User talk:Dogbertd

Welcome to the Wikipedia[edit]

I noticed you were new, and wanted to share some links I thought useful:

For more information click here. You can sign your name by typing 4 tildes, like this: ~~~~.

Sam Spade 10:46, 5 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Dogbert[edit]

I don't know if this is the proper way to respond a message, but, well, at least this way i'm sure you will eventually read it. First things firts, no apologies needed, i suppose we all should check a bit better the changes we make, but, hey, Be Bold! :) For instance, i, for sure, will be more careful before crying vandalism :). Ok i gues thats all. Please excuse any grammar/spelling error i could made, english is my second language and, to tell you the truth, my writing skills are a little rusty. User:Javier Arambel

Der Ring des Nibelungen Recordings[edit]

Sorry. My mistake. --Alexs letterbox 07:52, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. Even Gods make mistakes...--Dogbertd 08:28, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, the discussion on trivia has been moved to the Opera Wikiproject.

Interview Request for Dogbertd[edit]

Hi Dogbertd, I am a radio producer in New York, we're doing a special series on Tristan und Isolde, and I was wondering i f I could email you a few questions about your Wikipedia contributions, and maybe chat on the phone. My name is Amy O'Leary and can be reached at amyoleary --at-- gmail dot com. Thank you! User:Meebs

Richard Wagner Wikiproject?[edit]

Greetings again from the Opera Project. In view of the length and completeness of the Wagner articles, I am wondering whether you and your fellow-editors would be interested in setting up a Richard Wagner Project as a daughter project of ours. This has already beeen done with some success by the WikiProject Gilbert and Sullivan. This would give your work more prominence, perhaps attract more contributors and give you some control over assessments etc. Anyway let me know if you have any interest in this. Best regards - Kleinzach 03:19, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at the complexity and scope of the various articles on Wagner and his works, I think this is probably a very good idea. I created a category "Wagner Studies" to try to keep tabs on these various pages, but yours is, of course, a better way to manage this process. I'll have to look into what is required to make a Wikiproject or a daughter project (the latter seems to me the best idea). Regards, --Dogbertd 12:55, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good. As far as I know there is no difference between a Wikiproject and a daughter project - they are all Wiiprojects. If you wanted to go ahead with it I would be happy to join and help to set it up - although I don't think I would be regular contributor. The Wagner (Richard Wagner?) Project could adopt the general style/editorial rules of the Opera Project to make things as simple as possible and allow you to concentrate on the editing. Do you think other people would join? It would be ideal to have at least a few active members. Best, -Kleinzach 13:17, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, have made a bit of a stab at a Wikiproject page for Richard Wagner WikiProject Richard Wagner. Will begin to advertise it, as well.--Dogbertd 12:47, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As you may have noticed, I have leapt in as your first recruit. Let me know when you've created the membership category. I'll see you on the project talk page. --Peter cohen 13:43, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Parsifal[edit]

I see you've started working on Parsifal again. You may have noticed my preliminary review at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Richard Wagner#Article assessment 3: testing. What did you think of my points? I'm going to be re-reviewing the article in a week and a half's time, as part of my working through all the Wagner material with the other two reviewers. (I'm doing one Wagner review a day and have completed operas nos 7-12, the Ring article and its two subsidiary articles to do first.) It would be nice to get Parsifal to A when I do re-assess it. If you need slightly more time and let me know, I can stop off at Wieland Wagner and some of the other articles on works first.

