Talk:O Fortuna

In Popular Culture

• Electronica band Apotheosis, released a few versions of a track featuring "O Fortuna" in 1989 of which the Orff estate sued to stop the distribution.
• Synth/Medieval, French band Era recorded a Mix called "The Mass" featuring pieces of "O Fortuna" from the original Carmina Burana.
• "O Fortuna" was first introduced to mainstream media in John Boorman's 1981 film Excalibur. It enjoyed tremendous popularity among the public following the movie's release and was for a time thereafter frequently incorporated into various cinematic and musical works for dramatic effect (a practice that has since become clichéd and consequently is often parodied).
• "O Fortuna" is played at all large events staged at the new Wembley Stadium.
• The piece has appeared in many television commercials such as the Carlton Draught's 'Big Ad', the barbarian raider advertisements for Capital One credit cards, the opera motif advertisements for Rickard's Red beer (from Molson), and the long running TV advertising campaign for Old Spice aftershave in the United Kingdom.
• Manchester based prog/Alternative rock band Amplifier have released a track called "O Fortuna" on their second album "The Insider".
• Scandinavian electonic band Apoptygma Berserk used a sample of the piece as the chorus of their song "Love Never Dies (Part 1)" from the album "Seven".
• The verse from "Sors salutis" was used as the entrance theme for The Undertaker's druids at Wrestlemania XIV.
• This piece is played when the University of Connecticut football team runs out on to the field.
• This piece is regularly known from the famous Gatorade commercials featuring the Garnett from the Celtics and Peyton Manning from the Colts.
• In one of Micheal Jackson's albums, the begining scene features his over excited fan's best moments and the piece plays with it. Evidence: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=28TPtp59jCs —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.30.91.10 (talk) 23:52, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

PLEASE NOTE. I was unable to verify this material, much of which is dubious and all of which lacks any kind of reliable sources. As a compromise measure I have moved it to the talk page so that it is not "lost" in the edit history shuffle. Please do not re-insert this material without providing the reliable sources deemed necessary by WP:V policy. Thank you, Burntsauce 16:55, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Burntsauce was banned for disruptive editing. The info needs better sourcing, but it's evident he didn't bother trying. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 02:00, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

• Can anyone find any evidence that Apocalyptica ever covered this song? Searching on the web shows that it hasn't been released on any album which suggests they only perform it live. It's apparantly labeled as album: Carmina Burana, which obviously isn't an album by Apocalyptica. Conquerist (talk) 17:55, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Here's a YouTube video purporting to be a recording of Apocalyptica playing O Fortuna: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=leUTSH_wKos It should be fairly obvious from listening to it that the recording, in fact, has nothing to do with Apocalyptica. I would recommend simply removing the reference to Apocalyptica from the article, since it seems clear that they have not, in fact, covered O Fortuna.130.71.239.204 (talk) 06:28, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

• Suggest an addition to the description that "O Fortuna" is sometimes mistakenly identified as the theme song from the original 1976 movie, The Omen, which is actually part of an original score by Jerry Goldsmith (but obviously influenced by Orff). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.73.243.147 (talk) 01:58, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

• F.C.B were another group / artist who also sampled and were later taken to court in Australia.

see http://www.discogs.com/FCB-Excalibur/release/436360 203.214.92.143 (talk) 13:19, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

RNC and Maddow

The reason why Maddow has so much fun with the song is because it was used as the soundtrack for a recent RNC "scare" ad. Maddow isn't just having fun with the piece out of the blue, she is mocking the RNC for trying to use the song to frighten viewers of the ad. This needs to be noted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.67.84.81 (talk) 21:46, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Latin

Question: egestatem??

isn't it: et gestatem potestatem

like: (Fortune) gestates (creates) power

et gestatem potestatem . creates power
dissolvit ut glaciem . and melts ir like ice —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tanketai (talk • contribs) 04:08, 30 December 2007

