Talk:Klang (Stockhausen)

Klang (Stockhausen) received a peer review by Wikipedia editors, which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.

Electronic music

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Electronic music, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Electronic music on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Electronic musicWikipedia:WikiProject Electronic musicTemplate:WikiProject Electronic musicelectronic music articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Classical music: Compositions

	Classical music portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Classical music, which aims to improve, expand, copy edit, and maintain all articles related to classical music, that are not covered by other classical music related projects. Please read the guidelines for writing and maintaining articles. To participate, you can edit this article or visit the project page for more details.Classical musicWikipedia:WikiProject Classical musicTemplate:WikiProject Classical musicClassical music articles
	This article is supported by Compositions task force.

Title and "Gewissen"[edit]

Shouldn't the title be "Klang – Die 24 Stunden des Tages"?

In the first paragraph of the first section ("General character of the cycle"), it should be "die Stimme des Gewissens". And what's with the ALL CAPS and bolding? Are those from the source? -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 09:37, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, the main title of this cycle is Klang. The rest is a subtitle, which might plausibly be included, but mainly on analogy to the article on Licht (which carries the similar subtitle "Die sieben Tagen der Woche"), I decided to use just the main title. (There is at least one other similar case, Inori—Anbetungen für einen oder zwei Solisten und Orchester, and of course perfectly conventional examples where the scoring is indicated after the work title, as in Gruppen für drei Orchester'). I think your concern must be prompted by the bolding of the subtitle in the lede. I agree that looks odd, and perhaps it should be changed, also on the analogy of the Licht article.

Second, thank you for correcting my typo in "Gewissen". Third, yes, the all-caps and bolding are in the source. Starting sometime in the 1970s, Stockhausen adopted the convention for his own writings of using all caps for main work titles, with subtitles in normal sentence case, thus: "KLANG: Die 24 Stunden des Tages". For a long while, he did this when citing titles of works by other composers, as well, but eventually reserved this practice only for his own compositions. In the Texte (his collected writings) this makes some sense, because it would be impractical to compile an index for all occurrences of his work titles, and the all-caps formatting makes them stand out on the page when you are riffling through a volume looking for a particular piece. It does look a bit odd, however, when quoting from his writings in other contexts, but the rule for quotations is "change nothing, except for nesting quotation marks."—Jerome Kohl (talk) 20:33, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't explain my concern clearly enough: it had nothing to do with the bolding but the wording. I can't see how de:Klang (Stockhausen) (Klang – Die 24 Stunden des Tages) or the English translation given in this article (The 24 Hours of the Day) could possible be equivalent to the title given here: Die sieben Stunden der Tage. I suspect you might have subconsciously carried something from Licht. I don't know anything about this piece and only very little about Stockhausen, but quite a bit about German; it seems to me the German title of this piece has to be Die 24 Stunden des Tages. Michael Bednarek (talk) 08:16, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ach! Yes, I see now. The grammar is all wrong, and I was looking at the forest and overlooked the tree. (And it was a subconscious carry-over from the subtitle of Licht, where "Woche" is a feminine noun; "Tag" of course is masculine, and there are more than seven hours in a day!) I'll fix that right away. Thank you.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 01:42, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum: You must have wondered how I could not have noticed all the red text you put in for my benefit. Alas, I am among the approximately 15% of men who suffer from Red-green colorblindness. Once having noticed the markup, I can actually see the red text, but it does not jump out at me, the way that it does for most people. Rather, it is for me a very subtle difference.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 03:03, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'll keep that in mind for future helpful markups. Does yellow highlighting work better in these circumstances? Or maybe I should stick to old fashioned bolding or underlining, discouraged as they may be in the HTML world and particularly on Wikipedia. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 03:25, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, yes, yellow is much better! I have no trouble at all seeing yellow, even when it is not background. No doubt this is why a study in the 1960s concluded that yellow is far more effective a color for emergency vehicles than the traditional red. Unfortunately, tradition seems to have held out against science in this case. In any event, thank you once again for your patience in pointing out my egregious gaffe.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 05:06, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Possible completion[edit]

Just out of curiosity: Would it be possible, given Stockhausen's intentions, notes and known methods, to complete the cycle? -- megA (talk) 15:17, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, because (1) nothing is known of his intentions, (2) there are no sketches or notes (but it might be a good idea to add to this article the quotation from Kathinka Pasveer concerning the fact that, after Stockhausen's death, she carefully went through his sketchbooks and found absolutely nothing at all concerning plans for the remaining three hours), and (3) his methods were always devised specifically for the work in hand. Therefore any attempt to "complete the cycle" would necessarily be entirely speculative. (I do know of one such speculative completion, but the composer would never claim that it has anything at all to do with Stockhausen's intentions.)—Jerome Kohl (talk) 16:02, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the quotation from Pasveer and Bos 2010 is already in the article.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 18:12, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I see. Thanks. -- megA (talk) 22:11, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Klang (Stockhausen). 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:

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

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:16, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Change of title[edit]

I notice that User:A loose necktie has just changed the title of this article from "Klang (Stockhausen)" to "Klang (music cycle)" with the rationale "clearer parenthetical disambiguation". I have no particular objection to the move as such, but I would like to know (1) why A loose necktie thinks this is clearer, and (2) why A loose necktie thinks this particular case should be handled in this way, when dozens or even hundreds of other similar cases use the composer's name as a disambiguator instead?—Jerome Kohl (talk) 04:08, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I too am baffled. The disambiguation "(composer)" is well established, whereas the term "music cycle" isn't (note: it isn't Cycle (music)). I suggest to move this article back where it's been, I think since its inception in April 2009. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 04:51, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

My reasoning was this: first, "Stockhausen" doesn't mean anything to a reader who has never heard of him, so it doesn't help clarify anything about the word "Klang" to include his name as a disambiguator. Also, is "Klang" a music cycle of a number of composers? If not, specifying Stockhausen also doesn't disambiguate it from other musical uses of the word "Klang" (I must admit I did not check this, so please correct me if I am wrong there). If we are distinguishing "Klang" from other kinds of sounds, however, it seems useful to specify that this particular Klang is a musical cycle and not simply a loud noise (for which "Klang (sound)" might be suitable as a title for such an article). A loose necktie (talk) 07:13, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please familiarize yourself with the guidelines and practice of disambiguation on Wikipedia; Help:Disambiguation is a starting point; it refers to further pages, e.g. WP:Disambiguation, MOS:Disambiguation, WP:TITLE#Disambiguation. Nutshell: disambiguators are not there to explain, they are the most concise and precise way to distinguish a subject. Wikiprdia projects like WP:WikiProject Classical music often elaborate on this process for their subjects. This can be found at WP:NCMUSIC. You will find that the previous name, Klang (Stockhausen) complies with all those guidelines, and Klang (music cycle) does not. Please move the article back where it's been. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 14:20, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's seldom a bad idea to discuss page moves in advance. Fwiw, "(music cycle)" was farh less clear to me, and I image if I had never heard of Stockhausen "Klang (Stockhausen)" would at least alert me that I might be seeking something else, without making me wonder what a music cycle is. Sparafucil (talk) 07:01, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]