If you feel that you've not got all the sources needed to address my points, then, after I've finished the marking, I can join in and work with you. In the mid-term, I would like to see the project aiming to raise one article a month to GA, A or FA. What would you feel about such drives? With lower grades, one person can raise an article a grade or two on their own. (It didn't take me long to get Die Feen to B class.) Higher grades requires having access to a variety of sources and several hands makes this easier. I did get Troilus to GA on my own, but that required a lot of work and two tries as a candidate.--Peter cohen 15:29, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Peter, yes I've been off on holiday and otherwise busy, but today I got some time to make a few changes to Parsifal specifically to address your points, which I think are very good (I had completely missed, for instance, that the synopsis doesn't include any reference to Parsifal's suffering with Amfortas in Act 1 - doh!). I don't have access to Grove (but might invest in Millington's New Grove Wagner if I can persuade myself I need another book on RW) so any help you can offer would be very welcome. I'll try to get the bulk of it done within the next week or so, but in any case I think a reassessment would help, regardless of what state the article is in.--Dogbertd 18:42, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the reply. I haven't got Grove either. Whilst I'm supposedly working on my PhD, I'm trying to control my non-work book spending. (My CD spending is a different matter - I have just convinced myself that a 14th Ring* would come in handy.) As I said elsewhere, the two books I have on Parsifal are Lucy Beckett's Cambridge Opera Handbook and the ENO Opera guide. I also have various opera programmes, although I'm having trouble remembering how many productions I've seen of it. The one I can remember clearly is the ENO/Goodall one where Parsifal was such a "Tor", that he was singing in the wrong language. (Siegfried Jerusalem was a late stand in.) I'll see what my sources cover when the time comes.

The Fürtwangler/Flagstad/Milan one to join Fürtwangler/RAI, Moralt, Krauss 53, Keilberth 53 (these two with the same cast apart from Mödl replacing Varnay), Knapertsbusch 56, Böhm, Karajan, Barenboim, Levine, Sawallisch, Janowski, Neuhold and the Naxos Met stitch up under Bodanzky and Leinsdorf.--Peter cohen 22:49, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I sympathise: I spent far too much of my PhD time playing computer games when I should have been writing up. And your Ring collection is certainly not complete without the Furt/La Scala Ring - now available quite cheaply in several remastered versions (I have the Gebhardt, AFAIK). Walkure is particularly good. I'm waiting for a decent cheap version of the Rome radio Ring before I (re)invest in that one. Anyway back to Parsifal: re-reading the article last nightI agree that it still needs rather a lot of work. It is seriously under-referenced for a start, and I'll try to address that pronto. I agree that the discussion of the music is - well, it's non-existant, which must also be fixed. I also wonder if the synopsis shouldn't be placed after the composition section. At the moment it's below the section on performances, which to me seems somehow wrong.--Dogbertd 07:59, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have this rule with Rings, that if they're going for less than £50, then they must be bargains and therefore worth getting. ArkivMusis are having an opera sale, so I've ordered it for $66, together with Furst Igor (no 2 it's in German, the other isn't), Boris no 3, and Parsifal no5 (live Karajan joining Solti, Gui and Knappertsbusch twice)

On the substantive point, I would follow the order recommended over at WP:WPOi.e. composition above both perfomances and synopsis. More detailed analysis and criticism after sunopsis.--Peter cohen 14:32, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Leubald[edit]

Although Wagner recalled this fragment in 'Mein Leben' as 'Leubald und Adelaide', every source I have consulted (including Grove, which cites the 16-vol 'Saemtliche Schriften', Millington's 'Wagner Compendium', and WWV itself) give it as just 'Leubald'. In ML Wagner states that the manuscript was lost and he presumably wasn't therefore able to check the title. It appears the manuscript must have resurfaced - I don't myself know where it is. The balance of authorities would therefore seem to be with the shorter title. It wouldn't of course be the only inaccuracy in ML! --Smerus 18:05, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, it's a tricky one, then. I've got Millington's "Wagner compendium" which has it as leubald, as does Gutman, but I also have Gregor-Dellin, Mein Leben and Cosima's Diaries which all refer to it as Lebald und Adelaide. I confess I thought that if Wagner himself called it L&A I would go with that.--Dogbertd 11:23, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I've split the difference. In the body of the article it now appears as Leubald, but in the reference I've mentioned that it might also be found as L&A. Hope this is better.--Dogbertd 11:44, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

fair enough by me! --Smerus 16:28, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mein Leben[edit]

You are entirely correct. I was reverting an edit which changed the date to 1880, which I knew was totally wrong, and even though I thought 1850 sounded wrong, I just took it for granted (oops) that it was correct. Alexs letterbox 21:59, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Shepherd's pipe in Tristan und Isolde[edit]