It seems to be transcribed as "egestatem" all over the place, as FordPrefect42 points out. But when I look at the image in wikicommons it very much looks like "et estatem" to me (near the end of the ninth line on the page) - there seems a clear space, and the letter after the first "e" is nothing like the very rounded "g"s later on in "glaciem", "angaria", and "tangite". (Also the image of summer being melted like ice makes good poetry; and it fits the tone of the rest: apart from the brief "et tunc curat", the rest of the piece is exclusively about fortune destroying one good thing after another. Not that I'm meaning to argue from aesthetics, just from what the manuscript says.) Hrm. 4630 google hits for "egestatem potestatem", and for "et estatem potestatem"... zero. Maybe the ink's just worn away there or something; a shame I can't find a better image anywhere. --Zeborah (talk) 01:32, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Hm, I can see your point. Yet we have a principle in wikipedia: no original research! All printed editions of the Carmina Burana that I have checked have egestatem, as well as the libretto of Orff's Carmina Burana (I have not checked the critical edition, though). It is not our business to correct well-established scientifical positions. One might add a footnote or so, that the facsimile may suggest a different version. BTW, if you zoom in the image very closely, it is very possible that the letter between the two "e"'s is a somewhat worn-out "g". I guess that the editors of the critical editions, who transcribed the lyrics from the original manuscript, were aware of various possible readings as well as of the manuscript's condition. --FordPrefect42 (talk) 10:51, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't know why people are even discussing this? Egestatem is the accusative case of the Latin word for poverty (from Egestas, -atis). The original poster's comment is completely incorrect latin and makes no sense; it has nothing to do with gestating. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.101.119.12 (talk) 16:36, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

The music is Carl Orff's or originally composerd by Goliards?

The music is Carl Orff's or originally composerd by Goliards?

Humanbyrace (talk) 15:13, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

The poem is Goliard, the music is Orff. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.63.104.112 (talk) 21:12, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

English language version ?

I once heard a version of "O Fortuna" performed with English lyrics.
I'm don't remember the exact date - but I am fairly sure it was before 1993.
The radio DJ emphasised that the recording was unavailable in any shop.
The name "Sonia Christina" was mentioned - but I don't know if that was the name of the orchestra, the conductor or the person who lent the DJ this recording.
Has anyone else heard that version ?
—Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.25.121.80 (talk) 05:05, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Maybe it was http://www.sonjakristina.com/? But if the recording you are talking of has never been released officially, you will hardly have a chance to find it almost 20 years later. --FordPrefect42 (talk) 16:28, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

English translation

Where does the english translation come from? Why this translation? Does this comply with the policy of original research? Why not use the more apt waxing and waning than growing and decreasing? Is this translation literal for a reason? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.190.36.132 (talk) 05:46, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

I also question the translation, but in regard to its correctness: namely that "corde pulsum tangite" does not mean "pluck the vibrating strings," which would be "chordas pulsas tangite." "Corde" is the ablative singular of "cor," not the accusative plural of "chorda." For comparison, the Italian Wikipedia has "sentite il battito del cuore." 104.34.32.154 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 02:40, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

The lyrics are VERY bad.

In the Latin language there is no such word as "michi". In latin, it is mihi; and this is clearly an adaptation for the German singers. (See Ch_(digraph)#German). Is it OK for an article about a XIII century poem to put its XX century orthographic adaptation? In my opinion it is not. But that's just an opinion.
What is not an opinion though is the fact that the lyrics are simply wrong. The translation of "satu variabilis" as "you are changeable" is worng because it invents a verb to be. Also the constant addition of ands; the second nunc, etc... 190.229.119.38 (talk) 21:50, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

You are mistaken regarding the "michi", which is not a modern spelling but the original spelling from XIII century manuscript. Be aware that Medieval Latin orthography may differ significantly from that of Classical Latin. See Medieval Latin#Orthography for an explicit mentioning of "michi". BTW: modern German speakers/singers would never pronounce a Classical Latin "mihi" as "michi", therefore there is absolutely no point in speculating about an adaptation here. --FordPrefect42 (talk) 11:21, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

May I point out that Latin often implies verbs of being that have to be added in upon translation. In a "rough translation," like an interlinear, you'd see those implied verbs' translations in parentheses, italics, red type, etc. In a popular translation, or one that just wanted to look nice, you'd just include those verbs, no questions asked or answers given.

