User talk:MinorProphet/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions with User:MinorProphet. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

For testing; and making palaces and cities with a pile of damp sand and a thimble. Huh?

This is a temporary archive. Please don't change anything.

Nice work! I'll try to add some footnotes for the Beaumont material later on today. --Robert.Allen (talk) 21:07, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

I added some footnotes and a bit of explanation about Oehlenschläger's opus taking two evenings to present. I could not find a Google Books version of the 1805 Danish edition, so I will leave it for you to add a footnote and link, if you have it. Also, the 1820 version I found at Google books may be just the first part, I didn't have time to check this out. Maybe we need an additional link for the second part. (I did a lot of scientific writing before I retired, so perhaps I'm a bit obsessive about footnotes. Should I apologize?) Anyway, thanks for adding all this great information to the articles! --Robert.Allen (talk) 05:38, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Found part 2 of 1820 edition on Google Books and added it. --Robert.Allen (talk) 08:31, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Haha, I just found Dent's book, and on p. 148 he mentions that the chorus words are quite like the end of Faust: I wonder if he knew Oehlenschlager had been with Goethe in 1806? MinorProphet (talk) 14:58, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm making some changes in the descriptions of the various Aladdin editions to clarify a bit more, at least the way I currently understand it. Please check and make sure you agree. Thanks! --Robert.Allen (talk) 18:39, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

I wasn't sure which version (Dent's or Ley's) of the letter to use, since I don't have the German original. So I tossed a coin. May not be the better choice! --Robert.Allen (talk) 19:16, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Quite a difference between the two translations of the 1902 letter! I like Dent's "profoundly symbolic work", but hey... MinorProphet (talk) 20:47, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

There is a copy of Schnapp's Briefe an seine Frau at our local university library. Next time I'm over there, I may try to check it out and look up the original German version. --Robert.Allen (talk) 02:06, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Interesting to work out what he actually wrote in German before seeing the original. > MinorProphet (talk) 05:46, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

The translator of the English version, Sir Theodore Martin, translated from the Danish of 1805 (he also translated Henrik Hertz). As he says in his introduction: "Those who have enjoyed the original - and who has not? - will, it is thought, be pleased to meet their old friend with this new face." MinorProphet (talk) 19:38, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Martin may be referring to the story in Antoine Galland's The Thousand and One Nights. That would likely be Oehlenschläger's original source for the story. --Robert.Allen (talk) 01:48, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, I was still wondering just how many English people had chuckled their way through Aladdin in Danish by 1863... > MinorProphet (talk) 05:46, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Since the Danish 1805 is a single 5-act play and Martin's translation is in two parts like the German editions, and also includes the dedicatory poem to Goethe and lacks the Danish prolog and epilog, I concluded that he translated the 1820 German edition. Is that incorrect? Also, the 1820 version could be considered Oehlenschläger's definitive version, which might explain why Martin would choose to use it. --Robert.Allen (talk) 21:02, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Both German versions seem to have the Prologue with Sangvinitas and I don't see it in my copy of Martin, so I confess to being confused about this. (Continuing to look through it all. It's a lot!) --Robert.Allen (talk) 21:20, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

At the end of Act I Noureddin gives a speech, which I assume Oehlenschläger put there to finish off the act in the German editions. Here are the first lines:

• 1805: This line does not appear at this point in the 1805 edition, but appears to follow the scene in the subterranean garden. ("O Muhamed! Vær nu din Tiener huld.")
• 1808: "O Mohamed! sei(?) mir jetzt hold, gewogen!"
• 1820: "O Mohamed! erfreue deinen Knecht!"
• 1863: "Oh Mahomet, be gracious to thy servant!"

Since "Knecht" can be translated as "servant" this provides some support for the idea that Martin may have used the 1820 version, at least here. The Danish version is similar using "Tiener" ("Tjener"?) but the scenes are organized so differently in that version, it doesn't seem relevant. --Robert.Allen (talk) 00:40, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I think you're right that Martin did translate from the 1820 German. He says at the end of his prologue that the meters of the original have been closely followed. But, for example, in the first scene at the point where Aladdin first enters, he says: (Danish 1805 / German 1808 / English 1863)

God Aften, Fader! / Gott grüss euch, lieber Eltern! / God greet you, my dear parents!

where the English follows the German rhythm, ignores the simple Danish 'Good afternoon, Father', puts 'Gott grüss euch' straight into English and introduces 'dear parents' from the German.

