Talk:Karlheinz Stockhausen/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2



Cause of death

Re: "The cause of death, according to his surroundings, was said to be a sudden heart failure.":

I don't know what "according to his surroundings" means or is intended to mean. It almost sounds as if someone wants us to think that Stockhausen's "surroundings" reported Stockhausen's cause of death, which of course is absurd. Or is it that Stockhausen's "surroundings" contributed somehow to his heart failure? For now, I'll remove "according to his surroundings" and await clarification. TheScotch (talk) 07:01, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

It sounds to me like a poor translation (Babelfish has got a lot to answer for!) from the German "Umgebung", which can mean "surroundings", "environs", "vicinity", but in this context would be better translated as "associates", or "acquaintances". You have done just the right thing, in my opinion—I was on the verge of making the same edit myself, more on grounds that the vague "associates" is tantamount to weasel words. I suppose that Wikipedia policy dictates a verifiable source for this, which shouldn't be difficult to find, since the cause of death has by now been reported in hundreds of newspaper obituaries.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 18:53, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Cologne Conservatory

When Stockhausen studied and taught there, it was called "Staatliche Hochschule für Musik". There is nothing like a "National Conservatory" in the Federal Republic of Germany, you might translate that as "Cologne State Conservatory". Nowadays it is simply called "Hochschule für Musik", officially translated as "Cologne University of Music" (see their homepage). I think it is fine to use just "Conservatory". 77.10.213.124 (talk) 18:41, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes. As explained in one edit note, "National Conservatory of Music" is the translation used in the composer's official biography. If the Hochschule's homepage translates it as "university", then I wonder what word they use to translate German "Universität". I agree that "conservatory" is the right word to use, but I don't think that "Cologne State Conservatory" will work, since there is no state of Cologne. What's wrong with just using the German name, possibly with a parenthetical "(Cologne Conservatory of Music)"?—Jerome Kohl (talk) 21:56, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
In fact, many people use "Musikhochschule Cologne" in their cv. Maybe the best solution… 77.10.196.37 (talk) 13:32, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Higher Education in Germany is organized at the level of the Land, or Federal State, thus the Conservatory located in Cologne is an institution belonging to the state of North Rhein-Westphalia and the professors are civil servants of that state. In the recent re-organizations of the institutions and degrees to conform with EU-wide norms, many of the conservatories have adopted the term University as part of their English name. That said, the translation of Hochschule to Conservatory is not always unproblematic, as in the case of Frankfurt which has a lower-level institution, Dr. Hoch's Conservatory as well as the higher degree-granting Hochschule. In the case of Cologne, this is not, however, a problem.

Citation style

I see that User:DannyDaWriter has tagged this article with the citation-style template, and so must believe that "The references in this article would be clearer with a different or consistent style of citation, footnoting, or external linking." However, he has not put the expected explanation here on the article's talk page, so it is not clear which of these options he is criticizing. As one of the major contributing editors to this article, I can say with confidence that (1) the citations are consistent in style, (2) there is no footnoting at all for sources (because the reference system used is Chicago style, which uses the in-text author-date format), and (3) the external links are also consistently formatted. Eliminating these options leaves only the possibility that the tagger believes the style of citation should be changed to improve clarity. My opinion is that the citations are perfectly clear as they are, but I invite DannyDaWriter's views on the subject, as well as any other editor who agrees or disagrees with him. However, I also wish to call attention to the section "Footnotes" earlier on this discussion page, and to point out that the Wikipedia style manual at Wikipedia:Citing_sources#Citation_styles states:

There are a number of citation styles and systems used in different fields, all including the same information, with different punctuation use, and with the order of appearance varying for the author's name, publication date, title, and page numbers. Any style or system is acceptable on Wikipedia so long as articles are internally consistent. You should follow the style already established in an article, if it has one; where there is disagreement, the style or system used by the first editor to use one should be respected.

With respect to the bit about differing system used in different fields, readers accustomed to, e.g., the Vancouver system (preferred in many scientific fields), may not find as clear the format of The MLA Style Manual (for the field of linguistics); and those accustomed to the Bluebook format used in the field of law, may not find the ones preferred in the humanities to be as clear, and vice-versa. FWIW, publications in the humanities (under which the present article falls), in the United States as well as the UK, tend to follow the Chicago Manual style or its close relatives, such as Hart's Rules and the so-called Harvard referencing style (also preferred in the fields of sociology and psychology).—Jerome Kohl (talk) 16:30, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

I concur and have removed the tag. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 06:04, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
Thank you. It is always best in these situations to have the agreement of at last one other editor.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 07:51, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
Yes indeed... As an aside: There are a couple references in the article I noticed that did not fit the Chicago style, I'm wondering how you recommend we handle them. I noticed they were in-line external links to web pages, but that's not a manual of style preferred method, so I changed them to footnote-style citations, since they are not published books. You can see them in the footnotes section if you want to review how I handled them. I didn't want to add them to the main references list because they aren't published books, they're web pages; they are reliable sources that can be used, but they would seem out of place in the list of books. I thought for webpages the footnote method works OK, though you're welcome to change them to a different method if you prefer. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 08:01, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
I have noticed your changes, and they seem sensible for the time being. I think that at least one of them (perhaps both) can be changed to Chicago style by putting the links in the References section, rather than at the intext citations. I'll have to think about this for a bit, though.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 05:59, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
OK, I thought about it, and also discovered that one of the two items was already in the References list. The other was easily added and, in the process, expanded to include both the original printed source and a second, slightly expanded version of the text, as well as the external link. The footnotes have, consequently, been replaced with intext Chicago-format citations, matching the others in the article.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 19:37, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
Looks good. Thanks for taking care of this. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 21:15, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
My pleasure. FWIW, I try wherever possible to treat web pages as if they were merely a convenient (and perhaps only temporary) way to access material published in a book, journal, newspaper, or other print medium. This proved actually to be the case for the Cosmic Pulses programme note, though the link doesn't make that absolutely clear (the webpage URL does include the phrase "cosmic_pulses_prog", and I remember when it was first put up it had an identifying link on the Stockhausen website's front page, which has since been removed). I also happened to have attended the German première and so have a copy of the booklet with the second version of the text. The other item was the one already in the list of References, where I put it some time ago. I expect that it will eventually appear in print, in one of the forthcoming volumes of the composer's Texte zur Musik.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 23:59, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Be this as it may, this citation style is extremely difficult to read. I hate having to skip and find where the article resumes. Especially where multiple references are cited. Kudos on the exceptional research. Bendgoman (talk) 05:46, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree. The citations break up the text in a thoroughly annoying fashion. In the interest of readability, I would argue for replacing the textual references by unobtrusive hypertext footnotes linking to the bibliography section. As this is an encyclopaedia, not a work of original research, I would put emphasis on easy access by the lay person. Radioflux (talk) 09:37, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

I prefer author-date styles myself, the problem here is the lack of links to the bibliography section. Would there be a consensus in keeping the citation style but tagging references and bibliography items the Wikipedia way? It would improve both readability and accuracy. --187.105.110.78 (talk) 15:38, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

What do you mean by "the Wikipedia way"? The only system I know of that does what I think you are suggesting is the family of Template:Harvard citations. Unfortunately, these all require reformatting all of the citations and the reference list according to a fabricated format style. (There is no such thing as a "Harvard format"—it is a generic term for author-date citation systems, of which there are many, none of which to my knowledge are used for that template.) This article, like many contemporary-music articles on Wikipedia, uses the Chicago Manual of Style's formatting system. As far as I am aware, there is no way of linking Chicago inline citations to the corresponding items in the source list. I agree that, with such a very long bibliography, it is sometimes a challenge to find the full reference, so I am open to suggestions.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 20:03, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

GA Fail

I am quick-failing per quick-fail criterion #1, as this article because it does not meet Wikipedia requirements for verifiability. The article needs to be sourced thoroughly before it is ready for GA level. GaryColemanFan (talk) 04:31, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Would you please elaborate ? This article has approximately 100 in-line references in the Chicago style, with almost every fact sourced to a particular reference. It would be helpful if you would provide some examples of statements in the article that you feel are unsupported. Thanks. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 05:33, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
What can I say? I was wrong. So many articles have been listed lately with no citations that I assumed this was another one of them. I glanced quickly over the article, saw no references, and didn't even think of Chicago style. I apologize for my haste and my mistake. Since I removed it from the list of Good Article Nominations, I suppose the best thing for me to do is perform a full review. Best wishes, GaryColemanFan (talk) 14:18, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
I will begin the review later, but one thing that will come up is the length of the lead. According to Wikipedia:Lead section, it should be much longer and summarize all of the key points of the article. If you would like to work on this while waiting for the full review, please feel free to do so. GaryColemanFan (talk) 16:09, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for your clarification and for the suggestion about the lead. I nominated this page for "Good Article" review because I've been impressed with the careful and accurate referencing and attention to detail, especially by Jerome Kohl who's done excellent work on this page. I don't know if he's interested in expanding the lead or not, and I didn't tell him or anyone else I was nominating the article, I just nominated because I thought it's better than most articles. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 21:20, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
I'm considering what needs to be added to the lede in order to summarize "all the key points". I am not a great fan of "much longer" introductory paragraphs, however, so I will be trying to be as efficient as possible. If other editors jump in before I get there, that's fine with me—many hands make light work.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 23:37, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

9/11 statement section

From a formatting viewpoint, the section heading "September 11, 2001 statement controversy" causes the entire Table of Contents to be much wider than needed, which in turn crowds the text of the article.

Maybe we could use the abbreviation "9/11" instead: "9/11 statement controversy" - that would allow the TOC to be more narrow and better for the layout. While 9/11 is not a global notation for a date (in Europe, it would be written 11/9/2001), the symbol 9/11 is known worldwide as an identifier for that incident, so I think it would be appropriate to use that abbreviation.

Another suggestion about that section: currently, it's in the biography section of the page and at the same outline level as " Career and adult life". It seems to me - it was just one event, not a whole part of his life, so that is too prominent. I suggest either making it a sub-section of "Career and adult life", or perhaps moving it down on the page to be a subsection of "Reception". Or, maybe it doesn't need a separate heading and can fit within " Career and adult life" without emphasis.

I'm not sure, these are just some thoughts on it... though as it is now, it seems very prominent, and the long title is crowding the page, so whether it's moved or not, maybe "9/11 statement controversy" would be a better heading. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 00:58, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

The newly expanded lede seems to help a bit with this. Though it seems a bit odd to adjust the length of a section title solely because of the way it makes the TOC appear, it does seem to me to be a bit on the long side. I also agree that putting it at the same outline level as "Career and adult life" is inappropriate. I don't think it really belongs under "Reception" but, rather, as part of the "Career and adult life" section, which you suggest as an alternative.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 06:30, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Re: "Maybe we could use the abbreviation "9/11" instead: "9/11 statement controversy"'":

I think that would be too informal for an encyclopedia. For that matter, since a date is not an event, I don't think the current title is appropriate either (length aside). TheScotch (talk) 17:29, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, "9/11 statement" or "September 11, 2001 statement" isn't just a date, though the compound modifier ought to hyphenated (since the second case involves an open compound, an en-dash would be used): "9/11-statement controversy" or "September 11, 2001–statement controversy". However, I agree it is an awkward title. What do you suggest as an alternative?—Jerome Kohl (talk) 17:41, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Re: "Well, "9/11 statement" or "September 11, 2001 statement" isn't just a date...."