However, with the case in point, you'd just need the implied verb in line 2, then have the rest mostly as a list of traits: "O Fortune! You are, even as the moon, eternally changeable…" That "statu variblilis," by the way, is an awsome paradox. "Status" is the opposite of "variablilis."Gniob (talk) 20:15, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

Fortuna – Fortune

User:Atcold has now twice changed the translation of "Fortuna" from "Fortune" to "Fate". I can find no source for that translation but plenty for the former (including in articles like Fortuna and Rota Fortunae), so I reverted the first edit and provided a link to Wikt:fortune which gives: "1. Destiny or fate". Atcold's opined in the edit summary: "Wrong translation from Latin (Fortuna here has the meaning of 'fate')" and "Wrong translation again." I think that editor's understanding of the meaning of "Fortune" is unjustifiably limited; it also robs the translation of mirroring the effect of the Latin text which later switches to "sors" where "fate" is indeed the appropriate translation. I suggest to return the translation to its traditional version. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 12:16, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

The English Translation

The translation cited from http://www.puremango.co.uk/2008/03/o_fortuna_translation/ (a website about coding??!!) is widely published at other locations as well. It is also not a reliable translation in that it does not truly reflect the original Latin in the English translation, and therefore, doesn't provide a reliable basis for deriving a meaning of the poem in English.

I posted previously what I suggest is an accurate reflection of the Latin translated to English.

Wikipedia, as kindly and politely pointed out to me by Mr. Bednarek, has a policy of No OR. I completely agree! But a careful reading of the No OR policy states that no OR is to be posted when a reliable, published source exists. I cannot find a reliable, published source. Some of the specific concerns with the source cited are:

The poem reflects throughout that Fortune is constantly changing, at its whim, and that very quality of Fortune is vexing to everyone (powerful and weak alike). That is not conveyed in the cited translation, or any published version I've found.

Specifically:

"vita detestabilis nunc... tunc"

Nunc... tunc, is literally "now... then". It is also frequently "now... next"--from Cassell's Latin Dictionary ("Cassell's").

"Primum" is first (Cassell's), nunc is not first. "first... then" implies a continuum (a first and then a succession), not a cycle. "now.. then" doesn't perfectly imply a cycle, but in context, at least allows for that interpretation.

I've suggested a "horrible life" (detestabilis: Cassell's offers "abominable, detestable, horrible", none of which is "hateful"). And in any sense consistent with the poem, how can a "hateful life" soothe, even if that were a reliable translation?

A "horrible life" is one that constantly changes from hard-hearted (obdurate: Cassell's) to considerate (curat: Cassell's). Hence now.. then... implying switching back and forth between the two conditions just as the moon switches constantly back and forth between waxing and waning. (And cresco, -ere (grow), and decresco, -ere (decrease) are 2nd person conjugations, not gerunds, so must be (in the moon's case, idiomatic English words apply) wax and wane, not waxing and waning.)

"ludo mentis aceim"

This is perhaps the biggest issue. Three separate issues are at play:

Ludus

Ludo is the ablative case of ludus. The ablative case can take many meanings/forms in English, and is described nicely in Wheelock's Latin Grammar, "The ablative case we sometimes call the adverbial case because it was the case used by the Romans when they wished to modify, or limit, the verb by such ideas as means ('by what'), agent ('by whom'), accompaniment ('with whom'), manner ('how'), place ('where; from which'), time ('when or within which')." (italics in the original; footnote not included). While ludus is most often "game", it is also: to make sport of, jest, or joke. (Cassell's). And the root verb includes "to decieve, delude" (Cassell's).

"mentis aciem"

"Mens" is mind (Cassell's). "Mentis" is the genitive case meaning possessive case in English ("X's", or "of X"). "Aciem" is the accusative case of "acies" meaning "keenness in various senses... Esp. of the mind..." (Cassell's, specifically noting Cicero used acies (in the accusative, aciem) to denote a keen mind).

"dissolvit"

"Dissolvit" is the 3rd person conjugation of dissolvo, -ere; meaning dissolve, melt (Cassell's). It needs a subject (Latin word(s) in the nominative case). The only choices in the nominative case are therefore Fortune or life. It's not the "horrible life" doing all the action, it's Fortune. Fortune is being anthropomorphized, not the horrible life.

Therefore, combining all this: Fortune, by the means of its keen mind, tricks the author (viz., has sport with us lowly mortals) making the author think the difference between egestatem (extreme poverty (Cassell's); i.e., having no power) and potestatem (dominion, official authority, (Cassell's); i.e., having power) is seemingly melted away by Fortune's trickery and therefore are indistinguishable from each other just like the different parts of water from melted ice are all the same (viz., no part of melted ice is different from another).