To which Mustapha replies (instead of the literal Danish "Yes, I'll good afternoon you, you long rascal!"):

Ja, Jeg skal godaftne dig, din lange Slyngel! (1805)
Warte, man! Ich will dich gleich begrüßen, Schurke! Gleich! (1808)
Warte nur! Ich will dich gleich begrüßen, Schurke! Gleich! (1820)
Wait a bit, I'll greet you , you young vagabond, I will!" (1863)

Which again follows the German rhythm and uses ", I will!" for emphasis like the German "Gleich!" But "Wait a bit!" is a better transl. of "Warte nur!" than of "Warte, man" (which sounds like the Danismen-Gnome at work?)

At the end of his next speech, Aladdin says:

"Dertil var de nu alle villige,
Og bragte lange Strimler af Papir.
Da skulde I kun seet en Maalen, Fader!
Om Armene, om Livet, og om Barmen."

In the Danish the girls bring "lange Strimler" - long ribbons (for a tape measure) and paper (to write down the measurements); and have simply arms, waists and bosoms. In the first German ed. (1808, p.35) the ribbons disappear and only paper is brought; and their waists are slim and their bosoms full:

"Dazu nu waren sie geschwind bereit;
Holten Papier zum Maaß, und machten's fertig.
Da hättet ihr ein Messen sehen sollen,
Um Arm, um schlanken Leib und vollen Busen."

But 1820 has:

"Dazu nu waren sie geschwind bereit;
Und holten mir Papier Und eine Scheere
Da hättet ihr ein Messen sehen sollen,
Um Arm, um schlanken Leib und vollen Busen."

Martin uses shears too, and English body parts are like the German.

"Agreed, agreed they cried, then off they ran;
And fetched me paper and a pair of shears.
You should have seen what measuring ensued,
Round arm, round swelling bosom, slender waist."

And in his last line both the German and English invoke God where the Danish doesn't. I concur. MinorProphet (talk) 01:12, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Glad you are enjoying Sunday; I'm still on Saturday. We must be on very different parts of the globe... :-) --Robert.Allen (talk) 01:55, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Actually I'm from the planet Tharg where our week consists of three Saturdays followed by two Sundays and it's sometimes hard to tell one day from another. MinorProphet (talk) 02:12, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

You don't want to delete this analysis. There's a way to archive these things. I've never done it, but try Help. --Robert.Allen (talk) 21:59, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

I've made a good start on the Recordings section list. I hope it wil look better. MinorProphet (talk) 02:33, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Where? I looked for it... --Robert.Allen (talk) 05:52, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

I meant just compiling the list, I'll post it when it's done. > MinorProphet (talk) 17:16, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Done. I'm not sure if the CD reference numbers make it too messy. Feel free... > MinorProphet (talk) 21:08, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Do you have a fave recording of the Concerto? No single one seems to get it completely right. Brautwahl - Behind me, tempter! > MinorProphet (talk) 19:08, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

If I had to choose it would be Volker Banfield with Lutz Herbig as conductor, but as I remember the sound is not perfect, and it's live with coughs etc. The only one out of the ten or so that I have that I dislike is Gunnar Johansen, not because of him, but because the orchestra woodwinds play badly out of tune. Otherwise, I find almost all of them satisfactory, even Postnikova, because she is really a brave artist. Of course, everybody hears these things differently. Excuse me, I may have made an error, let me go upstairs and check.Yes, I may have meant Donohoe with Elder, rather than Banfield. Not totally sure. I'll have to go back and listen again. (The Postnikova has the huge advantage of Rozhdestvensky and great orchestral playing, but the tempi are out in left field, and seems like no critic would go out on a limb and really approve of it. --Robert.Allen (talk) 21:18, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

I have a live recording of Pietro Scarpini with George Szell and the Cleveland, where the chorus enters with a superbly clear pianissimo, - none of the commercial recordings I've heard can beat it. Otherwise I like Ohlsson's approach most of the ones I've heard; I think the Lahti orchestra on the Hamelin DVD with Osmo Vänskä has the best sound. In the Ogdon recording, the piano is truly buried in the orchestra, but the whole thing sounds a little murky by modern standards.