I mean the "9/11" or "September 11, 2001" part. I know that the event is often referred to by the date, but I think this is slang--and, for that matter, distinctly intellectually lazy slang. (1. By "the event" I mean the World Trade Center attack, not the event of Stockhausen's remarking about the World Trade Center attack. 2. This date, by the way, happens to be significant to me for an altogether unrelated reason, and I may not be the only one.)

Re: "What do you suggest as an alternative?":

I suggest referring to the event rather than merely to the date of the event. I'm still pondering about a specific title (and I'll let you know if I come up with a good one), but even something like "Trade center attack comment" would be much better. (The terms statement and controversy or synonyms aren't strictly necessary. One or both can go if with them the title appears verbose.) TheScotch (talk) 17:59, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

I see you have changed the section title. Though it has not mde any noticeable difference to the length issue, I suppose the new one is no worse than the old. However, why the word "commentary"? It makes it sound like a sportscast.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 16:38, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
I recommend this new version: "Comments on the 9/11 attacks" and have placed that on the page for now. Combining "9/11" with the word "attacks" removes any ambiguity and makes the phrase universally recognizable. Regarding the concern mentioned that "9/11" is too informal, the Wikipedia page National Commission on Terrorist Attacks (formal title) is redirected to the title 9/11 Commission, which shows that the term is sufficiently formal and notable to identify the incident according to the consensus of the editors working on that article. That's also how the Commission is widely identified by the news media. I ran some Google searches and found a variety of books that mention Stockhausen's comments, using the term "9/11" or "9/11 attacks" in their discussions. Here are a couple examples: Harris, Lee, Civilization and Its Enemies: The Next Stage of History (page 4), and Graafland, Arie, Crossover: architecture, urbanism, technology (page 474) - there were more but I did not have time for more research. (as an aside, Graafland has the translation and also mentions the NY Times article). --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 05:24, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

GA Review

As with the other GA reviews that I do, this will be done a few sections at a time. I'm busy these days and can't make it through the full article at once, so I post my concerns as I go. Feel free to work, ask, or comment about them anytime (no need to wait until I'm finished the full review). As per the suggestion on the Good Article Nominations page, I like to do some copyediting as I go, so I won't post here about comma splices and stuff like that. If I see it, I fix it. With that said, my observations about the first few sections:

General:

  1. Is there a reason that the picture is on the right and the table of contents is on the left? I don't know if there is a guideline about this, but I've never seen an article formatted like this before. Every other article that I've sen has the picture on the right and the table of contents on the left.

Lead:

  1. The lead is still short for an article of this length. The recommended length for a 72K article is four paragraphs. If you would like, I can make some suggestions about what could go in the lead once I've finished reviewing the rest of the article.
  2. From the lead, “In addition to electronic music—both with and without live performers—his works, composed over a period of nearly sixty years, eschew traditional forms and range from miniatures for musical boxes through works for solo instruments, songs, chamber music, choral and orchestral music, to a cycle of seven full-length operas.” would be easier to follow if it was split into two sentences.

Childhood:

  1. In the first paragraph of the “Childhood” section, “institutionalized” could use a wikilink.
  2. In the second paragraph of the “Childhood” section, the hidden text disputes the claim about Stockhausen working as a cobbler. Is it possible to find out one way or the other? For the purposes of the GA review, I can pass it as is (the statement is simply that one source claims that he worked as a cobbler, and I believe that the source does make the claim…whether he worked as a cobbler or not, I don’t know, but the article doesn’t say that he did), but it would be better if you could resolve the dispute.
  3. Later in that paragraph, does the citation from Kurtz cover Stockhausen using his mother’s death as inspiration in Donnerstag aus Licht?
  4. In the last line of the “Childhood” section, “he” could refer to either Karlheinz or his father.
  5. I’m not a fan of parentheses, as I believe that it disrupts the flow of the article. I don’t see that it is necessary to use them for either of the parenthetical statements in the “Childhood” section. I recommend removing the parentheses and keeping the sentences as part of the regular text.

Education:

  1. In the “Education” section, I am wondering about “began attending Messiaen's courses and Milhaud's classes.” Could that be combined to avoid repeating courses and classes, or is the distinction important?
  2. Later in that paragraph, there is another parenthetical statement: “(In 1962 he succeeded Eimert as director of the studio.)” I see no need for the parentheses.
  3. In the same paragraph, are references available for Stockhausen’s work at NWDR or Die Reihe?

Family and home:

  1. In the “Family and home” subsection, it is unclear what happened to his first marriage. Did he remain married to Doris when he married Mary?
  2. The first two paragraphs should probably be combined, as they are quite short. Single-sentence paragraphs are discouraged.
  3. Are references available for the information about his wives and children?

"Space music" and Expo 70:

  1. The first sentence is long. I would recommend splitting it after Hymnen.
  2. "radically" seems like point of view.
  3. The sentence that discusses "Music in space" doesn't seem to be covered by the Kurtz and Föllmer references. If one of them mentions this information, a reference after that sentence should be used.
  4. My understanding is that the comma should come after the quotation marks around "gardens of music". Feel free to correct me, though.
  5. The quotation at the end of the section should be introduced somehow. For example, "According to one source,..." or "Stockhausen biographer Michael Kurtz wrote,..."

Publishing activities:

  1. This section doesn't have any references.

Comments on the 9/11 attacks:

  1. Did the same journalist ask both questions? If so, the second mention should be "the journalist". If not, it should be "another journalist". Repeating "a journalist" doesn't sound right. If it isn't known who asked the questions, perhaps rephrasing it to "Stockhausen was also asked..."
  2. The first block quotation needs to be introduced. For example, "Stockhausen replied:"
  3. Stockhausen's first quotation ("I pray daily to Michael...") needs a reference immediately after the quotation.

Death:

  1. Can you add a reference for Stockhausen having just finished the two works?

1950s:

  1. A reference is needed for the second sentence of the first paragraph.
  2. Halfway through the second paragraph, there is a mention of "the fourth". Clarifying what this means (the fourth movement?) would make the article more accesible to all readers.
  3. Near the end of the second paragraph, "ground-breaking" seems like point of view.
  4. In the third paragraph, the sentence that begins with "His position as "the leading German composer of his generation" (Toop 2001) was established..." needs a reference at the end.
  5. References should be used at the ends of the fourth and fifth paragraphs.

1960s:

  1. In the middle of the second paragraph, can you add a wikilink to "tape" in order to clarify?
  2. This section needs more references: The first paragraph is unreferenced. Everything but the last two sentences in the second paragraph is unreferenced. In the third paragraph, references are needed for Stimmung and Wandelmusik as well as the claim that Sternklang and Alphabet für Liège followed the ideas of Wandelmusik.

1970s:

  1. More references are needed: Stockhausen using formula composition through the completion of the opera-cycle Licht in 2003; Tierkreis and In Freundschaft becoming his most widely performed compositions; the sentence about Wolfgang Rihm; and the final sentence of the section.

1977-2003: #A reference for the description of Licht is needed. #The final sentence of the first paragraph needs a reference. #The second paragraph is unreferenced. #The third paragraph is unreferenced except for the link after the first sentence. #I am confused as to why this link appears in this manner. Is there a reason why it isn't formatted link the other online references? #I am also wondering why this section is so short compared to the others, as this covers a period of 26 years. Are Licht and Helikopter-Streichquartett the only things worth mentioning (they might be, but I'm not sure)?

2003-2007:

  1. A reference is needed for 21 of the works being completed before Stockhausen's death.
  2. Everything except the 13th hour is unreferenced.

Theories:

  1. My only concern with this section is that the final sentence of the first paragraph is unreferenced.

Musical influence:

  1. In the third paragraph, Brian Ferneyhough's quotations need references immediately after them. I know this seems redundant, but it is required by the Manual of Style.
  2. Paragraphs should be longer than one sentence. I recommend combining the paragraphs about Bertwistle, Andriessen and the jazz composers into one paragraph.
  3. In the final paragraph, clarification is needed for "This is also the case". The previous sentence mentions someone having used the name "Holger Schüring", so "this" appears to refer back to that sentence ("[Being known as Holger Schüring] was also the case for German electronic pioneers Kraftwerk").
  4. The three "citation needed" tags at the end will need to be dealt with.

Wider cultural renown:

  1. A reference is needed for the second sentence.
  2. The mention in Flow My Tears, The Policeman Said should be referenced, if possible. I know it happens on page 101 in the 1993 Vintage Books edition (ISBN 067974066X), but I don't know the publication city. Update: it was New York.
  3. The quotation from The Crying of Lot 49 should be referenced. I'll see if I can find my copy, but it might be packed away right now.

I know this seems like a lot, but it is a long article. You've been doing a great job at addressing these, and I will give time for the rest to be addressed. The review can now be considerd "On Hold". Please ask if you have any questions about these. Best wishes, GaryColemanFan (talk) 01:56, 5 April 2008 (UTC) -

I will try to take your questions in order. First of all, your copyedits so far have been excellent. Only in one case did you go beyond the evidence of cited sources.
Is there a reason that the picture is on the right and the table of contents is on the left?
I think you mean "picture on the left and TOC on the right" and, yes, there is a reason, documented in the note at the head of the article (which only shows in edit mode). It is in fact according to Wikipedia MOS (as well as style manuals in general) that profile portraits should face into the text. It has been a problem ever since that particular right-profile portrait was offered as a replacement for a possibly copyrighted one, that well-meaning editors who have only read the first sentence of the relevant portion of the MOS have changed the arrangement to R-portrait, L-TOC. I and two or three other editors repeatedly noted the problem, and I finally inserted the warning note.
Lead: I am already on record as opposing length for the sake of length. If the lede can do its job without coming up to guidelines, then I am all for keeping it short. If there are things in the article not already summarised in the lede, then I agree they need to be added. I'll see if I can come up with a way of splitting the complicated sentence into two simpler ones.
Childhood: I see that you have already dealt with your first query. The hidden text disputing the claim of cobbling was inserted by me. Proving non-existence of something is always much more difficult that proving existence. My point was that there are a number of authoritative sources for Stockhausen's biography (his own writings, and the Kurtz biography in particular), none of which mention this particular detail. The cited book, which is journalistic in character, does not itself give a source for this claim. The citation from Kurtz does, I think (though I will have to re-check it), cover the autobiographical material in Donnerstag. I will check the ambiguous "he" and allegedly excessive parentheses.
Education: There is an issue of difference between Messiaen and Milhaud, which involves the terminological difference you specify only marginally. Kurtz and Goeyvaerts make it clear that Stockhausen only attended two or three sessions with Milhaud before quitting in disgust. It appears that these were "lessons", rather than part of an organised course of instruction. Messiaen's analysis classes, on the other hand, seem to have been part of a conservatory or university curriculum, but Kurtz and the other sources are somewhat vague about this. Later, the parentheses can easily be removed, though I am contemplating moving this information out of "Education" and into the career section, whee it belongs. There are copious references for his work at (N)WDR and Die Reihe. I will look some up and add them.
Family and home: "it is unclear what happened to his first marriage. Did he remain married to Doris when he married Mary?" There is no evidence that I know of, one way or the other, as to whether a legal divorce from Doris was obtained before Stockhausen married Mary in 1967. Once again, it is much more difficult to prove a nonexistence than an existence. At the time of their marriage, Karlheinz was a Catholic, and Doris had converted from Protestantism for the sake of the marriage. As Catholics, they would not have recognised divorce but, by 1967, were either of them practising Catholics any more? As I said, I know of no source that cites legal documents in this case, one way or the other. "Are references available for the information about his wives and children?" Yes, there are. I will endeavour to provide some.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 04:28, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Replies to specific GA review points