Hi Dogbetd, You beet me to changing the cmmentabout the instrument used. I have it in my head that when WNO took Tristan to Oxford when I was a student the fist time, their assistant conductor (surname Negus) spoke to the Oxford Wagner Society and boasted that they were using a shawm. I was going to see whether I could source that somewhere.--Peter cohen (talk) 12:03, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi: well sad, obsessive type that I am, I still have the program for the Tristan I saw in Oxford in Dec 1980. The musical assistant is listed as Anthony Negus. I don't see any reference to a shawm, but there is a refernce to a Tarogato, which was clearly the instrument used at that performance, at least.--Dogbertd (talk) 15:05, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Now that I look at the programme I have from the performance of the same producion in the previous March, yes you're right. W must have beent Oxford a the same time. (I have four progamme from productions of rostan I've seen. It seems that I've only once not seen it conducted by Reggie the facist.)-Peter cohen (talk) 09:08, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

GA reassessment of Parsifal[edit]

I have conducted a reassessment of the above article as part of the GA Sweeps process. I have found some concerns with the referencing which you can see at Talk:Parsifal/GA1. I have placed the article on hold whilst these are fixed. Thanks. Jezhotwells (talk) 22:03, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wagner Project[edit]

As you know the Wagner project is hardly active now. I put a notice about this on the project talk page in December but no-one responded. I wonder if it is better to consolidate it into the Composers Project as a task force. What do you think? Thanks. --Klein zach 01:44, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I Agree. I hadn't done anything project-wise for ages, but strangely did very recently decide to make a Wagner Template, which definitely counts as project-related. But it seems as if the project is moribund, so I have no objection to consolidating it into Composers.--Dogbertd (talk) 16:40, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OK. I'm starting a discussion here. --Klein zach 01:12, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lohengrin discography revision to Refs section[edit]

I've reverted your edit on the re-ordered "Refs" section because there is consensus amongst the WikiProject Opera group that this format makes the most sense.

WE have begun a major revision of an existing format, but work is already proceding on changing many opera articles. Please take a look at Wikipedia:WikiProject Opera/Article styles and formats, plus the Talk page discussion which led up to it. Viva-Verdi (talk) 18:24, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I'll try to keep to this format in the other Wagner articles as well the next time I'm editing them.--Dogbertd (talk) 16:17, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Schopenhauer[edit]

It seems to me that Schopenhauer had an enormous effect on Wagner. The ways in which this occurred are not realized due to the fact that many people only know Schopenhauer through secondary sources. Any clarification of this influence would be very greatly appreciated.Lestrade (talk) 18:39, 29 March 2012 (UTC)Lestrade[reply]

Well, I've tried to point out in the articles on Tristan, Meistersinger and Parsifal, where Schopenhauer influenced Wagner. As for The Ring, I think Ludwig Feuerbach was more important here. But I've also tried to keep in mind that these are Encyclopedia articles for general reading, and not necessarily for specialists, so the Schopenhauer parts are not extensive. I won't write for the main article on Richard Wagner any more because it seems to attract so many lunatics.--Dogbertd (talk) 13:19, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi and Wagner for FA[edit]

Hi there, I hope that your inactivity on Wikipedia this year is merely evidence of your being more able to just say no to Wikipedia than I am rather than anything serious. David "Smerus" Conway and I are polishing the main Wagner article for FA in the hope of getting it to FA and onto the front page for the bicentenary. As you were one of the main developers of the article, I thought you might like to know.--Peter cohen (talk) 00:21, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! No, nothing serious. I decided that I'd rather spend my free time improving my piano playing - making music rather than writing about it! I also felt that most of the Wagner articles I was interested in were now of a pretty high standard, and I gave up on the idea of pushing them to FA status because, frankly, I think there's a group of people who will always vote against them reaching that position because they hate Wagner and what they think he stands for. Nevertheless, very good luck with getting the Wagner article to FA - I think it would be great (and fitting) if that were to happen in time for the anniversary.--Dogbertd (talk) 11:46, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

