Talk:Tristan und Isolde

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Thomas Malory[edit]

In Thomas Malory's Le Morte d'Arthur, there's the story of Sir Tristram and La Beale Isoud (La Belle Isolde). Shouldn't there be a reference to that in this article? X10 (talk) 21:35, 1 November 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

What's the evidence that Wagner used Malory's version in addition to those mentioned in the article? -- kosboot (talk) 17:49, 2 November 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No. Wagner didn't use this source and so it's not relevant to this article on his opera.--Dogbertd (talk) 22:55, 4 November 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Schopnhr[edit]

Another influence of the philosopher of pessimism was his doctrine that music should be primary and libretto merely secondary. This was in opposition to Wagner’s former notion of Gesamtkunstwerk in which they both held equal status.173.72.63.150 (talk) 23:10, 25 October 2013 (UTC) John RanceReply[reply]

"Mild und leise" is not an aria[edit]

"Mild und leise" is not an aria as it is stated in the article. In fact there is no aria in Tristan und Isolde. It is an opera with continuous music. There are no well-shaped bordered arias. Thanks. Abbatai 04:29, 5 May 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

this article needs more references[edit]

There are paragraphs throughout the article that do not have any footnotes at all. Specifically, in the following sections:

  • Composition history (3 paragraphs)
  • Premiere (2 paras)
  • Performance history (entire section)
  • Significance in the development of romantic music (last para)
  • Roles (needs a reference for the premiere cast)
  • Instrumentation
  • Influence of Schopenhauer on Tristan und Isolde (2nd para)
  • Recordings (4th para)
  • Concert extracts and arrangements (1st para)

Please do not remove the maintenance tag until these have been addressed. Thanks. howcheng {chat} 22:13, 7 June 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Tristan und Isolde. 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.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 23:07, 2 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Tristan und Isolde. 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.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 06:42, 30 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

What's the point of including technical details of Kant's and Schopenhauer's metaphysics?[edit]

The article, as currently written, includes:

"Man, according to Schopenhauer, is driven by continued, unachievable desires, and the gulf between our desires and the possibility of achieving them leads to misery ... Schopenhauer's influence on Tristan und Isolde is most evident in the second and third acts. The second act, in which the lovers meet, and the third act, during which Tristan longs for release from the passions that torment him, have often proved puzzling to opera-goers unfamiliar with Schopenhauer's work."

So far, so good. Schopenhauer's tenet: that unfulfilled desire is the deepest part of human nature, and that desire is intrinsically insatiable, because once a desire gets fulfilled it ceases to be a desire, is central to Schopenhauer and to the opera. But why does the reader need to know the technical metaphysical details which the paragraph also describes? What's the point of including: "Our representation of the world is Phenomenon, while the unknowable reality is Noumenon: concepts originally posited by Kant"? What does that particular detail have to do with the opera? It seems like an extraneous detail. If the reader wants to know about noumena and phenomena and the relationship between them (and things-in-themselves and modes of perception and categorical imperatives and all that fun Kantian stuff which Schopenhauer explained so elegantly, much more elegantly than Kant), he (the reader) can go to the articles about Schopenhauer and Kant. I mean, can't he? HandsomeMrToad (talk) 16:00, 8 February 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The detail may be too much, but a link should be made, because even a short introduction to a performance of the opera at Oper Frankfurt mentioned the influence of Schopenhauer's thinking (denial of all want) on the poem, and thus the music, - ending - smiling - with a daughter Isolde being born ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:01, 8 February 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Wagner's Tristan connection with Schopenhauer (and Kant) is widely covered in the literature, so it's appropriate to mention it here. OTOH, as always, "less is more" applies and the article would probably benefit from some judicious pruning. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 05:53, 9 February 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oh, I'm not objecting to mentioning Schopenhauer! OF COURSE the article must discuss Schopenhauer. I'm only saying, the technicalities of Kant's metaphysics (which Schopenhauer was developing and making his own) are (IMHO) too much. I agree, the reader needs to know about Schopenhauer, his idea of Will, and self-denial. (Digression/tangent: It's funny: he vehemently objected to the idea of suicide, but he loved the idea of, as he put it, "the denial of the will to live ... with complete renunciation of self-love; ... voluntary and glad endurance of all ignominy; ... terrible slow self-torture for the absolute mortification of the will, torture which extends to voluntary death by starvation, or by men giving themselves up to crocodiles, or flinging themselves over the sacred precipice in the Himalayas, or being buried alive, ..." So different here from Kant: Kant's ethics begin with "The only really good thing is a good will", whereas Schopenhauer thinks the only really good thing is to deny the will.) But does the reader really need to know about Kant's definitions of "Noumenon" and "Phenomenon"? HandsomeMrToad (talk) 00:40, 12 February 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I misunderstood your original point. I don't think anyone would object to removing that 1 sentence you mention about Kant. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 03:49, 12 February 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]