Talk:Stimmung

English translation of title

i am german and i think a proper translation from "Stimmung" to english would me "Temper" because it has nothing to do with the voice it s a feeling in a situation or something like that... --User:80.171.10.129

Using those horrible automatic translators:

Stimmung translates to english as "Tendency", though Tendency translates back as "Tendenz". Tuning translates as "Abstimmen" while Abstimmen translates back as "Co-ordinate". Perhaps it is a play on words, meaning a tendency to stay in tune? Hyacinth 00:47, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

User:80.171.10.129: Rather than "temper" for Stimmung I would suggest "mood" as it is neutral. While "temper" used to be equally ambiguous it is now generally understood to be negative (someone can be "good-tempered" or "bad-tempered", but "temper" on its own would be "an angry mood" - Wut in German - which I do not think is what you mean). I don't believe however that this, on its own, is the correct translation. And I don't trust myself to say anything nice about machine translation...

The root Stimm- does indeed mean "voice" or "vote", but I think that it's misleading just to offer a translation of "die Stimme" here. As with any case where there is a one-word title with numerous different translations and meanings possible, it is difficult to pick a single main one as the English title.

Translating die Stimmung as "tuning" is better (das Stimmen = tuning, das Gestimmtsein = pitch), especially when dealing with just intonation but again on its own this doesn't seem quite right. Atmosphere or mood also seems to be important for this work with the reference to a "'magic' space" - I would suggest therefore that "In Tune" would be the best option as you can be in tune musically or be, figuratively, in tune with a place, etc.

There's still the question of "voice": while this is not the main meaning, the pun is clearly there in German, but I don't see how it could be carried through in an English title.

That turned out to be a bit longer than I intended, but hey... SteveW 12:55, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Possibly a moot point actually: a quick search on Stockhausen's website finds the title simply translated as 'Tuning' - number 52 in his list of works. My comment on "its title meaning tuning or in tune in German (Die Stimme = voice)" being misleading still stands, however. What do people think is the best way to rephrase this? SteveW 13:01, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I think it's worth pointing out, if only as part of a short sentence, that stimmung is a made-up word (as far as I can tell - I'll let a German-speaking Wikipedia editor do this). The article implies this, but does not state it explicitly. -Ashley Pomeroy (talk) 19:19, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Hmm. I have looked at the article's text, and I can just make out how you might read it that way. I suppose it is possible that the word was "made up" at some point in history (I would have to check the etymological volume of Duden to be sure), but it would have to have been well before the 15th century, since I can think of sources at least that far back using the word. As for present-day usage (well, OK, as of 1978), Cassel's has "Stimmung: f. (Mus.) tuning, key, pitch; (fig.) mood, humour, temper, disposition, sentiment, feeling; state or frame of mind, (Mil. etc.) morale; (Comm. etc.) tendency, tone; impression, atmosphere; (coll.) high spirits." I'll have a think about the wording, and see if I can come up with a better formulation.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 20:17, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

The word mood in English has just about the same double sense, it can mean both "temper of a situation, a place in the eyes of a person" and "mode, key". The double significance is kept in the Nordic cognate words: Norwegian stemning, Swedish stämning - both of which can relate both to a feeling, momentary or lasting, about a situation, and to musical tuning or finding a key or a pitch: the Swedish stämning av ett piano means "the act of tuning a piano". Strausszek (talk) 09:54, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Dead external links to Allmusic website – January 2011

Since Allmusic have changed the syntax of their URLs, 1 link(s) used in the article do not work anymore and can't be migrated automatically. Please use the search option on http://www.allmusic.com to find the new location of the linked Allmusic article(s) and fix the link(s) accordingly, prefereably by using the {{Allmusic}} template. If a new location cannot be found, the link(s) should be removed. This applies to the following external links:

• http://www.allmusic.com/cg/amg.dll?p=amg&sql=A7q67gjur36iv

--CactusBot (talk) 09:43, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, Cactus. It appears that Allmusic has deleted that review, and there is no archived file on the Internet Archive Wayback Machine, so the link has been removed.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 20:01, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Not in citation given

• This source confirms neither the microtonal deviations from equal temperament, nor the incorrect registers of the D, A, and C, which it confirms are an octave higher: the same as in the diagram taken from Harvey 1975.

There is a {{failed verification}} tag in the article, followed by a hidden comment containing the text above. This is strange, because the citation tagged is for the following text:

• "alternatively, the first 'to use overtones as a primary element' (Rose and Emmerson 1979, 20)."

It seems impossible that this source would confirm anything like what is described in the hidden comment, because it is not cited for anything like what is described in the hidden comment. Hyacinth (talk) 05:09, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

The tag has been moved after the text:

• "It is 'the first major Western composition to be based entirely on the production of vocal harmonics' (Rose and Ireland 1986)"

It still seems impossible that this source would confirm anything like what is described in the hidden comment, because it is not cited for anything like what is described in the hidden comment. Hyacinth (talk) 06:55, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Could you clarify what you mean, please? The issue has to do with the use of microtonal accidentals added to note names. In what way would it be impossible for a source to confirm such a thing? The cited source in fact contradicts this claim, in that it names the notes from the overtone series as B♭, F, B♭, D, A♭, and C. The text preceding the tag, by the way, is a bit longer than what you quoted:

• Stimmung is in just intonation. Six singers amplified by six microphones tune to a low B♭₁ drone, inaudible to the audience, and expand upwards through overtone singing, with that low B♭'s harmonics 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, and 9 (B♭₂, F+₂, B♭₃, D₄, A♭+₄, and C+₅) becoming in turn fundamentals for overtone singing. It is composed using what the composer calls moment form, and consists of 51 sections (called "moments"). It is "the first major Western composition to be based entirely on the production of vocal harmonics".

Nearly all of this is confirmed by the cited source, but not the microtonal accidentals.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 19:33, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

No source is cited:

• "Stimmung is in just intonation. Six singers amplified by six microphones tune to a low B♭1 drone, inaudible to the audience, and expand upwards through overtone singing, with that low B♭'s harmonics 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, and 9 (B♭2, F+2, B♭3, D4, A7♭+4, and C+5) becoming in turn fundamentals for overtone singing. It is composed using what the composer calls moment form, and consists of 51 sections (called 'moments')."

Are we going to object that "It is 'the first major Western composition to be based entirely on the production of vocal harmonics'" is not confirmed by (Cott 1973, 162) or (Toop 2005, 48)? Hyacinth (talk) 00:45, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

(1) How is "Rose and Ireland 1986" not a source, or do you propose that it should be repeated at every sentence, phrase, or word in the paragraph, contrary to normal scholarly practice? (2) I have no idea what you are going to object to. (3) How do you propose dealing with the unverified microtonal notational devices?—Jerome Kohl (talk) 00:54, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Music file impossible to read

The clickable music file in this article (Play) is not audible from my Firefox 23 (as well as Chromium/Chrome) under Ubuntu 12.04 as well as under Windows Seven (although I can hear other musical files on Wikipedia articles). Please change the format. Ptyxs (talk) 09:38, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

To what format do you suggest it be changed, and have you read Wikipedia:Media help?—Jerome Kohl (talk) 19:44, 14 September 2013 (UTC)