- Good to hear from you. Piano playing is definitely a good use of your time. I'm currently trying out some of Tallis's keyboard music on the old Joanna. I haven't a clue whether to decorate it or what pace to play it at. Also experimenting with the pedals in the belief that it should resonate like his church music does. Might invest in some lessons again.--Peter cohen (talk) 12:12, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Main page appearance: Cosima Wagner[edit]

This is a note to let the main editors of Cosima Wagner know that the article will be appearing as today's featured article on December 24, 2012. You can view the TFA blurb at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/December 24, 2012. If you prefer that the article appear as TFA on a different date, or not at all, please ask featured article director Raul654 (talk · contribs) or his delegates Dabomb87 (talk · contribs), Gimmetoo (talk · contribs), and Bencherlite (talk · contribs), or start a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/requests. If the previous blurb needs tweaking, you might change it—following the instructions at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests/instructions. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. The blurb as it stands now is below:

Cosima Wagner (1837–1930) was the daughter of pianist and composer Franz Liszt, and the second wife of composer Richard Wagner. She was previously married to the conductor Hans von Bülow. With Wagner she founded the Bayreuth Festival as a showcase for his stage works; after his death she directed the festival for more than 20 years, building its repertoire to form the Bayreuth canon of ten operas and establishing it as a major event in the world of musical theatre. She opposed theatrical innovations and adhered closely to Wagner's original productions of his works, an approach continued by her successors long after her retirement in 1907. Under her influence, Bayreuth became identified with anti-Semitism and theories of German racial and cultural superiority. This was a defining feature of Bayreuth for decades, into the Nazi era which closely followed her death in 1930; thus, although she is widely perceived as the saviour of the festival, her legacy remains controversial. (Full article...)

UcuchaBot (talk) 23:01, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dresden Amen[edit]

Hey Dogbertd,

I'm doing research on Mendelssohn, and he referenced dresden amen in sym. 5. I'm looking for resources offering analysis of the piece, would you happen to know of any links that the info on the page came from? Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by DSG124 (talk • contribs) 18:20, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Main Page appearance: Richard Wagner[edit]

This is a note to let the main editors of Richard Wagner know that the article will be appearing as today's featured article on May 22, 2013. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. If you prefer that the article appear as TFA on a different date, or not at all, please ask featured article director Raul654 (talk · contribs) or one of his delegates (Dabomb87 (talk · contribs), Gimmetoo (talk · contribs), and Bencherlite (talk · contribs)), or start a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/requests. You can view the TFA blurb at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/May 22, 2013. If it needs tweaking, or if it needs rewording to match improvements to the article between now and its main page appearance, please edit it, following the instructions at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests/instructions. The blurb as it stands now is below:

Richard Wagner (1813–83) was a German composer, theatre director, polemicist, and conductor primarily known for his operas. His compositions, particularly those of his later period, are notable for their complex textures, rich harmonies and orchestration, and the elaborate use of leitmotifs—musical phrases associated with individual characters, places, ideas or plot elements. These innovations greatly influenced the development of classical music; his Tristan und Isolde is sometimes described as marking the start of modern music. Wagner revolutionised opera through his concept of synthesising the poetic, visual, musical and dramatic arts. He first realised these ideas in his four-opera cycle The Ring of the Nibelung. He had his own opera house built at Bayreuth, containing many novel design features, where his most important stage works continue to be performed in an annual festival run by his descendants. Wagner's controversial writings on music, drama and politics have attracted extensive comment in recent decades, especially where they express antisemitic sentiments. The effect of his ideas can be traced in many of the arts throughout the 20th century. (Full article...)

UcuchaBot (talk) 23:02, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open![edit]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:00, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open![edit]

Hello, Dogbertd. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2018 election voter message[edit]

Hello, Dogbertd. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2018 election voter message[edit]

Hello, Dogbertd. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Good article reassessment for Parsifal[edit]

Parsifal has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 03:56, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]