  • RE: picture is on the right and the table of contents is on the left -
This is based on WP:MOS#Images: "Exception: Wherever possible, images of faces should be placed so that the face or eyes look toward the text, because the reader's eye will tend to follow their direction. Portraits with the face looking to the reader's right should therefore be left-aligned, looking into the text of the article." --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 03:41, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
Sounds good to me. Thanks for the clarification. GaryColemanFan (talk) 03:47, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
  • RE: Family and home: "Are references available for the information about his wives and children?"
I have added 18 references. I believe they cover all of the previously unsourced facts. In the process, I uncovered a few more details, which have been added as well.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 21:53, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
  • RE: Childhood: "does the citation from Kurtz cover Stockhausen using his mother’s death as inspiration in Donnerstag aus Licht?"
No, it does not. I have added the citation from Kurtz that does.
"In the last line of the “Childhood” section, “he” could refer to either Karlheinz or his father."
I have corrected the ambiguity with a direct quote from Kurtz.
"I recommend removing the parentheses and keeping the sentences as part of the regular text."
Agreed. It has been done.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 22:48, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
  • RE: Lead: From the lead, “In addition to electronic music—both with and without live performers . . .” Would be easier to follow if it was split into two sentences.
I have broken this in two.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 23:53, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
  • RE: Education:
I have addressed all of the issues raised.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 23:53, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
  • RE: Publishing activities: "This section doesn't have any references."
It does now.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 04:10, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
  • RE: "Space music" and Expo 70: "The first sentence is long. I would recommend splitting it after Hymnen."
Done.
"'radically' seems like point of view."
Agreed. We'll let the reader draw his/her own conclusions, now based on Stockhausen's own description.
"The sentence that discusses "Music in space" doesn't seem to be covered by the Kurtz and Föllmer references."
It may or may not be, but better references are now substituted.
"My understanding is that the comma should come after the quotation marks around 'gardens of music'. Feel free to correct me, though."
Technically, this is an issue of British vs. US norms. In the present article, 17 instances of UK comma/quote-mark usage against 3 of the US version (three more occur within direct quotations, where they must be retained) proves you right. This raises the question of whether British standards ought to be applied elsewhere, as well.
"The quotation at the end of the section should be introduced somehow. For example, 'According to one source,...' or 'Stockhausen biographer Michael Kurtz wrote,...'"
Done.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 05:24, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
  • RE: Theories: ". . . the final sentence of the first paragraph is unreferenced."
Am I looking at the wrong spot? The first paragraph ends "(Stockhausen Texte 1:99–139)", which looks like a reference to me.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 22:07, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, I haven't had a chance yet to go back and cross out the ones that have been addressed. You added that reference yesterday. GaryColemanFan (talk) 22:10, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
  • RE: 1950s: "A reference is needed for the second sentence of the first paragraph."
One has been added.
"Halfway through the second paragraph, there is a mention of 'the fourth'. Clarifying what this means (the fourth movement?) would make the article more accesible to all readers."
It means "the fourth of I–IV". I thought that was obvious but, since it appears not, I have now added a complex explanation in place of the simple one.
"Near the end of the second paragraph, 'ground-breaking' seems like point of view."
Yes, it is. I was assuming a single citation was all that was necessary for one sentence, but in case it is not, I have now separately cited each and every item and—to be on the safe side—made it a direct quote instead of a paraphrase.
"In the third paragraph, the sentence that begins with "His position as 'the leading German composer of his generation' (Toop 2001) was established..." needs a reference at the end."
Well, I see one there now. Did I only add this recently?
"References should be used at the ends of the fourth and fifth paragraphs."
They have been added.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 23:21, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
  • RE: Death: "Can you add a reference for Stockhausen having just finished the two works?"
I can only find a ref for one of the two, and I have added it. Glanz was also mentioned at the time, but it may have been in a private email or some other uncitable source, so I have removed it.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 23:35, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
  • RE: 1960s: "This section needs more references"
I have put in at least one reference for every sentence in the section. I would say it is a bit over-referenced now, but if that is what Wikipedia requires . . .—Jerome Kohl (talk) 00:51, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
  • RE: 1970s: "More references are needed"
All specified places are now reffed. BTW, concerning "Space music" and Expo 70: "My understanding is that the comma should come after the quotation marks around 'gardens of music'", I addressed this a while ago, but I see it has not been struck through. Is there still a problem?—Jerome Kohl (talk) 20:39, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
The comma was still before the quotations marks. I moved it just now, so I have crossed it off. GaryColemanFan (talk) 20:53, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
Oops! I was so preoccupied with moving all the other commas, I forgot to fix the main one! Thanks!—Jerome Kohl (talk) 21:53, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
  • RE: 1977-2003: "A reference for the description of Licht is needed."
One has been added, but not everything in the description is covered by it. Frisius's article/book chapter needs to be added, but I don't have the details handy just now.
"The final sentence of the first paragraph needs a reference."
This, too, is now "partially" reffed. Furthers refs need adding for the named works apart from Lucifer's Dream.
"I am confused as to why this link appears in this manner. Is there a reason why it isn't formatted link the other online references?"
I have no idea what the editor who inserted this (long before my time, I believe) thought he was doing, but this whole paragraph was moved from another location in the article, and needs re-integrating, or perhaps deleting, in connection with:
"I am also wondering why this section is so short compared to the others, as this covers a period of 26 years. Are Licht and Helikopter-Streichquartett the only things worth mentioning (they might be, but I'm not sure)?"
The Helicopter Quartet is actually a part of Licht, which was just about "all" that Stockhausen composed in these 26 years (though seven full-length operas come to quite a lot). However, the reason this section is so short is that, once upon a time, all of the sections were about this length. The others have been expanded, mostly by me, but this one has been left to last, partly because there is a separate article on Licht. I will see what I can do to flesh it out.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 20:20, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
I have converted the Helicopter Quartet ref from an external link to a proper citation, and added the print version of the text in the References list. This section still needs expanding and balancing, and refs are still missing from some claims made about the Helicopter Quartet, not all of which can be verified from Stockhausen 1996c (e.g., the later performances in Salzburg and Brunswick). I'm still working on this.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 16:17, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
One idea would be to add a link to Licht as the "main article" and leave the section in this article as is. For example, my main work is in professional wrestling articles. If you look at Randy Orton, you'll see that the section on "2002–2003" begins with a link to Evolution (professional wrestling) and 2006–2007 begins with a link to Rated-RKO. That ensures that the information is readily available but reduces the need for duplicating material. GaryColemanFan (talk) 20:32, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
Sure, I've seen plenty of examples like that, and it would be pointless to simply duplicate the material in the dedicated Licht article here. A "main article" link is a good idea, but the 1977–2003 section is still out of proportion to the others, and could be judiciously expanded. I also find it odd to have this section dominated by the Helicopter Quartet, which is after all only one component scene of one of the seven Licht operas. It's rather like the proverbial dog-wagging tail. There is also an article dedicated to this quartet, so perhaps the material here should be minimized with a direct to that more ample article. I'll see what I can do, but it may take a couple of days.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 00:49, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
  • RE: Musical influence: "The three 'citation needed' tags at the end will need to be dealt with." and Wider cultural renown: "A reference is needed for the second sentence."
I have deleted two of the three claims in the first case, since no one (including myself) has been able to discover any suppoert for them since last November. I have also deleted the virtually meaningless sentence from the 'Wider cultural renown section, on grounds that, though difficult to prove, it is probably true for a great many composers that their names are better known than their music and, conversely, what would it mean if the music were widely known and the composer's name hardly at all (e.g., it is almost certainly true that more people know the tune "Happy Birthday" than have ever heard of the composers)?—Jerome Kohl (talk) 22:06, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
Addendum: The first paragraph is now completely reffed, save only for the claim about Michaelion, which will be done shortly. The "fleshing out" is proceeding, and refs have been added for most of the Helicopter Quartet material—not yet for the claim about life-long flying dreams, though everything else in that paragraph is covered by the ref at the end.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 19:53, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
The 1977–2003 section is now reffed to the gills. It is still potentially subject to some expansion, though I think it now balances the other sections fairly well. This now leaves only the lede, which still looks adequate to me, even if the "formula" demands some padding out.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 05:56, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
You've done a great job of addressing the concerns I brought up. There is still a "citation needed" tag at the end of the "Musical influence" section that should be dealt with. As for the lead, I still don't think it summarizes all of the key points of the article. I feel that it should contain some brief information about his education and most significant works (one paragraph total), as well as a mention of his death. I'm not looking for a big expansion, but I think adding another paragraph would help the article quite a bit (and will probably help with the layout, as well). GaryColemanFan (talk) 06:18, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
Many thanks. I have now added some material to the lede, following your suggestions. The result may not yet quite add up to the quantity specified by the wiki guidelines, but it seems to me that the spirit (if not the letter) of the law has been satisfied.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 05:00, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
I think it provides a much better overview of the article. I'm happy with it. The only remaining thing is the citation for the Melody Maker interview. Because this is hard to find and is a very minor item overall, I decided to rephrase the sentence and place the statement about the interview in hidden text. If anyone can find a reference or simply wishes to rephrase or delete the statement about Chris Cutler citing Stockhausen as an influence, please feel free. Thanks for your hard work on the article. It now meets the Good Article criteria, and I have promoted the article. If anyone feels this review is in error, please feel free to bring up your concerns at Good Article Reassessment.
Finally, I am reviewing articles to help cut down on the blacklog at the Good Article Nominations page. It would be great if you could perform a review as well. Best wishes, GaryColemanFan (talk) 14:19, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for your kind words, and for all the pointers for improving this article. I have never performed a review on the Good Articles Nominations page, but I will have a look at it and see if I can help.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 22:32, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Some sceptical remarks

In order to give a somewhat more realistic view of Stockhausen's personality and art, why not taking him a bit more literally? According to interviews he gave, there was a difference between "Stockhausen" and "himself". "He" could use his body like a car, even leave it. While "Stockhausen" might have studied at Cologne (As far as I know, he studied "Schulmusik", which is at a much lower level than studying "Musik"), "he" had studied on a planet of the Sirius. Then there is the "opera" cycle Licht. The main character is "Michael", a kind of archangel who presently rules the entire universe. The meaning of "Michael" is "Who is like Christ". As part of Licht, there is "Michaels Jugend" ("Michael's youth"). Not surprisingly, "Stockhausen", or maybe "he", took his own youth as model for it. Stockhausen was believer of reincarnation and, besides, was just convinced, he was himself "Michael", i.e. Jesus Christ. (No, I'm not joking, but read volumes 1-6 of the Du Mont edition of the Texte zur Musik.) It would have been a little more impressive instead of only nominating him as equivalent of Beethoven.

