first choice, I only suggested “libretto” to address ’s initial confusion. For people not familiar with Wagner it may be confusing but I’m not sure if that’s reason enough to use “libretto” or not change it back. Aza24 (talk) 09:30, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm not happy with "Der Ring des Nibelungen: Composition of the poetry" (and I believe by the way, on consideration, that according to WP practice, 'composition' should have a lower case 'c'). We wouldn't have an article (e.g.) "Paradise Lost: composition of the poetry", but "Paradise Lost: composition of the poem." Paradise Lost is a poem; so is Siegfrieds Tod, and the other texts which Wagner eventually made into the gigantic poem which was the libretto to his operas. An alternative, to get round the various awkwardnesses, might be "Der Ring des Nibelungen: composition of the text" --Smerus (talk) 11:28, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
 * How is Der Ring des Nibelungen (Wagner's poetry)? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:17, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

I've just been looking at the Borchmeyer edition of the 'complete' prose (not really complete as Borchmeyer chickened out of including 'Das Judenthum in der Musik') to see how Wagner himself referred to the texts. In doing so I am reminded that the article looks at the evolution of the texts as a whole, and therefore takes note of the "Prosaentwürfe", etc. The finished product Wagner referred to as 'Dichtung' (e.g. in his foreword to the private edition of the text in 1853). But the article isn't just about his poetry, it's about the process whereby he arrived at the final poetic text.. I'm therefore beginning to think that the least misleading title might therefore be on the lines of "Der Ring des Nibelungen: composition of the text" or "Der Ring des Nibelungen: evolution of the text".--Smerus (talk) 15:42, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I'd accept them, only - we have (on other pages) the wish to have composition noticed as meaning musical composition primarily, and "evolution" sounds a bit like natural history to me ;) - When we write about a poem, that normally includes its history, without being mentioned in the article title, no? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:48, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
 * We same to have left this thread without a conclusion. I think that Smerus's "Der Ring des Nibelungen: composition of the text" is clear enough and in order to address Gerda's point about the word "composition" usually meaning "musical composition" on Wikipedia, perhaps an appropriate solution would be "Der Ring des Nibelungen: development of the text"? (I'm assuming we should also move "Der Ring des Nibelungen: Composition of the music" to "Der Ring des Nibelungen: composition of the music"?) - Aza24 (talk) 03:09, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I have no problems with "Der Ring des Nibelungen: composition of the text" because "of the text" clarifies what kind of composition. keep simple. And yes, lower case for the other. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:56, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I seem to have misinterpreted your earlier comment then. I'll do both now. Aza24 (talk) 07:03, 27 July 2020 (UTC)