This now makes some sense, whereas the current citation not only doesn't translate the Latin words accurately, it doesn't utilize the Latin grammar to make sense out of the words.

Similarly:

"obumbrata" is the perfect passive participle form. English doesn't have a perfect passive participle form, but is usually translated by making the helping verb, "to have" put into participle form, plus the verb "to be" to create the passive voice, plus the word being translated into the past tense. Hence, having been shadowed. In this case, having been in the shadows fits better with "velata" which is also in the perfect passive participle form and is therefore, having been hidden. But, although even in the shadows, and hidden, Fortune glitters or shines (nitor, niti, Cassell's) to the author. Nowhere can the word "plague" be in any way properly derived by the Latin words here. And therefore, as suggested: by trickery, Fortune has the author bearing (fero, ferre, Cassell's) Fortune's wickedness. NOT bringing the author's bare back to Fortune's villainy. That's ludicrous (pun intended).

While this can go on in detail for the other issues as well, I'll stop here. And would be glad to justify any other changes upon request.

Or, I'm happy to accede to anyone's better thoughts on translation.

But, what is not Wikipedia's charter is to publish incorrect information--simply because it's published as opposed to OR, which, while maybe not perfect, and maybe subject to debate, and peer review (even perhaps heated, dare I say it, flaming debate), but is at least not for sure incorrect as is what is currently being published. We do not "wash our hands" of error merely because we cite to some published work, when we know that published work is not reliable.

I have several years of college Latin and Greek, and a number of years translating the classics for my own amusement. So, I have no cause for pride in authorship. Therefore, if someone wants to point out any of my errors (GREAT!, let's fix 'em), or offer an entirely different translation that can at least be supported as accurate, again, GREAT!

But until then, even a poor work of OR, that is at least directionally correct, is vastly superior to citing an unreliable published work. And I argue, I believe correctly, that given the demonstrated errors in the published work, such a new posting of OR is in full compliance with the No OR policy.

I'm going to undo, the undo of my post, one last time. As I mentioned, I have no dog in this fight. I don't care if someone helps fix errors in my work, or finds a good, published translation to post in its place. I'm just trying to make a great piece of art accessible to those without a background in Latin. The current translation cited doesn't even remotely approach that.

If in the cause of "No OR!", the forest is lost for the trees on that account, and imho Wikipedia is therefore distributing incorrect, unreliable work, then so be it.

Cjh007 (talk) 22:25, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Unfortunately, it is often the case that Wikipedia does promulgate (I think that is the word you were searching for) incorrect and unreliable work, under the umbrella of "reliable sources". I noticed only just today, on this page a distinction being made between "'hard' (peer-reviewed where appropriate) literature" and mere websites, and such "hard" literature must also exclude things like record-liner notes and those "Idiots Guide" books (why anyone would want guidance from an idiot is beyond me, though I know people who have written such books and made more money in a year than I shall earn in a lifetime—unless I declare myself an idiot and write one myself). Even "hard" literature has its lapses, of course, but I find it difficult to believe that there is no academically credible source for such a well-known text. It is, alas, merely medieval Latin, of course, and, consequently, few self-respecting Latinists would touch it with a barge pole. I shall nevertheless have a look around and see if I can find something that will at least annoy you less (I am not myself a Latinist but more than a few are within my reach on a daily basis). "Lux sit" (an inside joke at my place of employment).—Jerome Kohl (talk) 23:53, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Mr. Kohl. A very considerate, and much appreciated, response.

If you find something else, GREAT! I'm not here to do battle. My hope is to provide a better opportunity for others who want to understand the work better. If the community takes more than a just a knee-jerk-response look at the suggestions, and rejects what I hope is an "improvement", then the community has spoken; fine with me.

If it wants to work collectively to provide an even better article, again, I'm all in.

If instead, it wants to adhere to an interpretation of a rule (a rule that has served the community well) that on this occasion, imho, rejects the baby with the bath water, rather than what I suggest is a valid interpretation of the rule that permits OR when a reliable published work is unavailable (please prove me wrong there, I'd be delighted with a good translation, it certainly doesn't need to be mine!!), in that case, I'm not interested. Because I'm truly not "annoyed" by the other translation in the sense that I'm personally upset. I've done my own work, and am happy with what I hope is a reasonable understanding of the work now (but would be thrilled to have my suggestions improved upon, that would be delightful learning for me!). My hope was to share my current understanding after a reasonable effort to make an improvement. If it's rejected by the community I intended to help, I'll be on my way, no hard feelings. I'm insanely curious and rarely stay on the same topic too long.