Concerning Stockhausen's youthful education, why not mentioning the repertoire he played until he came to Cologne. Self admittedly, it solely consisted of popular dances and hits from movies made in Hollywood. His knowledge of art music was therefore zero.

There is still another idea (Perhaps, you won't like it.): Your article at present state may give an impression of advertising in favour of certain productions of a certain company. I may in so far quote from an older posting:

Someone should look into the whole business concerning Stockhausen's publishing house. I think that the publishing house is part of the Stockhausen foundation and that the recording company is part of the publishing house. In that respect it is not enough to say that Stockhausen founded the record company "to make this music permanently available on compact disc". Rather, one should think of it as part of a concept, with which Stockhausen wants to make his life's work permanently available. Interesting in this respect is also, that Stockhausen bought back the rights for the publication of his pieces, both for scores and recordings ("Gaining access" sounds to passive, I think).

If you wrote an article about let's say the cars of "ABC" Inc. and did it the same way, your article would very soon be deleted. At last: What would you guess, of all people being interested in music, are there more than 0.001 % who actually like Stockhausen's "music" or even know it or can recognize it as being music, or are there less? In any case, your article - as far as it is Stockhausen's rank as artist concerned - is at best representing opinions of a very, very small minority. Of Stockhausen's works, the piece "In Freundschaft" is still rather frequently played, but nearly all of the rest has turned out to be not "lasting" but practically dead.80.144.66.192 (talk) 14:15, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm pretty shocked as well that there's no mention whatsoever in the article of Stockhausen's eccentric and thoroughly documented beliefs about his extraterrestrial origins. For what it's worth, though, your translation of Michael is a bit off. :) 67.188.45.69 (talk) 21:05, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
Somewhere elsewhere on this talk page this has been addressed. The "thorough documentation" unfortunately amounts to a lot of journalistic exaggeration and extrapolation of a simple statement Stockhausen made about a recurring dream. (If it is "eccentric" to have odd dreams, then an awful lot of us fall into that category.) To take just one example, a British journalist recently claimed that Stockhausen actually dinied having been born in the Burg Mödrath, despite the fact that his own official biography states his birthplace as being that building, and he stated flatly in a fairly recent interview, "I never said I was born on Sirius". Nonetheless, this business has already generated the article Sirius (Stockhausen), and I have been working on proper documention for the main biography article, which now only lacks an important view by Stockhausen's chief biographer, Robin Maconie, from two radio broadcasts in the past year, about the intended humour in Stockhausen's report. (And Special Contributor's translation of "Michael" isn't the only thing in his complaint that is "a bit off".)—Jerome Kohl (talk) 22:25, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
I was wrong about a previous discussion being on this talk page. It is on my User talk page, instead. In the meantime, I have found the short version of Maconie's interpretation, in his book Other Planets, but the longer one (in a transcript of radio interview) still hasn't shown itself.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 00:11, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
It would be nice to have something more regarding his extra-musical esoteric interests, particularly theosophy (was he into Rudolph Steiner also?) because they undoubtedly shaped his development as a composer, I haven't looked at it yet but there is "...How Creation Is Composed": Spirituality in the Music of Karlheinz Stockhausen, by Günter Peters and Mark Schreiber (1999), perhaps there is something useful in that, I also recall Towards a Cosmic Music having material that might be relevant to this topic. Semitransgenic (talk) 21:41, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
I believe you will find Günter Peters's article extremely interesting, but not to do with "extra-musical esoteric interests". Rather, Peters demonstrates connections between Stockhausen's thinking and many literary and mainstream theological writings. There are also at least two articles by Thomas Ulrich, not presently in the bibliography, and several others dealing with the spiritual/theological dimensions of Stockhausen's music, particularly from a Christian point of view. Perhaps this is "esoteric" by your standards, though a few Catholic and Protestant Christians might take offense at being so characterized. The linked article on Sirius already addresses his interest in the writings of Jakob Lorber, but that was strictly to do with the composition of that one work. I personally do know he was very skeptical about Rudolf Steiner, but to try to insert this into the article would be purely original research and, besides, would disapoint you, personally, since you seem to want some enthusiastic embrace on Stockhausen's part, which certainly did not exist.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 01:48, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
Re:Steiner,no, not at all. I recall something about a brush with theosophy, and was aware of his enthusiasm for Christian mythology, or whatever one might call it (in actuality pre-Christian ), so thought there might be a Steiner connection. As far as I'm aware, spirituality was an important aspect of his life, whatever the guise, and that such beliefs influenced his thinking regarding creative practice, particularly from the 60's on, but little of this is discussed in the article. I can appreciate why you might want to veer away from such matters but it could add interest. Semitransgenic (talk) 02:17, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

The picture

Just wondering, is everybody satisfied with the picture? It is great to have a free, CC licensed picture, of course, but I'm not sure if it has much educational value - it doesn't really show the composer's face. Stockhausen's official website has a link to this very article right on their front page; maybe they wouldn't mind to license a photo for us? Granted, it'd have to be a GFDL-compatible license - not just for Wikipedia. But perhaps its worth a try to write to the Stockhausen Foundation (see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission) on the subject of something like this. I can't do it myself because my English isn't good enough for anything law-related (and besides, maybe I'm in the minority here.) --Jashiin (talk) 16:23, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

The picture is terrible—an amateur snap taken from a bad angle at a concert in the UK. I have contacted Kathinka Pasaveer (or, rather, she contacted me to ask what could be done) and she has supplied a selection of portraits taken by her over the years, with suitable licensing. I have no experience putting images up on Wikipedia Commons, so I am taking it slowly, following the guidelines given there. Please be patient, I want to get this right so that we don't have the management removing the portraits as soon as they are put up.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 19:20, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
This is great news. I'll be eagerly (and patiently :) waiting for the new picture. --Jashiin (talk) 19:30, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
It has taken a long time, but at last there are better pictures. I have inserted three, one of which replaces the unsatisfactory one at the beginning of the article. There are still some issues with the presentation of the images, and I am completely new at this, so any help would be greatly appreciated. There are a few more now available on the Wikipedia Commons.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 21:42, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
This is terrific! What would you like to change about the presentation of the images? Perhaps I could help, I have some experience with raster graphics editors. --Jashiin (talk) 21:48, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
It's not so much the presentation. The thumbnails of four of the recently uploaded images on Wikipedia Commons, including the third one I added to this article (Stockhausen in Studio N at the time of the mixdown of Angel-Processions, in the subsection "1977–2003"), display as negative images on one browser (Safari 4.0.4). The full images are fine, and using different browsers (e.g., Firefox), even the thumbnails may be correct, and it is only those four out of seven images that do this.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 03:47, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
The following images don't display at all here with Internet Explorer, not as thumbnails nor in full resolution:
They do display in Firefox, although the colours don't seem quite right. If I download the files to my PC (Windows XP), they show in some of my image viewers with distorted colours, in some they seem OK. I suspect the files don't quite conform to JPEG specifications. I found that saving one of these using the Windows XP on-board program MS Paint, the discolouration disappears. I'm a bit reluctant to replace Jerome's files with my corrections because I'm about to go on a week's holiday and won't be able to discuss such changes for that time. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 06:38, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
You have identified the four images that display as negatives for me in Safari, while displaying correctly in Firefox. Since Microsoft stopped supporting Internet Explorer in 2001 (for Macintosh), I'm not able to say anything about this antiquated browser. I do see the colour distortion you mention (especially in the skin tone in the second and third images you cite), but I am a complete and utter, 24-carat, grade A newbie to colour graphics on the web in general, and to graphics on Wikipedia in particular. If you (or anyone else) can fix these colour problems without somehow running athwart the GNU/CC licensing specifications, I would be very grateful.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 07:06, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
I have uploaded a new version of File:Stockhausen March 2004 excerpt.jpg, overwriting the previous one. I can now see the image in what seems to be proper colours, in Internet Explorer. Should I do the same with the remaining three? -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 08:50, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Notable students

Regarding this list, what is the threshold for inclusion? There is a trend in serious music circles where composers state that they have "studied with [insert name composer here]" after having done something as superficial as attended a 45 minute seminar (a cynical example). Surely "student of" implies an extended period of one to one tuition, or studentship at an institution where a semesters worth of classes were taken with said composer? At the very least participation in a Stockhausen directed course at Kuerten, or Darmstadt, would be something, but even then "student of" could be viewed as a bit of a stretch. I think the list should be trimmed to include only those who are qualifiedly "students of". The matter of notability is then another issue. Semitransgenic (talk) 18:39, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

I have done this already, to the best of my ability. The present list contains those students actually listed in the participants at the Cologne Courses for New Music, those who were registered students in Stockhausen's courses at the Cologne Musikhochschule, the University of Pennsylavania in 1964, the University of California Davis in 1966–67, or who are documented as having studied with him privately before, during or after these time-frames. I have tried to exclude people who merely showed up for the odd lecture here and there (your "cynical example", and there are more than a few claimants who fall into this category and have been excluded for that reason). I think this addresses the issue of "students of" (and it must be kept in mind that a composer of Stockhausen's stature would attract students in very large numbers). The issue of notability is, as you say, a different matter entirely, and a very problematic one on Wikipedia generally. Over on the List of Twentieth-Century Composers by Birth Date, for example, it has been proposed that any composer with at least ten recordings qualifies not just as notable, but as of extreme importance. Sadly, this is a criterion ordinarily used for pop singers, and very few composers of even very modest notability born before 1980 or so can fail to qualify by this standard. Consequently, a better standard had better be found. (Not to mention the fact that some of Stockhausen's students in this list are notable for reasons other than for being composers (famous conductors, painters, rock musicians, sociologists, etc.)—Jerome Kohl (talk) 01:32, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
fair enough, good work in weeding them out, as for the notability of the others on the list, wouldn't evidence of innovation be a qualifier? Semitransgenic (talk) 02:19, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
Innovation might be one qualifier amongst many others. I do not recall that it is mentioned in the Wikipedia guideline on notability, however. "Fame" seems to be a better criterion, but again is only one of a range of things,and fame may be fleeting. Often bluelink status can be a guide (but only a guide, since Wikipedia articles are not sacrosanct and may themslves be challenged and removed on grounds of non-notability). Conversely, redlink status does not necessarily mean a subject is non-notable, but I take the position that, if an editor believes a redlinked name is notable, then he or she ought to write an article on that subject with sufficient documentation to demonstrate notability. Thus I removed all the redlinks long ago (or, in one or two cases, wrote articles demonstrating notability), and will continue to revert attempts to add new redlinks to this list. (Speaking of which, I see someone recently slipped in a redlink that i didn't notice. It shall be removed forthwith.)
I think this issue needs considerable further discussion, not in the local context of just this article, but in terms of Wikipedia generally. As I have already indicated, the criteria by which a pop singer is judged to be notable are not the same as those for a composer. Nor, indeed, are the criteria for notability of a politician the same as those for an explorer or for an advertising executive—nor should they be. The question you raise of threshhold is a very serious one, especially taken in such a larger context. If an advertising executive was once famous, but is now largely forgotten, does this mean he has now lost notability, or is he still a notable figure because he was once famous? Is a politician important in his own country but not at all known on the world stage notable or not notable? These same questions of course apply to composers, performers, painters, sociologists, and so on. That said, I am inclined to err on the side of inclusion, so long as some level of notability is established.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 11:32, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
well it seems to me that in the serious music tradition the trend has largely been one of compositional innovation leading to recognition within a peer group, which in turn leads to wider recognition at a societal level, once the composers contributions are deemed culturally valid. The popular music world functions differently because marketing budgets are involved, though niche scenes appear to function according to a peer recognition system. Semitransgenic (talk) 12:53, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

