Template:Did you know nominations/Ständchen (Strauss)
- The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was: promoted by Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:01, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
Ständchen (Strauss)
edit... that the song "Ständchen" (Serenade) by Richard Strauss begins with an appeal to open quietly and leads to a climax of "glowing ecstacy"?
- Reviewed: Fantasia on Welsh Nursery Tunes
Created by Byronmercury (talk). Nominated by Gerda Arendt (talk) at 10:37, 1 March 2016 (UTC).
Inadequate in-line citations, including instances of unreferenced statements such as "Whilst in more recent years the songs popularity [sic] has been overtaken by others, notably "Morgen!" and the Four Last Songs, the song remains a standard part of recorded collections of Strauss songs." as well as "The poem "Ständchen" has also been set by several other composers, the best known being a version by Pfitzner." (One would also note the peacock terminology.) Additionally, the composition date as presented in the infobox is missing in the body, and also uncited. I also take issue with the hook, which firstly has a typo (also appears in the article as ecstacy (sic)_) and secondly is not accurate -- the "glowing ecstasy" (supposedly a quote from Del Mar) is in reference to the piece and his music as a whole; it would be better to describe the climax just as how Strauss (you might wish to hyperlink him in the hook by the way) does (e.g. ends with ... "wondrous passions of the night"?) Whatever references there are (I have to assume good faith on this for they are both foreign-language and offline) look alright but can be better formatted. All these aside, it is new & long enough (just), QPQ has been done, and presumably no copyvio is present (assuming good faith again). Thanks. Kingoflettuce (talk) 14:48, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
- The popularity of Morgen: reflected in the number of recordings. In arkivmusic listings there are 124 recordings of Morgen, 103 of Zueignung and "only" 84 of Standchen. The 84 for standchen supports the "standard part of recorded collections of Strauss songs." Four last songs: these last for 20 minutes+, and are in the Classic FM hall of fame for example. Their 73 recordings count for more due to length.Byronmercury (talk) 17:09, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
- dealt with other issues I hope (liedernet)and reworded peacock. Added citation for composition. Trenner may be "offline", but this marvelous source reflects 50 years of scholarship by Franz Trenner, who compiled the catalogue of Strauss' works (the "Tr" in TrV). It is in German, but is a listing of what happened day by day in Strauss life, so no long sentences. "Standchen beendet" is the entry for 22nd December 1886!Byronmercury (talk) 11:24, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
- Thanks for the efforts, really appreciate them, but I'm still not comfortable with this. It needs more citations, and overall cleanup. Some of the issues I raised are still not fixed. Please take another look -- most pressing of which is the hook (typo!!) Kingoflettuce (talk) 15:29, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
- Please be more specific. I make many typos, not being a native speaker of English. When I find one, simply I correct it. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:47, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
- I already specifically mentioned it in my lengthy review. Alongside that is another issue. You have to read it! Kingoflettuce (talk) 01:47, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
- Please be more specific. I make many typos, not being a native speaker of English. When I find one, simply I correct it. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:47, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
- I am better in reading short contributions, sorry. I took the wording from the article, which takes it from an offline source, so I can't check where the mistake comes from, a [sic] in the source or a copying mistake. I can tell you, being a native speaker of German, that "wondrous passion" is a rather unpoetic translation of "Wonneschauer" ("showers of bliss" would come closer), so I would not want to use it. The composer is intentionally not linked, readers being expected to click on Ständchen, not Strauss, where they will certainly find a link. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:25, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
- OK understood.. You just need to add an apostrophe s actually, and correct the spelling of ecstasy. Still a bit iffy about the overall feel, but should be good enuf. AGF on offline/foreign lang sources. Thanks.
Kingoflettuce (talk) 07:45, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
- OK understood.. You just need to add an apostrophe s actually, and correct the spelling of ecstasy. Still a bit iffy about the overall feel, but should be good enuf. AGF on offline/foreign lang sources. Thanks.
