Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Opera

Archives
Index

Some Puccini jobs

Feel free to add to the list and cross off bits as they are done... Voceditenore (talk) 18:09, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

• Puccini
  • The section on his alleged politics has no references at all. Not good since it makes claims about his relationship with Fascism.
• Le Villi
  • Needs recording info.
• Manon Lescaut
  • Has quotes in the opening section but no sources given for them.
• La bohème
  • Performance history needs work
  • Could use some expansion on the relationship to Murger's original
  • Needs link to the libretto (if available)
• Tosca
  • Musical analysis section completely unreferenced and not really finished
  • Anecdotes section needs editing for style, POV and referencing
• Madama Butterfly
  • Not bad on the whole but has some "citation needed tags", including one in the lead paragraph.
  • Noted arias section is now largely redundant to Synopsis which has the arias intergrated into it.
• La fanciulla del West
  • Performance history has several unreferenced assertions
  • Other influences has dubious unreferenced assertion still being argued about on talk page
• Il trittico
  • Whole article is completely unreferenced and largely personal opinion
• Suor Angelica
  • Unreferenced apart from ext. link to libretto hosted on amateur site
  • Very limited performance history
  • No recordings
• Il tabarro
  • Unreferenced apart from ext. link to notes on libretto hosted on amateur site
  • Very limited performance history
• Gianni Schicchi
  • Lacks proper references, and inline external links should be made into references, added to external links, or removed as appropriate.
  • The performance history is rather sparse
  • No recordings
  • In popular culture needs to be gotten rid of. One bit belongs in performance history (the new Woody Allen production for LA Opera) and the other bit about "O mio babbino caro" can be pruned and then added to the noted arias section.
• La rondine
  • Unreferenced and probably largely untrue statement about "alternative" ending used by Marta Domingo.
  • Synopsis plagiarised from Opera Glass

Comments/Queries

• Le Villi: for the recordings see it:Le Villi (en.wiki has also a wrong quote: I tried to point out the problem in the talk and writing on this project page, but without success)
• Manon Lescaut: exactly, what quotes are you talking about?

Despite all the warnings, Puccini proceeded. "Manon is a heroine I believe in and therefore she cannot fail to win the hearts of the public. Why shouldn’t there be two operas about her? A woman like Manon can have more than one lover." He added, "Massenet feels it as a Frenchman, with powder and minuets. I shall feel it as an Italian, with a desperate passion."Voceditenore (talk) 22:44, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

See it:Manon Lescaut, nota 1. Since I haven't the book, I cannot be sure that the first part of the quotation doesn't start at p. 26. No idea about the author of the traslation. --Al Pereira(talk) 23:06, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

• La bohème: for the link to the libretto, see it:La bohème --Al Pereira(talk) 21:15, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
• La rondine: it isn't an "alternate ending", but the third version. The version normally performed is the first. No need of quotation, every recent book on Puccini talks about the differences among the 3 versions. --Al Pereira(talk) 15:09, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I know about the three versions, but in the third version does Puccini (and the libretto) actually specify that Magda commits suicide by walking into the sea? That's what happened in the Marta Domingo production and is what the WP article is talking about. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 15:37, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

I understand (a metaphorical suicide.... or a fish instead of a swallow :D ), but this seems to have to do with the stage direction, not with the libretto. Directors often change the plot. Anyway, the paragraph isn't clear, and maybe it could be removed --Al Pereira(talk) 17:16, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, there are three versions to the ending of the opera by Puccini but commits suicide by walking into the sea was Marta's version. I have deleted the part about Puccini's version and adding reference to Marta Domingo’s Reconceptualization of “Rondine” in La rondine. - Jay (talk) 14:09, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Le Villi and the "narrator"

After I added the "Selected recordings" in Le Villi, Al Pereira sent me a message (copy/paste from his message sent to me),