9/11 drama

Just wondering why this "Comments on the 9/11 attacks" is positioned where it is, seems out of place, shouldn't it be in the criticism section? I would like to move it. Semitransgenic (talk) 02:22, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

It looks to me that it is placed where it is because it is part of Stockhausen's biography. Nothing in this subsection bears critically on his music (either positively or negatively), so it would seem inappropriate to place it under Criticism.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 11:09, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
well then, relative to the amount of coverage given to the rest of his 70 odd years of existence the fuss surrounding the 9/11 debacle does not in my mind warrant this amount of verbiage, and especially not in its current location, it may be covered by WP:UNDUE: An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject, but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject. Note that undue weight can be given in several ways, including, but not limited to, depth of detail, quantity of text, prominence of placement, and juxtaposition of statements. Semitransgenic (talk) 12:59, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
Personally, I couldn't agree with you more. However, at the time of the major revisions to this article following the composer's death, there were a number of editors who felt this section ought to be expanded from its earlier form. I have respected that opinion and, unless there has been a collective change of heart, I think we should probably continue to do so. If you want to try trimming it, I will not stand in your way so long as the edits do not distort the facts. However, I wouldn't be surprised if you met with objections from other quarters.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 01:38, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
Irrespective of the views previously expressed by other editors this sub-section is undoubtedly problematic in its current state and contravenes WP:UNDUE. Also I'm not sure why this item cannot be placed in a new sub-section in criticism, why does criticism necessarily have to be specific to his compositional practice? Perhaps a new sub-section entitled 'controversy' would solve this? (see Richard Wagner as an example of how this will work) Semitransgenic (talk) 10:35, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
Well, the point is that there was nothing critical involved in the affair at all, just journalistic manipulation and misrepresentation of words that were carelessly chosen at the end of a long and tiring day. 'Controversy' sounds like a good alternative, though if memory serves, a section of this or similar title is where this material was originally placed (I'm too tired now to comb through the edit history). That doesn't mean it can't be restored, though.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 01:20, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
OK well considering the issues here that are highlighted in WP:UNDUE I am invoking WP:BOLD and will adjust the article accordingly. Semitransgenic (talk) 01:59, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
Give the edit a look, if you are satisfied with its current position we can consider the matter closed for now, does that suit you? Semitransgenic (talk) 02:33, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
Apart from the lousey speling of "controversy" (wich I hav fixxt), I think it's just fine ;-) —Jerome Kohl (talk) 02:30, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
sorry about! : ) I noticed that you have edited the Space music article in the past, I've inadvertently opened a new can of worms over there, maybe you would like to say something on the matter? Semitransgenic (talk) 02:38, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the "heads up" about the Space Music article. I had noticed there was some activity on the talk page there, but have frankly been way too busy this week to pay it any attention. I will be interested to see what species of worms are in the can you have opened!—Jerome Kohl (talk) 11:24, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

I support the move of the 9/11 section to a less prominent location. I've mentioned previously it had too much emphasis. It's an unusual comment, but it's a minor incident in a very notable composer's life and should not pop out of the article as if it were a major issue. So, good move. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 06:14, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Family and home

I'm a bit surprised that Suzanne Stephens and Kathinka Pasveer are not mentioned anywhere in the body of the article. After all, they do come up regularly in obituaries, etc. In particular, it seems a bit odd to list here the compositions that were written for Stockhausen's children and not to include in the same section the far more numerous compositions written for Stephens and Pasveer. It's rather like having a Stravinsky article that contained no mention of Robert Craft except in citations of the conversation books. I would put something together myself, but perhaps Jerry or others have made a conscious decision to exclude the whole subject (and in any case Jerry would do a much better job than I could).

The only other problem I noted was the reference to performances having been "announced for 10 January 2009 in Paris, and 8 November 2008 in London": obviously this should be updated now. Otherwise, it's a great article.Uthor (talk) 17:06, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

As one of the most active editors on this article, I'm perhaps even more surprised than you are at the omission of Suzanne Stephens and Kathinka Pasveer. Thanks for pointing this out. I shall have to attend to this (with proper documentation, of course). The updating of "upcoming performances" on past dates is a bit embarrassing, but has to do with the addition of a (comparatively) new article on the Klang cycle, which is meant to supercede much of the material in that section.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 17:29, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

sri aurobindo and eccentricity

it looks like Stockhausen afficionados are editing this page in his favour. He certainly stated that he received his musical training on a planet orbiting sirius - I personally saw this fax in the offices of the Barbican in November 2001. It was part of a long refutation he wrote in response to John O'Mahoney's article. He may have denied saying it later but he clearly wrote it in black and white and the fax was even published on his website for a while. I see the reference on the Sirius page, but it is not just a reference to a dream - he surely believed it.

It is also perfectly fair to represent his polygamous relationship which is not in doubt and never denied.

Also, why is there no mention of Sri Aurobindo at all on this page? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.216.128.21 (talk) 21:30, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Looks like you just added it.DavidRF (talk) 22:00, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
Unfortunately, hearsay about an alleged fax does not constitute a reliable source. In the available sources, Stockhausen refers to a series of dreams in which he "learned" that he "came from" Sirius (though whether in this life or a previous one he never said), and had received his musical training there. I do not know of any reference to a planet orbiting that star but, if you can find a published copy of the fax you saw, do please let us know about it. In the meantime, his belief on this point remains ambiguous because of a number of at least partially conflicting statements.
I presume by "polygamous relationship" you refer to his marriage to Mary Bauermeister. I, for one, have never seen any solid evidence one way or another about whether he bothered to obtain a divorce from his first wife, Doris, and so the question of bigamy is untestified. Again, if you have the documentation needed to support this claim, by all means bring it forward. If, on the other hand, you are referring to other relationships, it would be well to clarify what you think should be included, and with reliable sources, of course.
Sri Aurobindo (or, rather, Satprem's biography of him) does indeed figure in Stockhausen's biography, and this omission here should be corrected, along with discussion of other literary influences of a spiritual nature, such as the writings of Hazrat Inayat Khan, the Urantia Book, and the Bible (together with associated apocrypha and liturgical texts, such as the Third Book of Daniel, the Gospel of Thomas, the Greater Doxology, the Pentecost Hymn "Veni Creator Spiritus", etc.). This is especially important because texts from some of these sources were used by Stockhausen in some of his compositions, and the titles of some others derive from them (Gesang der Jünglinge, for example, or Momente, as well as some of the late pieces from the Klang cycle). Perhaps a new section should be added for this purpose. Thanks for the suggestion.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 22:51, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

By "polygamous relationship" i am referred to his cohabiting relationship with two women who he referred to as "wives" according to the interview he gave O'Mahony - i quoted and cited this, that should be sufficient.

Regarding the fax in which he mentions receiving his musical training on a planet orbiting Sirius, this was actually published on Stockhausen's website at the time but has since been removed. This is referred to in the Guardian's corrections column which i cited but has since been removed. It's not an alleged fax to me - I saw it, and we had a good laugh - but sadly i never copied it. It does seem a little like some Stockhausen enthusiasts would rather downplay this claim of his, and maybe he sought to do so himself later in his life, but he was adamant about it at the time. That's why it appears fairly often in trashier newspaper articles about him - if it was libellous they wouldn't get away with it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.216.128.21 (talk) 03:22, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

First of all, the O'Mahony article you quoted must be the wrong one, because it is not an interview with anyone. It does include one or two sentences quoted from Stockhausen (and at least as many from Boulez), but the reference to his "wives" is not one of them, nor even close. In the nearly twenty-five years I knew Stockhausen, I never once heard him refer to either Suzanne or Kathinka as a "wife", either privately or publicly, and it would surprise me very much to learn of a reliable source actually quoting him using this word. Quoting O'Mahony is sufficient only to establish that this journalist used the word. I recall vaguely a German newspaper report from about 1980 that described Suzanne Stephens as Stockhausen's "Ehefrau" (wife), but even if I could now recall where exactly it was published, it was still nothing more than a journalist's (mis)understanding at the time, not a quotation from Stockhausen, nor a citation of where a marriage certificate could be found.
Second, I have no doubt that there was some sort of fax, at some time, and it is possible that it was once on Stockhausen's website, though I do not recall seeing it there myself. That does not, however, constitute a reliable source, which is why I substituted the refutation published earlier by Stockhausen, which must contain more or less the same statement as this lost fax. It seems almost conspiratorial to me that even the Guardian removed the material from their corrections column between the time you posted the link and the time I referred to it. Perhaps you should try using the Internet Wayback Machine to try and recover an archive of the earlier version that contained the quotation? In any case, I doubt that it would be substantially different from the one I found and substituted.
The main point here is that certain journalists, all or most of whom seem to have worked for the same British newspaper, kept repeating between about 1991 and 2008 this fantastic story that Stockhausen had once claimed he was an extra-terrestrial visitor, but efforts to find such a quotation have failed so far. It does rather smack of journalistic sensationalism. Certainly Stockhausen reported having dreams about Sirius, and that in these dreams he "learned" that he somehow "came from" Sirius and "received his musical education" there, but not only does he never say in these statements that he was born anywhere other than Mödrath, he also specifically denies—in the source I have found as well as (presumably) in the fax you once saw—that he ever said he was "born on Sirius", or on a planet orbiting that star. This must therefore be regarded as inaccurate journalistic embellishment, at best. As to the other things you have quoted, I'm not sure I understand how the fact that Stockhausen once read a book is supposed to support a claim of eccentricity, though I have noticed that younger people today are less inclined to read books than was the case forty or fifty years ago. Have you had any luck tracking down the claim that either Satprem's biography or the writings of Aurobindo himself (which Stockhausen also read, by the way) had anything at all to do with Licht? I know of no such connection myself, and intend to remove this statement unless a source can be found for it.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 18:12, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

okay, fair enough. I agree Andrew Clements definitely had a problem with Stockhausen, but not John O'Mahony - I think he came into it pretty fresh. As i recall the refutatory (?) fax had about 21 points one of which was to refute that he stated being born on or near Sirius, but did wish to assert the musical training aspect. Saying that you "came from" (your quotation marks) and receiving your musical training on or near Sirius probably qualifies as eccentricity in a lot of people's books.

Agreed that the Sri Aurobindo connection need not necessarily be cited as eccentricity. However, having a co-habiting relationship with two women at once would be regarded as unusual, at least in Western Europe. The connection is with "Aus den Sieben Tagen" - my mistake.