- I am better in reading short contributions, sorry. I took the wording from the article, which takes it from an offline source, so I can't check where the mistake comes from, a [sic] in the source or a copying mistake. I can tell you, being a native speaker of German, that "wondrous passion" is a rather unpoetic translation of "Wonneschauer" ("showers of bliss" would come closer), so I would not want to use it. The composer is intentionally not linked, readers being expected to click on Ständchen, not Strauss, where they will certainly find a link. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:25, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
- I did the spelling but don't see yet where an apostrophe is missing.
- ALT1:
... that the song "Ständchen" (Serenade) by Richard Strauss begins with an appeal to open quietly and leads to a climax of "glowing ecstasy"?--Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:13, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
Apostrophe is in reference to the body of article (songs popularity) Kingoflettuce (talk) 14:37, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
- I looked at what I think you mean and formatted the title: "Four Last Songs is Strauss' most popular piece". I have seen Strauss' and Strauss's and find both to be avoided. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:21, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
- Gerda Arendt I find the hook doesn't match up with the article's text. For example the article/source says "the surges of lyricism both in the refrain and the climax...are the essence of that glowing ecstasy which is the peculiar quality of Strauss' art at its best". There's a couple of points here: one is that this quote is describing the "surges of lyricism" and not necessarily the climax as a whole and secondly, they are only "essences" of the glowing ecstasy (so it seems exaggerated). Jolly Ω Janner 04:56, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
- I am always open to better wording. Listen to the song, then word something. "Essence", for me, means "the most important true character/feature/nature". The climax, sudden and - after 2 1/2 stanzas of subdued quietness, - unexpected, is on "hochglühn" (an invention of the poet, might be "glow high" in English), not the later "from the showers of bliss of the night". Tough, putting music in words, sorry, can't help that. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 05:27, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
BlueMoonset asked me to comment here on the issue of including non-free lyrics. Translations of creative material like poetry or lyrics typically warrant their own copyright protection and so cannot be included in full. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:52, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
- It was published in 1866. Therefore its lyrics and translation are surely out of copyright? Assuming that these haven't been manipulated creatively since then. Jolly Ω Janner 19:36, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
- The original is, certainly, but the translation is cited to a 1971 work - was it published earlier? Nikkimaria (talk) 20:07, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
- I always assumed translations such as this didn't go beyond mere derivatives to add anything "creative". Maybe Gerda can translate it herself since she speaks German or you could just go with Google's translate, which is pretty similar to the 1971 translation. "To be copyrightable, a derivative work must incorporate some or all of a preexisting “work” and add new original copyrightable authorship to that work." (United States Copyright Office). Jolly Ω Janner 20:18, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
- Any translation of a creative work is typically itself creative enough to warrant copyright protection. See here. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:27, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
- I always assumed translations such as this didn't go beyond mere derivatives to add anything "creative". Maybe Gerda can translate it herself since she speaks German or you could just go with Google's translate, which is pretty similar to the 1971 translation. "To be copyrightable, a derivative work must incorporate some or all of a preexisting “work” and add new original copyrightable authorship to that work." (United States Copyright Office). Jolly Ω Janner 20:18, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
- The original is, certainly, but the translation is cited to a 1971 work - was it published earlier? Nikkimaria (talk) 20:07, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
- I translated the spirale of justice but would not dare to translate this poetry, with its showers of bliss (see above). - Any reader can use Google translate, but will suffer. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:36, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
- "This particular post is centered on literary translation and draws from copyright law in the UK." and it also acknowledges that it varies from country to country. Jolly Ω Janner 20:40, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
- Plenty of sources for copyrightability of translations in the US also - [1][2][3]. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:10, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
- Thanks for the links, Nikkimaria. I think the best option would be to remove the Jefferson's translation and make note that it exists, rather like a further reading example. If any earlier translations are found that fit the PD criteria they could be used. Jolly Ω Janner 05:16, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