Thanks again.

Cjh007 (talk) 02:02, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

For the record: this discussion was preceded by User talk:Michael Bednarek#O Fortuna translation.

The website which was used in the article as a source for the previous translation was possibly selected because it appeared first in a web search; there are many other sites with that text, some with more respectable names, e.g. http://chorus.ucdavis.edu/carmina/Carmina%20Burana%20translation.pdf . Lamenting the quality of a published source is rarely fruitful on Wikipedia, where, as a first principle, verifiability trumps truth by a big margin. One way around this bias is to publish in reliable sources, as some editors do. As I wrote before: If sources with a better free translation can be found, no-one will object to their use. Until then, I strongly suggest User:Cjh007 revert to the version with the sourced translation. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 04:07, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

"what is not Wikipedia's charter is to publish incorrect information--"... +1, Cjh007. The translation as of now (Feb 2015) features a fatal error which actually distorts the true meaning. The key spot is in the next-to-last stanza: "fero" (I bear) is the 1st person of "ferre" (to bear). Nothing at all to do with "bring back". The true meaning gives the entire poem its real intention: "Now, through [my] gambling, I bear a nude back due to thy crime". Didn't anyone notice that the poem as a whole (like several other of the Carmina Burana) makes a mockery of the unsuspecting reader? It is a gambler's lament that Fortune left him at the table and he lost everything. The immense amount of pathos in the text just adds to the hilarity. And no, I'll not bother to look up sources: may someone with more time do so. The above is just a memory from nine years of Latin (and music) in high school, far in the past. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.174.218.2 (talk) 17:11, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

In popular culture – merge/split

The article Carl Orff's O Fortuna in popular culture was split from this article in August 2009. Today, User:Knowledgebattle merged it without discussion into this article again, and I reverted that merge and restored the status quo. Before such a merge occurs, it should be discussed. I argue to keep the two separate. Since the split, this article has been relatively stable, and editors concerned about the work weren't bothered much by the usual outbreaks of "I heard it today on xxx – I must add that to the article." Editors who wanted to list every occurrence or cover version had their playpen at the other article – the greatest degree of content for the largest number of people. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 10:44, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

What is the benefit of keeping the two separate? In fact, what's the point of even listing all of these references? It's overkill. ^Knowledge_Battle ^(Talk) | ^Godless_Infidel ︻╦╤── 23:00, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

So why did you merge? As I wrote above, the popular culture section was split into its own article in August 2009. Since then, no-one has argued to merge it back, which indicates consensus. The onus of showing a benefit (of merging) is on those proposing it. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 02:53, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

They should be in the same article. Almost nobody is interested in "O Fortuna" the poem, except for the fact that it became the basis for the musical piece by Orff.203.173.21.103 (talk) 21:58, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

I think the translation is wrong

This gives a rather different translation: http://www.tylatin.org/extras/cb1.html. Looking at the Latin, it seems more accurate to me. Can a Latin expert weigh in? --51.9.203.31 (talk) 19:19, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

There are of course many ways to translate the text. The article uses one from http://www.classical.net/music/comp.lst/works/orff-cb/carmlyr.php. Unless that translation is shown to be wrong, there's no need to change it. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 04:08, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

The transliteration is wrong too. It’s “cordis pulsum tangite”, it’s about a pulsating heart, not a vibrating string.

There are many sources that get it wrong but the fac simile of the original manuscript is unambiguous. Nuno Dias Mendes (talk) 22:30, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

One of Wikipedia's core principles is to report what sources say. There are some sources using "cordis pulsum tangite", but none of them for Orff's work where only "corde" is used. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 03:26, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

Naxos of America

And now the USA corporation Naxos of America own the digital rights for the O Fortuna. What? How can it be??? Why??? Who can answer that the USA can own anything that dont even was created on opaque side of World? They own digital records for Neanderthalis music as well? Bynk--78.98.68.203 (talk) 14:26, 12 September 2020 (UTC)