Perhaps instead we could have a section "Stockhausen and the press"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.216.128.21 (talk) 19:57, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

I think that a section on Stockhausen's sometimes adversarial relations with the press would be a great idea, and certainly this "born on Sirius" nonsense would be an important part of it. The chief danger would be in letting things run on and on, with endless quotations from negative and often ill-informed reviews. I have several ideas of quotations that should be included (dating back to at least 1958), because they explain the origins of some of the myths that have grown up around Stockhausen's music, which surely is a more important subject than myths about the man himself.
O'Mahony certainly did have some issues about Stockhausen, even if not to the extent Clements did, but in both cases they were passing along and further embellishing half-understood rumours they had read "somewhere"—probably in the archives of the Guardian. As to saying things about "coming from" (I used the quotation marks because they are Stockhausen's words, as opposed to O'Mahony's or Clements's) and receiving musical training on Sirius, Stockhausen himself freely admitted (in quotations found in Toward a Cosmic Music—translated from Texte IV—and the Tannenbaum conversation book) that he was reluctant to say much about the dreams he had at the time he was composing Sirius, because he knew people would laugh. You may find a fuller treatment of this in the article on Sirius.
Don't be too quick to withdraw your statement about Sri Aurobindo and Licht. You have pointed to Günter Peters's article on Aus den sieben Tagen, found in his collection of essays Holy Seriousness in the Play, and this indeed demonstrates a connection with Licht, even if not quite so sweeping as you suggested. I believe, however, that these connections would best be placed in the sections covering the composition of Aus den sieben Tagen and Licht, since they have little to do with relations with the press. Thank you for calling my attention to this passage from Peters's book, which I had overlooked up to now.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 20:52, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

I would say that his life is probably as important as his music in encyclopaedia terms - this is not a critical monograph, this is a mainstream reference. I think that you definitely need to have reference to his unusual lifestyle on this page, since it attracts so much attention. Even the Catholic Herald said in a Proms review "by the end of his life, Stockhausen's lifestyle was the real performance." I think that you may be primarily interested in the music and irritated by how much attention his lifestyle attracted, but i also think many people will come to this page looking for real information those aspects of the man.

Here's a reference to the cardigans and "Licht", although a tentative one - http://www.stockhausen.org/licht_by_malcolm_ball.html. Another reference is O'Mahony, though you may regard it as unreliable it's in there. There's another reference in the Catholic Herald piece, even accompanied by a quote, although it mistakenly says he changed his cardigans every hour: http://www.catholicherald.co.uk/reviews/r0000330.shtml. What about asking the writer his source?

Perhaps: "Stockhausen's 'lifestyle' in the press"? On second thoughts, why not put a "lifestyle" section as part of the "adult life" section?

Then all the other stuff can go in the controversy section, perhaps along with this: http://www.stewarthomesociety.org/neoism/stock.htm —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.216.128.21 (talk) 07:34, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

I think I may have a problem with the distinction you are trying to draw between "critical monographs" and "mainstream references"—not a problem with the distinction as such, but rather the question of what is "encyclopaedic" (the oft-invoked word for what Wikipedia should be). Still, I will let that pass for the moment.
Thank you for the "tentative" reference to the cardigans, I got a real laugh out of that one ("I believe that . . ."), and the one from the Catholic Herald is even funnier. You may not be aware of the fact that, for the Klang cycle Stockhausen borrowed a 24-hour colour wheel from a visual artist (I have forgotten who), and that many of the published scores use these colours on their covers, and recommend that performers wear a colour close to the Process Colour specified by standard printing-industry catalog number. It seems plain that the CH writer heard about this 24-colour wheel, confused it with the seven-day cycle of colours used in Licht, and then combined it with the cardigan story from Ball or O'Mahony or somewhere to come up with this thoroughly muddled statement. The bit about "in the wash" sounds like a typical journalistic fabrication to add "reader interest".
FWIW, I flagged the statement about the cardigans because of the Wikipedia policy that the threshhold for inclusion is not truth, but verifiability. I know from personal observation that Stockhausen did in fact wear a specific colour for each day of the week, though not always a cardigan and in hot weather he favoured white. I am told that he also used seven different bath scents in rotation, one for each day of the week, with different aromas, but I can't verify this story. Do either of these things constitute an "unusual lifestyle"? In the 1960s it was common in the United States (perhaps not in other parts of the world) to sell certain garments (mainly underwear) in sets of seven different colours, one for each day of the week, and sometimes with that day's name printed somewhere on the garment. I suppose this means that hundreds of thousands, if not millions of Americans in those days pursued an "unusual lifestyle". In Stockhausen's case, there was a very practical reason: he worked a seven-day week, and it helped him to keep track of what day it was. Finding a source for this explanatory fact will be much more difficult than finding a source for the cardigans!
We do have several eminently verifiable sources about his lifestyle. For example, in one volume of the Texte, he published his gardening schedule for one year, with a list of all the flowers he had planted around his house. Then there is the programme note he wrote for Aloys Kontarsky's recording of the Klavierstücke I–XI when, bored with the usual musico-technical jargon, he decided instead to document the meals he and Kontarsky shared in restaurants at the time of the recording sessions, and the cigars they smoked afterward. As a matter of fact, Stockhausen gave up smoking somewhat later and, with a little bit of digging, I imagine we can discover just when, and how he managed to kick the habit. I'm sure this would make riveting reading for a "mainstream reference", though "critical monographs" (and, I suspect, "encyclopaedic entries") would regard it as trivia unworthy of inclusion.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 17:55, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

If writers, and there are many of them from respectable libel-vulnerable and edited newspapers draw frequent attention to what are seen as eccentricities, i think it's probably a topic of interest. And i think it would be extremely odd if it were not covered on this page. This all sounds like nit picking. Something needs to be on there and not so edited down as to lose all credibility. At the moment it looks like a bit of whitewash.

Tangentially, what is a verifiable source? if you write a blog tomorrow about your personal knowledge of his cardigan-wear does it become a citable source? Are you not a verifiable source? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.216.128.21 (talk • contribs) 15:11, 17 August 2009

It is not tangential at all. See Wikipedia:Reliable sources, where you will see that blogs are not regarded as reliable sources, under most circumstances. Neither are polemically orientated, self-published items.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 21:53, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Chaplighina article

Is that article originally in Russian? Because in that case the English translation of the title is incorrect (should be "Some Day Speech Will Be [Song/Singing]", i.e. speaking becomes singing), and the Russian title of the magazine it was publihsed has a typo: it should be "Музыкальная жизнь", not "Музыкальная Жизн". I'd change these things, but I was unable to find any references to the article in the Russian segment of the net; so maybe it isn't Russian but Ukrainian or some other Slavic language? In which case I'm unable to say whether the spelling is correct or not. The title looks Russian enough to me, though... --Jashiin (talk) 09:03, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

This item could be in Bulgarian for all I know. I added it by laboriously typing in what I found on the magazine cover and article title page, and I may well have left out the concluding soft mark in "жизнь" (I can check this when I get home). I have no Russian at all, so I believe you must be correct, especially about the translation, which was generated by Google Language Tools. Please feel free to correct anything you see to be wrong.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 18:13, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
Thank you, Jashiin, for correcting that entry. I am now at home where I can consult the magazine issue, and indeed I accidentally left off the last character in "жизнь". Perhaps I could also trouble you to verify/correct my transliteration (necessary for alphabetizing the item in the bibliography) of the author's surname, which in the Cyrillic alphabet is spelled "Чаплыгина" (I am confident about the transliteration of the given name).—Jerome Kohl (talk) 22:42, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
Ah, I wondered about the transliteration, but thought you got it from the source. I've changed it to "Chaplygina", which seems to me the most sensible, and which also conforms to most standards (see Wikipedia's very helpful transliteration table at Romanization of Russian). --Jashiin (talk) 23:32, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
Ach! I had forgotten completely about Wikipedia's transliteration table! No, "the source" is one of those funny little paper things they used to make in the days before the internet turned everything into etext. It's called a "magazine" or a "journal" ;-) Because it was printed in Russia, everything in it except the page numbers and the legend "ISSN 0131 — 2383" in the upper-right corner of the front cover is in Cyrillic. I was unable to discover any trace of this item through OCLC (which ought to have provided a transliteration), but perhaps that is because I am not used to searching for Russian titles there. Thank you once again.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 23:49, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Mehmet Okonsar paper

Artoffuge (talk · contribs) added a link to a webpage which further links to this paper by Mehmet Okonsar, which, in my opinion is unreadable because of its heavy watermarking. I suggest to remove that external link as unhelpful. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 13:33, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Artoffuge has been spamming a large number of articles with Mehmet Okonsar material. If the link was to a legitimate, readable, and informative document, this might not matter but, since it is none of these things, I agree it should be removed.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 15:18, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Some Stockhausen criticism

  • the ready exposure accorded to reams of [...] Stockhausen's pretentious codswallop (largely, in my view, because many critics and the contemporary-music-buying section of the public shrink from the stigma of appearing to have missed an actually non-existent point). (Source: International music guide, Tantivy Press 1977, p. 237)
  • The John Alldis Choir with Roger Smalley and others also gave Stockhausen's Mikrophonie II, a work which offers a synthesis of live performance and/or taped, electronic effects. This left me quite unimpressed. I have never been an admirer of Stockhausen cult, if only because I find so many of his experiments lacking totally in musical experience, while as studies in the manipulation of sound in general, they strike me as boring, pathetically naive and pretentious, coupled with some absurd philosophies. (Source: Music and musicians, Volume 18, p. 55)

Easy tup (talk) 23:00, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Are you suggesting that adding some quotations like these would enhance this article? We could easily triple the article's length, since Stockhausen received a huge amount of press over the years, and there is certainly no lack of "I don't like it, so there" statements such as these. There are certainly much more entertaining examples, but if they merely add padding, I don't see the point in having them.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 23:15, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
Well, instead of tripling the article, what about adding just 2 negative ones. :) Those 2 are the best I've found till now. Alas, for a real good criticism, I'd have to write one myself... but I'm not really into criticising, since my main focus is elsewhere (believe it or not) Easy tup (talk) 23:41, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
If those are the best you have found, you cannot have tried very hard. The first one doesn't mention even one piece, and says in essence "I think all the positive reviews I've read are wrong, because I am right." The second is only slightly better (it at least telles us what music it is the reviewer is reacting to, but then falls back on the same position as the first ("it didn't impress me", "I've never liked Stockhausen", "he makes experiments" (instead of music, presumably), those experiments "lack musical experience" (whatever that might be--probably whatever unspecified thing it is that the writer believes music to be), and "if they were just studies in manipulating sound, they seem to me boring" (once again, "I don't like it, and I cannot or will not tell you why"), and finally, the piece is "coupled with some absurd [but unspecified] philosphies". This is nothing but empty rhetoric. Try some of the serious music critics, at least (Boehmer, Adorno, Metzger, etc.)—these are plainly amateurs.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 03:55, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
If "Art" is only for the allegedly "serious" professionals, what's the point? That's the Emperor's New Clothes defence. W S Gilbert's sarcastic response to this kind of argument was “If this young man expresses himself in terms too deep for me, Why, what a very singularly deep young man this deep young man must be!” Personally I like the rather brutal comment attributed to Sir Thomas Beecham in Wikiquote: "Asked if he had ever conducted any Stockhausen, he said, "No, but I once trod in some." " Sasha (talk) 23:01, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
Even assuming the attribution is accurate, exactly what is the critical content of that quip? It is certainly abusive but, as Monty Python once said …—Jerome Kohl (talk) 00:02, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
@Sasha clarkson: I think you misunderstood Jerome's comment. Those "serious music critics, ... Boehmer, Adorno, Metzger" were critical of KHS, but with some substance, unlike the "empty rhetoric" of those quoted by Easy tup 2 1/2 years ago. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 11:28, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
Exactly so, the sort of criticism Stockhausen himself referred to in the preface to the first volume of his Texte: "I also hope that my enemies find forms of retort which I can find richly fanciful, witty, pertinent, instructive—which grant me respect through a noble and truly humane form of enmity."—Jerome Kohl (talk) 19:08, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

The flavour of the time

Germany in the late 60's and early 70's. Avant-garde was all the rage!! Here are some Stockhausen albums from the time:

Like chewing-gum for the masses!

