Talk:Tannhäuser (opera)

Infobox?
I suggest something like this, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:25, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Be aware of the egghunter. Minor point: there's no need to italicise name or other_name – the template will do that. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 03:54, 10 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Thank you. Italics taken. If you mean the link for opera, - I think most readers interested in this work may know what an opera is and are helped more by the link to Wagner's "operas" some of which he didn't want to have named operas ;) - When we deal with a choral work by Bruckner, we link to his such works, not general. for example. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:55, 10 August 2015 (UTC)


 * done --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:58, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Apologies Gerda, only just seen this. I don't think it very appropriate. Have removed it pending further discussion. I suggest that idf you are going to add these boxes as you have at other Wagner operas, you raise the issue first at WP:Opera and WP:Wagner.--Smerus (talk) 10:12, 27 August 2015 (UTC)


 * I followed the examples on the Ring operas and others, not added by me, and those of all Verdi operas, also not added by me. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:45, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

'Noted excerpts'
This seems to be a WP:OR listing, with no evidence or citations, or definition of what 'noted' might mean; or indeed any indication of what its point or purpose might be. All the important items are already mentioned and described as appropriate in the newly-updated synopsis. I am therefore deleting it on the gorunds of cruft and repetition.--Smerus (talk) 10:23, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Another issue of broader implications than this page, since I see something similar on many opera pages--Michael Goodyear (talk) 21:40, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
 * For example? Not, I am sure on any opera articles which have been given GA or FA status.--Smerus (talk) 08:15, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Probably not, admittedly I have not done a search on those categories. --Michael Goodyear (talk) 13:57, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Synopsis
For clarification, I have deliberately separated stage directions and kept the italics in the original, from my paraphrase of the ensuing actions and words.--Michael Goodyear (talk) 22:24, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
 * This italicisation makes the synopsis very difficult to read, and is contrary to Wikipedia practice. Also it is not clear from the above whether the stage directions are translations of Wagner's originals (in which case citations would be apprpriate), or are yours (or another authority's) interpretation of them. Can you please clarify your clarification?--Smerus (talk) 08:13, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
 * In fact, here is the opening set of stage instructions, from the libretto which is cited in the article's external links:

Die Bühne stellt das Innere des Venusberges dar. Weite Grotte, welche sich im Hintergrunde durch eine Biegung nach rechts wie unabsehbar dahinzieht. Im fernsten sichtbaren Hintergrunde dehnt sich ein bläulicher See aus; in ihm erblickt man die badenden Gestalten von Najaden; auf seinen erhöhten Ufervorsprüngen sind Sirenen gelagert. Im äußersten Vordergrunde links liegt Venus auf einem Lager ausgestreckt, vor ihr halb kniend Tannhäuser, das Haupt in ihrem Schoße. Die ganze Grotte ist durch rosiges Licht erleuchtet. – Den Mittelgrund nimmt eine Gruppe tanzender Nymphen ein; auf etwas erhöhten Vorsprüngen an den Seiten der Grotte sind liebende Paare gelagert, von denen sich einzelne nach und nach in den Tanz der Nymphen mischen. – Ein Zug von Bacchantinnen kommt aus dem Hintergrunde in wildem Tanze dahergebraust; sie durchziehen mit trunkenen Gebärden die Gruppen der Nymphen und liebenden Paare, welche durch sie bald zu größerem Ungestüm hingerissen werden. – Dem immer wilder gewordenen Tanze antwortet wie im Echo der Gesang der Sirenen

What is in the synopsis in the article as it stands is rather different from this - e.g. there is no mention here of the rape of Europa. If you are going to cite extensively from Wagner's own stage directions, the citations should be clear and accurate and it would be helpful to differentiate them by enclosing them in quote marks (which would save the optical confusion of long passages in italics). You should also make clear what is Wagner's original, and what is the additions or interpretations of some other authority, of the stage directions.--Smerus (talk) 08:33, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

The stage directions are paraphrases of those in my libretto, the one cited there, which are italicised in that edition. --Michael Goodyear (talk) 13:39, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Clarified in bibliography and text. The link in external links is quite different, and appears to be a different edition to that used in the DGG recording. Indeed it is the Dresden edition, rather than the Paris edition!--Michael Goodyear (talk) 16:29, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

October 2015 upgrade
I have done some substantial work on this over the last week and it now looks more like a C than a Start. There is still a huge amount of work to do, eg thematic and musical analyses, relationships within Wagnerian canon. The literature is vast. However public interest has started to wane (at one point we had 3500 hits a day), so I will move on to other pressing projects for now. At the moment the issue as to whether bibliographies should contain 'Further Reading' or not is moot, since all entries are now incorporated into the article. --Michael Goodyear (talk) 16:21, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Assessment comment
Substituted at 07:37, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Motivations
The section presently headed 'Game Theory Analysis' had its title changed by me to 'Tannhäuser's motivations' - as its contents refer not only to games-theory but to Jungian interpretations. This has been reverted twice by an editor without explanation. I am referring the issue to WP:OPERA to seek other editors' opinions.--Smerus (talk) 12:26, 2 October 2016 (UTC)