- If the translation is dropped, we better give the reader some understanding of the content, - hoping Byronmercury can do that, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:49, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
- I have removed the translation because no action was taken—Gerda's remark above was actually made on April 19, though the sig was added on May 3, so it has been two weeks. Also, there are hook issues from a month ago that still need to be addressed. BlueMoonset (talk) 02:03, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
- I hope for Byronmercury who solved the issues on Befreit, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:59, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
- I have removed the translation because no action was taken—Gerda's remark above was actually made on April 19, though the sig was added on May 3, so it has been two weeks. Also, there are hook issues from a month ago that still need to be addressed. BlueMoonset (talk) 02:03, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
- If the translation is dropped, we better give the reader some understanding of the content, - hoping Byronmercury can do that, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:49, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
- Thanks for the links, Nikkimaria. I think the best option would be to remove the Jefferson's translation and make note that it exists, rather like a further reading example. If any earlier translations are found that fit the PD criteria they could be used. Jolly Ω Janner 05:16, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
- Plenty of sources for copyrightability of translations in the US also - [1][2][3]. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:10, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
- "This particular post is centered on literary translation and draws from copyright law in the UK." and it also acknowledges that it varies from country to country. Jolly Ω Janner 20:40, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
- I translated the spirale of justice but would not dare to translate this poetry, with its showers of bliss (see above). - Any reader can use Google translate, but will suffer. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:36, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
- Gerda Arendt, BlueMoonset, Jolly. I can get hold of the Bernhoff lyrics, but it will take a few days. Also, as in Befreit, the Bernhoff are not so accurate (since they are written to be sung), whereas the Jefferson I originally put up are an excellent translation. Sorry not to have followed this debate recently, but have been busy. Also, presumably we can use one verse of the Jefferson as an example to contrast with Bernhoff?Byronmercury (talk) 11:19, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
- Byronmercury, I wouldn't presume that at all: using one-third of the whole probably exceeds fair use guidelines. While brief quotations are allowed, extensive ones are not. I'll check with Nikkimaria. BlueMoonset (talk) 15:57, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
- 10% is usually a good rule of thumb, although there is no bright line. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:53, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
- What do you think of comparing versions of the last lines of climax and using some element for the hook? I decorated my talk accordingly ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:29, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
- BlueMoonset, Gerda Arendt, Jolly. Finally got hold of it - Different publisher and different translator. Have added the 1912 Paul England translation. Byronmercury (talk) 19:54, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
- Thank you, arranged it in six lines each. We might now use "rapture" in a hook, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:57, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
- ALT2: ... that the song "Ständchen" (Serenade), by Richard Strauss, begins with an appeal to open quietly and ends with a climax of expecting a rose to glow from the rapture of the night? (better wording welcome) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:13, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
- Better wording (suggestion)
ALT3: ... that the song "Ständchen" (Serenade) by Richard Strauss, begins with an appeal to open up quietly, ends with the climax of a rose glowing from the rapture of the night?Byronmercury (talk) 13:28, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
- BlueMoonset, Gerda Arendt, Jolly. Finally got hold of it - Different publisher and different translator. Have added the 1912 Paul England translation. Byronmercury (talk) 19:54, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
- Byronmercury, I wouldn't presume that at all: using one-third of the whole probably exceeds fair use guidelines. While brief quotations are allowed, extensive ones are not. I'll check with Nikkimaria. BlueMoonset (talk) 15:57, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
- I formatted the new alternative but am afraid that it won't work, because the rose doesn't actually glow, it's "soll ... hochglühn", - "shall ... glow". --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:35, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
Reviewer needed to check ALT2. BlueMoonset (talk) 15:53, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
ALT2 good to go. I made a very minor grammatical tweak. This one is long overdue for promotion. Montanabw(talk) 03:57, 24 May 2016 (UTC)