(PS: what I am suggesting, is that the article can show a bit of the effect of Stockhausen on the public. People in Germany in the late 60's and 70's were very interested (other would say: "very susceptible") to modernism, in all it's facets. The article could show this, in part by by showing some of the Stockhausen recordings of this time. And "Deutsche Grammophon" (DG) were pushing this stuff like crazy ([1])... not just pushing Stockhausen but modernism in general! I really want to know more about the mindset of the people at that time; and also: who made the decisions at DG during that time (was it daring to put out these recordings - if so: whose the "mastermind" behind it; or alternatively: was this only natural and was modernism wanted by the "masses" already anyway?). Who made the artistic and programming decisions at DG?

I mean come on: "Festival of Hits", "Greatest Hits"!! Easy tup (talk) 23:36, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

It is pretty funny (and seeme so at the time, as well), but you should keep in mind first of all that these were not issued on DG, but rather on their (semi-)pop label Polydor, and the distribution was hardly limited to Germany. Polydor/DG was and still is interested in only one thing: selling records. The other questions you ask are interesting, but I don't even know where to begin looking for the answers. I'm sure it's not a big secret, and somebody more familiar with the industry can probably find out who the names were, though determining what they were thinking scould be difficult.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 04:00, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
Yes that could be interesting... not just about the industry but about society in general during that time (particularly in Germany). In other words: the question on the "mindset" of the people at that time. Late 60's early 70's.
Which age-group of people are important in forming cultural decisions, opinions and views?? 30-something-year-olds up to early 50's, right? So take Germany in the late 60's, early 70's and backtrack 30-something years etc.: where are you?
You're with people who grew up in post-war Germany... with all it's effects. And I think ingrained in these people, was the "search" for something NEW and (hopefully) BETTER. They were the losers of the war. They looked upon their previous pre-war mindset with shame. So they were all for new things, experimental things etc. Of course this is no proof, but merely my current possibility of an explanation.
Because really: modernism in the late 60s, early 70s Germany was really almost mainstream. It was the thing!! Research the recordings of the time. Hardcore albums full with "Neue Musik" were pushed out like pancakes. Composer's from around the world were flocking to Germany.
Just look at who was in Germany on scholarships from the DAAD (German Academic Exchange Service) (Berliner Künstlerprogramm: "Every year, invitations coupled with grants are extended to 20 internationally known younger artists to spend 12 months in Berlin." [2]). You have a "whose who" of modern composers that were invited and accepted: Xenakis, Berio, Stravinsky, Halffter, Penderecki, Ligeti, Feldman, Cage, Bussotti, Donatoni, Cardew, Ferneyhough, etc. (Reference: Select category - music; and search by year).
Last thought on modernism in Germany: today the modernism crazy of the late 60s, early 70s is gone. It didn't survive its flirt with the mainstream. Today it's more in the hands of institutions, such as DAAD (continuing as before), Darmstadt, etc.
I think the importance of Germany (Berliner Künstlerprogramm from DAAD) and France (IRCAM) with regard to 20th-century modernism of classical music, should not be underrated! Alas, there's no information about this importance in the articles 20th-century classical music, Contemporary classical music, Modernism (music). This could be improved...
Easy tup (talk) 08:36, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
So as not to drown my "request". It would be nice if this article on Stockhausen could expand a bit more in a direction, to show more about the cultural times during which Stockhausen was working: the "mindset" of the people, the "goals" he was seeking, the general feeling of the time, the acceptance and criticism, the flavour of the time, etc. Easy tup (talk) 09:02, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
There was once a rather longer version of this "wider cultural reknown" section, which got swamped with trivia. It was pared down in December 2007, and discussed here. It was immediately afterward that serious work began on obtaining Good Article status, and if I recall correctly the person who nominated it was in part encouraged by removal of the trivia. While I agree that more "cultural background" could be provided, there is a danger of swamping the article. This is all the more true because Stockhausen's rise to celebrity was not (as you seem to believe) limited to or even primarily focussed in Germany, at least not after the 1950s. You will have noticed that the two records you cite (one of which, BTW, was part of a series that included "Haydn's Greatest Hits", "Mozart's Greatest Hits", etc.) were released only under English titles, not German ones. If you go back in the edit history of this article to the period just before December 2007, you can see for yourself the kinds of "cultural artifacts" that some editors had thought fit to include. Almost all of it had to do either with England or the United States (references in popular television programmes such as Man About the House, Lovejoy, or the Spitting Image "Amadeus" sketch; passing references in pulp fiction, and so on). The trick is to introduce only truly relevant information (well-sourced, of course), presented in a coherent manner. Otherwise it would be of no use to the reader in trying to understand a complex cultural milieu which is not itself the subject of this article, anyway. In fact, it might be more effective to find (or create) an article that already deals with this culture matrix and link to it as a "main article", not only for this article but to those on other "celebrity" composers of the period (Boulez, Kagel, Cage, Berio, Xenakis, etc.). This would enable a manageably brief summary here, with a truly ample discussion elsewhere for readers interested in pursuing the question further. Working backward into the milieu that produced him is another thing that should be considered (growing up in Nazi Germany, his education during the period of post-war reconstruction, the new-music culture in the 1950s, etc), but this could easily get carried away into a book-length treatment (and has in fact been so done, by Michael Kurtz and by Robin Maconie). We need to bear in mind that this is merely an encyclopedia article, after all.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 19:03, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Another student

Conrad Schnitzler, apparently a student of Stockhausen, died on 4 August 2011. Worth listing at Karlheinz Stockhausen#Notable students? And: according to this, there's a Johannes Stockhausen-Hektoen, Karlheinz' grandson, active in electronic music. And2: Stockhausen was not only Honorary Citizen of Kuerten, they named the Rathausplatz after him. That's enough trivia for today. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 13:55, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

I had no idea that Schnitzler studied with Stockhausen (and his Wikipedia article does not mention this). If this can be confirmed, Schnitzler is certainly as notable as many of the names currently in the list, and he should be added. Mentioning Johannes Stockhausen-Hektoen seems to me a little marginal at this point in time. I know of him, of course, but only because he is Stockhausen's grandson. Has he established notability for himself yet? The posthumous honour bestowed on Stockhausen by the municipality of Kürten, in renaming the Rathausplatz "Karlheinz Stockhausenplatz" should certainly be added to the list of distinctions. There were newspaper reports last year verifying this, and it is a lapse on my part not to have added this information yet. Thank you, Michael, for pointing all this out. There is more here than mere trivia!—Jerome Kohl (talk) 16:17, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
That Schnitzler studied under Stockhausen is mentioned, as is usual there without sources, on de:Conrad Schnitzler. The best source I can find among the many which mention it, is: Bush, John. Conrad Schnitzler at AllMusic.
Aside: I mentioned Johannes Stockhausen because I was surprised that he wasn't covered more, given the pedigree and his field of work. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 08:25, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
These sources for Schnitzler are worryingly vague, and I would like to see better documentation before adding him to the list. Since he was already professionally active in 1968, it does not seem likely that he would have studied with Stockhausen at the Cologne Musikhochschule (Stockhausen was only appointed there in 1977). This suggests that the most likely opportunity would have been at the Cologne Courses for New Music, which were held annually from 1963 until 1968, but unless Schnitzler was using a different name at that time (as Holger Czukay did, for example), he does not appear in the list of registrants. It is also possible that he attended Stockhausen's Darmstadt lectures or seminars at some point in time, though whether this really constitutes "study" is another matter. Further investigation is indicated, I think. Weblinks to Johannes Hektoen only appear to start showing up in 2007. If he is the grandson I am thinking of, he cannot be more than about 25 years old, so it would be surprising indeed if he had established a wide-ranging reputation already. On the other hand, is it sufficient cause to note the musical activities of any descendant of a musician as prominent as Stockhausen?—Jerome Kohl (talk) 17:57, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
A correction: Stockhausen's appointment at the Musikhochschule commenced in 1971, which makes it less unlikely that Schnitzler may have studied with him there. So far, however, I still have not been able to confirm his enrollment in any of Stockhausen's courses, though the published lists are far from comprehensive.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 17:05, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Question

Why isn't this article a featured one? It's one of the best articles on a classical composer on Wikipedia—or, dare I say it, the best one.—Toccata quarta (talk) 15:46, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Since I was the editor who principally wrote this article and took it through the Good Article review, I am gratified by your kind words. I suppose it really should be nominated for Featured Article. May I brazenly ask that you take a look at some of the related articles on individual compositions by Stockhausen, and possibly offer your opinion of some of them, as well? I have already put Klang (Stockhausen) through peer review, so the next step there would be Good Article, I suppose. However, I am also fairly satisfied with the articles on Alphabet für Liège and Fresco (two of Stockhausen's least-known works), Telemusik, Trans, and the seven articles on the component operas of the Licht cycle: Mittwoch aus Licht, Donnerstag aus Licht, Freitag aus Licht, Samstag aus Licht, Sonntag aus Licht, Montag aus Licht, and Dienstag aus Licht. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jerome Kohl (talk • contribs) 02:21, 23 June 2012‎

Category:Compositions by Karlheinz Stockhausen

(Crossposted from Category talk:Compositions by Karlheinz Stockhausen) The Category:Compositions by Karlheinz Stockhausen has recently been categorised as Category:Electronic compositions. That doesn't seem to be correct; e.g. the Helikopter-Streichquartett is clearly not an electronic composition. I suggest to remove that category and apply it to those works which are electronic compositions. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 13:33, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Unreliable source

A sentence (According to one source, as a young teenager he worked as a cobbler) has been questioned with this "Frankly, this source is dubious in the extreme. Why do none of the other sources close to the composer (his own extensive accounts of his childhood found in the Texte from volume 6 onward, and summarized in Kurtz 1992) not mention this curious "fact"? It would be better to find a more reliable citation, preferably in an interview or statement from the composer himself". Technically as it is written it is not a source issue, but if it is just in one source there is a case to be made for it tobe removed. AIRcorn (talk) 08:26, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

OK, I put my hands up: It was I who placed that marker, now several years ago. The problem is that the content of the Prendergast book is far from carefully researched (so far as Stockhausen is concerned, at least), and reads like popular journalism aimed at the trade-book market. It is entirely possible that Prendergast found this tidbit of information in a reliable source himself, but it is odd that he seized on shoe repair, without mentioning the many other menial occupations that Stockhausen, as the son of a poorly paid schoolmaster, was obliged to take up in his youth. It is such a small detail that its presence or absence makes no difference at all to this article, but I have left it in place for so long in the hopes that someone could come up with the source Predergast used. All of this aside, I would be obliged if you could explain why this "is not a source issue", technically.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 21:37, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
Because it is attributed with "according to one source" so is factually correct as it is presented (i.e one source does say this). The source could be wrong, but we are not presenting it as the truth. If we just said "as a teenager he worked as a cobbler" then that would be more of an issue. That was my reasoning anyway for saying not a technically a source issue. Maybe it is best to remove that sentence. Like you say it adds nothing substantial to the article and has been up for a few years now. AIRcorn (talk) 22:33, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
I understand. It appears that I shot myself in the foot while trying to teach myself to dance nicely: I added that "one source" caveat at the same time I queried its reliability! Since you endorse my view that it contributes nothing useful to the article, I shall delete it. Thanks for your help.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 22:54, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Ext. links: UbuWeb?