 * It's not a particularly fleshed-out section. It was originally called "Analysis", and added by : . I'm even wondering if it should actually exist in such a tiny form. I think it should be expanded somewhat, from the citations given (and others if found); unfortunately the first two are not linked or visible. In any case, the section should not be called "Game Theory Analysis", when in fact that is only one of several analyses referred to. It should probably be reverted to the original title. Softlavender (talk) 13:08, 2 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Yes ideally there should be a larger section (titled 'Reception' in many opera articles) which gives an overview of critical comment on the opera (and where appropriate of performances), which could include views on T's motivation. I will see what other citations I can find. In the meantime I will await any other comments before considering reverting the section title.--Smerus (talk) 19:31, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

I gave a very clear explanation for my deletion. As long as the article does not include a section about interpretations, then having a single section highlighting just one such opinion is biased and incomplete. It looks as though one author wants to pimp their specific work, and is in no way objective. If there were a thorough section of critical analysis of the opera, then it might make sense, but as such, it's simply out of place. Kirkmc (talk) 05:32, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
 * NB the title 'Tannhäuser's motivations' has now been restored by Kirkmc him/herself. As pointed out by Softlavender, other analyses are referred to in the paragraph, not 'just one'. In any case I am intending to expand the section over the next day or two.--Smerus (talk) 08:57, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

I don't recall the exact circumstances of its creation in Novemeber 2015, because I decided to move on rather than have two editors working on the page at the same time. I do recall that the sources had been on the page unused for a long time. I don't have any particular stake here. --Michael Goodyear (talk) 17:18, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

Pilgrim's Chorus
I corrected the identification of this theme in the section on the Overture. The famous Pilgrim's Chorus used there is the one from Act 3, Scene 1, not to be confused with the hymn sung by the pilgrims in Act 1, Scene 3. --Michael Snow (talk) 00:39, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

The correct full name
Hi! One short mention: the right full name of Tannhäuser is "Tannhäuser und der Sängerkrieg auf Wartburg" without the second "der". This mistake is often done even in Germany because it sounds a bit strange missing the article at this place. Greetings! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.204.137.89 (talk) 08:58, 2 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Changed to it both times (was one before). --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:00, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

"translation" of "Der Kampf der Sänger"
Somebody more capable than me should correct the English "translation" of "Der Kampf der Sänger" - this entry has it as "The Singer's Contest" - that is not accurate. "Der Kampf der Sänger" more accurately translates to: "The Competition/Contest between Singers," or, at the very least "The Singers' Contest." What stands now has no lexical meaning! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.36.157.248 (talk) 17:53, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

Waldhorns?
The article mentions waldhorns (a German word) but the link is to the natural horn (Naturhorn in German). In the German Wikipedia these are two different instruments. Mebden (talk) 16:39, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
 * The German Wikipedia at de:Horn (Blechblasinstrument) mentions "Waldhorn" as an alternative name for a French horn. As a native German speaker, I think that's confusing and wrong. A Waldhorn is e.g. the de:Parforcehorn or the post horn, horns without valves. The link to "natural horn" for the stage band is IMO correct. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 00:52, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

The Evening Star is Venus - significance?
The whole of the first act presents the goddess Venus as a sensuous temptress. In the third act, Wolfram sings an aria about the purity of the Evening Star, comparing it to the Elizabeth and the Virgin Mary. Wagner would surely have known that the Evening Star is the planet Venus. It would be OR to point that out in the article, but has no quotable expert ever pointed out that remarkable fact, and its significance, if any? --Hugh7 (talk) 03:19, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
 * It's mentioned at "O du mein holder Abendstern". -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 04:21, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

Featured picture scheduled for POTD
Hello! This is to let editors know that File:Tavola 5,_bozzetto_di_Gebrüder_Brückner_per_Tannhäuser_(s.d.)_-_Archivio_Storico_Ricordi_ICON011721_-_Restoration,_crop.jpg, a featured picture used in this article, has been selected as the English Wikipedia's picture of the day (POTD) for June 19, 2023. A preview of the POTD is displayed below and can be edited at Template:POTD/2023-06-19. For the greater benefit of readers, any potential improvements or maintenance that could benefit the quality of this article should be done before its scheduled appearance on the Main Page. If you have any concerns, please place a message at Wikipedia talk:Picture of the day. Thank you! &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 09:54, 16 June 2023 (UTC)