"…maybe it should be pointed out that the opera hasn't a Narrator as a character and that it's a mistake to declaim those verses, since Fontana wrote them only for the reader. The problem is that it doesn't exist any Narrator in the score and in the libretto. See [1], [2] and [3] - Al Pereira"

What makes me confused now is, if the narrator is not part of Puccini’s idea, or not in the libretto, how come the part is there since the first performance on 31 May 1884? I have asked Al Pereira to discuss about this in here. - Jay (talk) 16:42, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Actually, the narrator and his narration do appear in copies of the libretto, e.g. [4]. However, Michele Girardi in Puccini: His International Art, p. 28 [5] claims that Fontana had originally intended the narration as 'programme notes' for the audience, not to be spoken stage. (In those days, the audience brought the libretto into the performance.)

But if there was a narrator in the early performances, then it's a moot point what Fontana had intended. That's how it was and is performed. See also [6]. Does anyone have a reference for there having been a narrator on stage for the premiere performances of the various versions? If so, then Girardi's views could go in a footnote. Voceditenore (talk) 18:07, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

The point is very simple: the narrator doesn't appear in the libretto. That's all. I mean: it doesn't appear in the real libretto, not in a joke-libretto edited for a web (or for a CD), which cannot be considered a serious source (and I'm really surprised that these kind of sources are used on wikipedia). It isn't a Girardi's view because it isn't a view but a fact. Obviously, I know the original librettos. If you go to the Italian wikisource, you can find two different versions of the libretto (and I mean the old, original Ricordi libretto). The verses appear beginning with the second version (Turin 1884) and in this libretto it isn't mentioned any narrator, neither in the front cover nor in the pages of the two "intermezzi sinfonici". BTW, this is absolutely normal: it would be strange if the verses were played, still more in a libretto by Fontana, since he asserted that the libretto for the composer and the libretto for the audience had to be different things (see In Teatro: I quoted this on it.wiki). --Al Pereira(talk) 04:23, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Song titles

According to WP:MOSMUSIC, song names are to be enclosed in quotation marks as they are in the La bohème article. Is there some reason why arias like "O mio babbino caro" are italicized? Copana2002 (talk) 01:16, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Actually in the OP format guidelines it says to use italics in all cases. I've always found that odd (a) because few other editorial styles do that (Grove uses single quotes 'O mio babbino caro', UK style) and (b) to people unfamiliar with the subject it looks confusing when they appear in conjunction with opera titles which are also (rightly) italicized. I tend to ignore it now and use "" instead. The only exception would be when the aria itself is the subject of the article. But even there, Grove tends not to italicize nor use quotes when its the actual title of an entry. Voceditenore (talk) 15:18, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Oops, must have missed that on the guidelines page. Thanks for the clarification. :) Copana2002 (talk) 15:59, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Jessie Bartlett Davis

There are issues with her birth year. Sources vary. Does anyone have any reliable sources to back up the date? Her obituary in the New York Times said that she was 46 years old when she died which puts the year at 1859 or 1858. Another book says she was born in 1866. I have started a discussion on the article's talk page. 02:00, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Chiaroscuro (music)

I just stumbled across this article. I'm not familiar with the term chiaroscuro outside of art, so I'm not sure if this is accurate. Grove gives this as the name of a British ensemble and the name of a record company but does not define it in terms of singing. That being said, this definition seems like a reasonable application taken from art (with the exception of calling bel canto a technique), so it could be true.Nrswanson (talk) 16:51, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

It's mentioned in On the Art of Singing by Richard Miller, Oxford University Press, 1996, p. 10: [7]. There's also a whole chapter on it in Bel Canto: A History of Vocal Pedagogy by James Stark, University of Toronto Press, 2003, pp. 33-56: [8]. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 17:18, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I didn't think to look in Stark and I have a copy. Should have thought of that. I have only purused through it though. It's on my to read list. Nrswanson (talk) 17:29, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Time to archive?