Interesting. I have not seen the Hamelin DVD, and have never heard of the Scarpini/Szell before. When was it made/released? (Roberge does not have it in his discography. Nor is it listed at Vinylphil.) I like Ohlsson's strong playing. I find Hamelin and Banfield a bit tame. Of course, Ogdon is amazing, but you're right the sound is a problem. I also find the orchestra not among the better ones. I enjoyed the energy of the live performance of Donohoe with Elder. --Robert.Allen (talk) 21:11, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

I listened to the Postnikova recording yesterday. Like hearing the Concerto in gorgeous slow-motion... (like pouring cold syrup) --Robert.Allen (talk) 21:33, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

I was very interested to learn of the Scarpini recording with George Szell. Perhaps we could include some private non-commercial recordings in the list. Some readers may be interested to know of their existence. --Robert.Allen (talk) 23:54, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

The Scarpini/Szell is an mp3 which came off the - er - 'lesser-known' bits of the internet and is titled Scarpini/Szell/Cleveland Orch (live). There was no other information with the file. However, Naxos has this on Scarpini's profile page [1]

"In 1966 Scarpini was invited to America by George Szell to perform with the Cleveland Orchestra. As it was Busoni’s centenary year he played Busoni’s Piano Concerto Op. 39 in Cleveland and New York."

which makes it at least possible that it is what it claims.

You can download it here: [2]

Click Free User and wait a short while (unless you already have an account). > MinorProphet (talk) 00:00, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! If this link is to a download that violates a copyright, we are not supposed to add it to a Wikipedia article. For instance, links to YouTube are discouraged and usually removed. (I might mention that I put the Egon Petri piano reduction of the Concerto on the American Wikipedia rather than Commons, because it is not yet PD in Europe or Canada. That's also why it is not yet available for download from IMSLP. IMSLP servers are in Canada.) --Robert.Allen (talk) 02:26, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

I listened to it again this evening (first time I've heard the piece since I got involved in this article) and I think Scarpini plays pretty well. The balance is just right and Szell gives the orchestra a lot of attention. Plus the sound is very good for 1966, even though it's an mp3. It's really amazing listening to it on top of all the work we've been doing on it, the last movement makes so much more sense. Right at the very end of the recording, an American announcer is cut off - more evidence pro it being genuine. > MinorProphet (talk) 02:09, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Just finished the download. Haven't listened yet, but I noticed annotation is in Italian. Audio recordings made more than 25 years ago are PD in Italy, but not in United States. --Robert.Allen (talk) 02:44, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

I tried a rather bold revision as follows (no, longer here since I moved it to the Piano Concerto page), but it does not include the most recent edit. I also think we might want to include the words of the final chorus. What do you think? --Robert.Allen (talk) 05:02, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, I didn't hear back from you so I went ahead with the big revision. [I tried to put back your latest edit, but of course couldn't resist making some changes. Reasons: are we sure that the editions we know about are the only ones? And Beaumont uses the plural when referring to the first editions.] Anyway, here's hoping such big changes are mostly OK with you! (Of course, your are free to make equally drastic ones!) BTW, do we know with reasonable certainty that Martin's English translation is the first? (I seem to remember he says something like that in his preface.) --Robert.Allen (talk) 07:29, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

The English translation of the final chorus is my own. I did not have a PD version handy. It's a rush job, so please feel free to modify it. (We are allowed to translate such things ourselves according to Wikipedia policy.) --Robert.Allen (talk) 07:51, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Funny, I was also thinking about having the words but felt it might be a bit too much: but it looks good. I made my attempt at the translation some time ago. I agree about the possibility of further editions beyond what's available. Martin claims his book is the first complete translation, citing earlier extracts in Blackwoods, but that's all I've got. > MinorProphet (talk) 17:13, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Your modifications are great! Sorry for all the errors. I made the mistake of using the booklet from the Hamelin recording as my source for the original. (Oops!) --Robert.Allen (talk) 17:44, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

   Tausend und Tausend und abermals tausende
   Jahre so ruhig wie jetzt in der Kraft,
   Blitzen gediegen mit Glanz und mit Festigkeit,
   Die Unverwüstlichkeit stellen sie dar!