Several times my attention was drawn to lists of KHS-related media at ubu.com, e.g. http://ubu.com/sound/stockhausen.html and http://ubu.com/film/stockhausen.html and http://ubu.com/film/stockhausen_lectures.html . Should they be listed as external links in this article? -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 05:36, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Why not? I believe the video is already linked at the article on Originale, so there is every reason to link it here, as well. I believe the two audio files are also linked (from other sites) at the composer's website, which of course is linked here as well.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 05:50, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Chicago style

Choosing Chicago style for this article was a horrendous choice from the outset. I'm not going to bother disputing it, but it looks truly horrific. All of the parenthetical citations clutter up the paragraphs, and those paragraphs that contain appositive parentheticals are thus doubly cluttered. Just my two cents. Icarus of old (talk) 20:23, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

I'm sure you'll agree, though, that it is infinitely preferable to the even more cluttered appearance you get with those wretched blue numbers that make you jump back and forth all over the place if you are interested in checking facts. The ideal solution, obviously, is to ditch citations altogether and just trust editors to get their facts straight without annoying the readers by continually pointing them to reliable sources.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 22:33, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
The main strength behind the numbered interlinking format is that it "jumps" to the source for you when you click on the number, instead of having to match source name to source name after scrolling from the information to the reference. Obviously it's a matter of opinion though. As for your ideal solution, I have no response, as (luckily) the internet tends to obliterate the tone of what's being said. Cheers. Icarus of old (talk) 22:55, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
Oddly enough, I find the main weakness of "numbered interlinking format" (by which I presume you mean the same thing I call "footnotes") is that they do not in most cases "jump to the source". This only occurs when full-footnote referencing is used, and this is (thankfully) becoming progressively rarer on Wikipedia. What happens instead is that clicking on the footnote number takes to something like "Smith-Barnard 1878, 23" (which with parenthetical referencing is exactly what you see in the text, without having to jump at all). From there, it is still necessary to go to the list of references to match "Smith-Barnard 1878" to the source. I can only regard this as a net loss in strength, not a gain. There are linking templates designed to solve this problem, but unfortunately (1) they are not flexible at all with respect to the variety of bibliographical formats in general use (Chicago, APA, MLA, Oxford-"Harvard", etc.), and (2) fail to include essential parameters.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 00:14, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
Unfortunate indeed. As it stands, readers will have to wade through it, as if reading a college essay in MLA format. And I didn't mean footnotes; I think we're talking about different things at this point. I won't be checking in here further. Icarus of old (talk) 00:24, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
If readers think they are reading MLA format, they will be very confused, indeed, since it is quite distinct from the Chicago style used in this article. I am interested to know about this "numbered interlinking format", though, if it does not refer to footnotes. You don't mean Vancouver style formatting, do you? If I understand correctly, this is used mainly in the fields of Medicine and the biological sciences. Personally I find it the most confusing of all systems, but I suppose it depends on what you are used to.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 00:57, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Electronic Music ref

As this was reverted, please suggest where it could go. Btw, the references of this article don't really comply to Wiki standards.

Karlheinz Stockhausen in the Electronic Music Studio of the WDR, birthplace of electronic music,[1] October 1994 -- Horst-schlaemma (talk) 09:05, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

  1. ^ Barry, Robert. "Interview with EMAK's Matthias Becker about electronic music". The Quietus, December 23rd, 2010. Retrieved 24 April 2014. Cologne had been the birthplace of electronic music, its womb, its matrix; and Stockhausen's Gesang der Jünglinge, realised at the studios of the Nord-West Deutscher Rundfunk in the mid-fifties, was its first acknowledged masterpiece.
The obvious place where that citation could be gainfully employed is the, yet to be written, article Studio für elektronische Musik, Cologne [de]. As for Wikipedia citation standards: it's a broad church; see WP:CITESTYLE, Help:Overview of referencing styles, and many more mentioned in Template:Wikipedia referencing. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 10:33, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
The article referred to above has in the meantime been written. When User:AnomieBOT today updated the ILL for the German article, I was amused to notice that the link remained red, instead of automatically redirecting to the English version. Following the link to the German Wikipedia, I find there the link coming back to the English version. The reason for this misfunction appears to be that the German article uses the institution's German name (quite understandably), whereas the English Wikipedia uses the usual English translation, "Studio for Electronic Music (WDR)". Evidently, the sophistication of this template has room for improvement.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 21:47, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

Infobox

This is probably and old and discussed-already topic, and I've read the Wikipedia:WikiProject Composers#Biographical infoboxes page, but I still don't understand why this article doesn't feature an Infobox. Can someone explain it to me, please? Thanks. I'm not there. Message me! 00:12, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Why on earth should it?!! Johann Sebastian Bach hasn't got an infobox. Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart hasn't got an infobox. Ludwig van Beethoven hasn't got an infobox]]. Richard Wagner hasn't got an infobox. Arnold Schoenberg hasn't got an infobox. Are you implying that Stockhausen is not a composer of the same stature as these composers? On the other hand, if you have questions about the Composers' Project position, this is not the place to raise this question. Please go over to the WikiProject Composers talk page.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 02:12, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
I DO think Stockhausen is among the greatest composers ever; in fact, I didn't even remember these didn't have an infobox either. I realize you're the main contributor of the page, and I want to thank you for working so hard for this great composer's page. Don't worry, I am not saying Stockhausen is a lesser composer than the other great ones, I am, in fact, asking why the great composers don't have Infoboxes. I don't want to change anything, it's actually only a question. I haven't been an editor in Wikipedia for so long (only a year) and I am not aware of this convention. I just wanted some "enlightenment" on this subject. I'm not there. Message me! 04:33, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
Ah, I understand you better now. Thank you for your kind words, and for the clarification. To answer your question directly and with better guidance than I gave previously, you should read the Classical Music Project position on this subject, and then take a look at the extensive discussion that led to this project guideline.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 04:50, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Referencing

This is an excellent article, but unfortunately slightly unpleasant to read because of the referencing style. This is of course an aesthetic matter, and presumably the principle author prefers it the way it is, but I think the majority of people (I notice prior comments) would agree that it's a little off-putting. There's a reason why the footnote style is popular, both on Wikipedia and in print. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.144.169.126 (talk) 07:44, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

For what it is worth (and I am the "principal author" to whom you refer), I disagree on both counts. First, I find articles with the source citations hidden away in footnotes far more "unpleasant to read" than when they are placed in plain view in parentheses. Second, I believe that the "popularity" of footnote style is not based on ease of reading, but rather on the false perception that it makes articles look more "scholarly". It is also the case that there are two major types of footnote formatting, not just one: shortened-reference (or SFN), and full-reference footnotes. The former, which I believe are slightly more frequent on Wikipedia than full-reference notes, are actually nothing more than Harvard (parenthetical) citations banished to a different location. This results in three-click links to reach the relevant information (this is what drives me crazy about their use), always supposing that the editors have taken the trouble to learn the use of the necessary templates. If the templates have not been installed, then tracing from footnote to reference list must be done "manually" by the reader. Full-reference notes, on the other hand, almost invariably result in a mixture of different citation formats in the notes (unless again templates are used, in which case there is almost always a confusion of bibliographic and note formats, since the templates are designed to cover both things), though they are in many ways the easiest for the inexperienced editor to use.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 22:38, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
Agree with the OP, the referencing style is intrusive, and makes the article difficult to read. This isn't just a matter of personal taste, any objective test would show that
On 29 December 1951, in Hamburg, Stockhausen married Doris Andreae (Kurtz 1992, 45; Maconie 2005, 47). Together they had four children: Suja (b. 1953), Christel (b. 1956), Markus (b. 1957), and Majella (b. 1961) (Kurtz 1992, 90; Tannenbaum 1987, 94). They were divorced in 1965 (Rathert 2013). On 3 April 1967, in San Francisco, he married Mary Bauermeister, with whom he had two children: Julika (b. 22 January 1966) and Simon (b. 1967) (Kurtz 1992, 141, 149; Tannenbaum 1987, 95). They were divorced in 1972 (Rathert 2013; Stockhausen-Stiftung & [2013])
is a lot harder to parse than
On 29 December 1951, in Hamburg, Stockhausen married Doris Andreae.[1][2] Together they had four children: Suja (b. 1953), Christel (b. 1956), Markus (b. 1957), and Majella (b. 1961).[3][4] They were divorced in 1965.[5] On 3 April 1967, in San Francisco, he married Mary Bauermeister, with whom he had two children: Julika (b. 22 January 1966) and Simon (b. 1967).[6][7] They were divorced in 1972.[8][9]
(indeed the original is missing a full stop at the end, which I only noticed after editing the second version). The point about navigation is secondary, even if it were valid. Dickdock (talk) 23:26, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Kurtz (1992) 45
  2. ^ Maconie (2005) 47
  3. ^ Kurtz (1992) 90
  4. ^ Tannenbaum (1987) 94
  5. ^ Rathert (2013)
  6. ^ Kurtz (1992) 141, 149
  7. ^ Tannenbaum (1987) 95
  8. ^ Rathert (2013)
  9. ^ Stockhausen-Stiftung 2013
This has been discussed here several times; see above and in the archive. If you want to change WP:CITEVAR, you should raise it there. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 02:27, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
I'm aware it's been discussed before, grant me a modicum of wit, and if I wanted to change WP:CITEVAR, I'd raise it there. Dickdock (talk) 04:45, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

FA?

This article is a great one and I find Stockhausen one of the most interesting composers in history, and personally I'd love to see this be promoted to FA status. It's a very well sourced, well researched and well written piece. I'm not there. Message me! 18:12, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Karlheinz 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, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

checkY 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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 01:44, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Karlheinz 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.

☒N An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the |checked= to true

  • 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) 17:19, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Karlheinz_Stockhausen/Archive_2&oldid=1090564606"