Hmm, is Blitzen a verb referring to the thousands of years? In which case they could "Flash by, dignified (I think - gediegen isn't on Leo) with resplendence and strength"; plus, stellen sie dar would also then refer to the the Kiloyears, which would thus represent inviolability, indestructibility etc.

But otherwise the thousands of years are just left hanging in mid-sentence. > MinorProphet (talk) 19:08, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Excellent idea. My old New Cassell's has the following list of meanings for:

• gediegen (adj.): solid, compact massive; unmixed, pure, native (chem.); true, genuine, sterling thorough; (coll.) splendid, funny [not listed as an adverb, but Oehlenschläger may have used it as one, and certainly Busoni, the Italian would not have cared]
• blitzen (v. imp. & n.): lighten (= emit lightening); flash, sparkle

--Robert.Allen (talk) 20:52, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Also:

• Blitzmädel (n.): girl telegraphist with armed forces (Nat. Soc.) --Robert.Allen (talk) 20:57, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

I wonder whether "blitz" here refers to the speed of the telegraph or the Blitzkrieg...

• blitzschnell (adj.): in a flash --Robert.Allen (talk) 21:08, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

On second thought, could "sie" refer back to both Blitzen and Jahre? (this may be what I was thinking at the time) Seems impossible to know. The verb idea is a good one: try it. After all, "darstellen" already seems to have a subject. --Robert.Allen (talk) 21:56, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

This poem is difficult. More from New Cassell's:

• unverwüstlich (adj.): indestructible, imperishable, inexhaustible, indefatigable, irrepressible

"inviolable" doesn't seem like a property of "years," but "Inexhaustible" could be

• Kraft can also mean "energy", might work better with "sparkle" or "flash"
• "gediegen" can mean "pure", "unmixed"
• "Festigkeit" can also mean "steadiness", "constancy"
• "abermals" can simply mean "again"

Tausend und Tausend und abermals tausende

Jahre so ruhig wie jetzt in der Kraft,

Blitzen gediegen mit Glanz und mit Festigkeit,

Die Unverwüstlichkeit stellen sie dar.

Thousands and thousands and again thousands

Of years - so calm as now in energy -

Flash by purely with radiance and steadiness,

They display inexhaustibility. (or possibly more freely and simply: "They are inexhaustible."

--Robert.Allen (talk) 10:32, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

This poem is complete gobbldeygook more like. It sort of makes sense in German, but almost none whatever in English. A literal translation makes even less sense than the original. I was trying (like Theodore Martin, it turns out) to maintain the rhythm of the piece as closely as possible, which is why I used "many more" thousands. How about "once again thousands"? > MinorProphet (talk) 15:09, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps it's best to read lots of Goethe and come back to the poem later... > MinorProphet (talk) 13:58, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

• "Unverwüstlich" is also "scuff-proof", which I like, but it doesn't really fit somehow.

Since there is no Danish original, it's conceivable - or even likely - that AO wrote the verses directly in German. I've tried this once or twice, and the results were similarly incomprehensible. > MinorProphet (talk) 15:09, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

With the help of your insights I am now seeing Oehlenschläger as saying: the steady march of time, the inexorable, unending stream of years, serenely, calmly (at an absolutely constant pace), but, somewhat paradoxically, "flashing by" (on these time scales, which are much longer than a lifetime, we're born and are at death's door almost before we even realize it) is a manifestation of divine power. That's why I thought "steadiness", "constancy", and "inexhaustibility" were relevant concepts. Trying to replicate the meter and rhythm in the translation may not be essential, since we have provided the original German alongside the translation, and might actually hinder a better understanding. In any case, it's far better now than where we began with my original attempt. --Robert.Allen (talk) 00:25, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

I think your interpretation is spot on. I'm sure that clarity of expression in conveying what AO meant is the most important thing, with rhythm it would be even better. I wonder, incidentally, if Busoni himself (as an Italian) understood those four lines entirely: he sets the lines

Blitzen gediegen mit Glanz und mit Festigkeit,

Die Unverwüstlichkeit stellen sie dar.

together for the chorus, as if the blurred meaning of the words for him resulted in an auditory wash of choral syllables. Idle speculation... > MinorProphet (talk) 01:36, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Interesting idea on Busoni's setting; we'll never know...

I kind of avoided looking at other translations while we were working on it, but here is the version of these four lines by W. M. Clement, BBC London, 1936 (probably non-PD, but no permission is cited), which Beaumont includes in his chapter on the Concerto. Beaumont does not give the German text. Perhaps he thought the Clement poem was superior:

Thousands and thousands of years march relentlessly,

Show forth in silence His glory, His might.

Flashing immaculate, splendid and fast they stand,

Time cannot shake them, yea time without end

It captures some of the spirit of the original, but adds a lot to it and alters it, like a lot of "freie Bearbeitung" becoming a new work. What I feel we should strive for is making the original German words more clear to the reader, a more literal word for word translation that pulls the reader into the German text, if that's possible, rather than putting the focus on the English translation as a separate poem. --Robert.Allen (talk) 02:08, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Clement's version is more poetic in its own right than many others I've seen, but I wasn't attracted to it either, for similar reasons. > MinorProphet (talk) 05:28, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

I had ambivalent feelings about including the last quote from Dent, but I thought it would be good to include his point of view. He was an atheist and a realist, and seems to have been possibly somewhat embarrassed by the Concerto's choral finale. I think Busoni's letter refers to its musical function, but that from all the other evidence, the text mattered a great deal to him. Deprived of his childhood as a prodigy, he later became obsessed with such tales. In fact, I am reading the Penguin English edition of The Tales of Hoffmann right now. It includes "The Choosing of the Bride." Die Brautwahl was one of Busoni's most important works, and the article is in great need of expansion. Unfortunately, the online source material does not appear to be as rich as for Aladdin. --Robert.Allen (talk) 18:22, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

I'd tend to agree with the importance of the words to FB. > MinorProphet (talk) 19:08, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

You broke my talk page, egad! The above is all I can see of this section!! Please fix it, or Brautwahl gets a miss!!! > MinorProphet (talk) 02:49, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

You can always "undo" my edit. I just moved all the discussion of recordings to the section on recordings. --Robert.Allen (talk) 03:25, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Ah, I see now. > MinorProphet (talk) 04:58, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Regarding "Tambura militare": I checked the reference, and it appears to be spelled that way in Kindermann. I've not see the page of the 1906 score it is originally from, since that is not included in the study score. I suppose we could assume it's an error and add "(sic)" after it. (A minor point.) How would "militare" be spelled if it is "Tamburo"? I don't know enough Italian. --Robert.Allen (talk) 02:47, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

A quick Google search shows it should definitely be "Tamburo militare," so let's put in the "(sic)"(What fun!) --Robert.Allen (talk) 02:53, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

On second thought, since it's not in quote marks, we should probably leave it with the corrected spelling. --Robert.Allen (talk) 03:04, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, long-necked lutes indeed... Italian adjs. ending in -e don't change for M and F[3] > MinorProphet (talk) 03:06, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I can just see those Italian soldiers marching along to them in those Italian military parades. --Robert.Allen (talk) 03:19, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

People always say two heads are better than one. In this case, the result seems to exceed the sum of the parts. :-) --Robert.Allen (talk) 04:13, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Oh dear, I only just got that one, lol

Tambura: I think the soldiers would either float or dance their way to war - sample these if you have a few minutes: [4] [5] [6](music starts at 0:40) [7] The last one fades out before the end. This one is just a hoot: I wonder how risque he is being? [8] This guy is amazing, he plays the tambura and among many others the the teapot or kettle: [9] and the water lute... [10] > MinorProphet (talk) 03:29, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

This guy nadishana is unbelievable. Did you check out his web site? He seems really twisted! (way-out, interesting) --Robert.Allen (talk) 08:08, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

This is an archive of past discussions with User:MinorProphet. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.