Is it time to archive guys? Some of these discussions are pretty old and way over. I'm not really sure how our archive system works or I would do it myself.Nrswanson (talk) 18:49, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

I think it's just done by hand. Please don't archive the Puccini section though - I'm using that to keep track of what needs to be done. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 19:59, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm sure it is done by hand lol. I'm just not sure how to handle the index side of the archiving process. Do we index all of the archives? Also, I wasn't even thinking of archiving the threads like the Puccini ones that are still active.Nrswanson (talk) 20:15, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

I have archived most of them, but if you think they are still needed here for discussion, let me know .. or you can also copy back the discussion you want (pls delete the discussion in the archive page once you copy them here). The archive number is WikiProject Opera: Archive 73 - Jay (talk) 01:11, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

I've moved back the comments/queries section for Some Puccini jobs above. It's needed as it has useful tips comments for those working on it and provides a place for further discussion without cluttering up the list. Also, as a general rule, it's not good to archive only subsections of a discussion. The context becomes lost and it looks like it's the sub-section of a completely different discussion. Re the Puccini clips that have been archived, I'm wondering if it would be better to have a dedicated sub page for the clips if Shoemaker's Holiday wants to keep track of them and indeed to post new ones for discussion. Something like: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Opera/Sound files. Then a brief notice could be posted here to alert members of new additions. The sound files and their graphics tend to clutter up the page and add considerable "bytes" to it. What do people think? Best, Voceditenore (talk) 06:32, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree to have a split section such as Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Opera/Sound files to discuss about audios. Shoemaker's Holiday, if you are ok with it, you can cut/paste all the archived recordings into Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Opera/Sound files - Jay (talk) 13:45, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

As you can see, I've been bold and moved all the sound files and their discussions from archive 73 to this new page: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Opera/Sound files. I'll also add a note at the top of this page to let people know about it. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 14:06, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

• Re indexing of the archives The actual Index (Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Opera/archive index) is generated automatically by a bot which passes through to update it. The last time was November 7th. It normally passes through twice a day and updates the index if it finds new material in the archives since its last visit. Occasionally this is delayed by server problems or bugs needing to be fixed. There is also a simple Table of Contents page at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Opera/archive toc with a summary of the contents of each archive page. That is updated by hand when you archive something, but you needn't list every single topic in it. All XfD's for example, can be just grouped in the Summary as "XfDs", ditto simple announcements about available sources. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 08:11, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Massive cat changes

There has recently been a major overhall of the Category:USA opera companies into sub-categories by state. I'm not sure I like this. Most states only have one or two companies and only a few, like New York State, have a significant number.Nrswanson (talk) 20:47, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

A further problem is that we have a competing cat Category:American opera companies going on as well. User:Raven1977 created Category:USA opera companies on November 12 and has been switching things over.Nrswanson (talk) 20:48, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Having been reviewing a week's worth of edits on my watchlist and having seen all these new categs, I have to wonder what is their value. Shall we keep them? Viva-Verdi (talk) 21:37, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

I personally see little value in creating tons of sub cats that are unlikely to populate beyond one or two articles. Further, List of North American opera companies already provides divisions by state for those who want to search by region. I like the old system better.Nrswanson (talk) 22:31, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Let's hope that we can get more support from this group and reverse this trend by trying to establish a common policy. The sooner the better, as it will be easier to reverse the changes. Viva-Verdi (talk) 00:52, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

My watchlist is also infested with various category changes for British and some Continental Europe companies. Someone needs to contact WikiFairy Raven1977 to ask a) what it's all about and b) why hasn't the Opera Project been notified? I'm off to bed now, but could do so tomorrow if no-one else has done it by then. -- 01:15, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I've noticed it too and find it very un helpful. It's also being implemented in a very odd/confusing fashion. See, for example Category:New York opera companies. Read this: Template:Category_redirect#Instructions for the template that was added to the top of the old category pages. I'm also going to leave a message on Raven1977's talk page asking them to come here and join the discussion. Voceditenore (talk) 06:46, 14 November 2008 (UTC) (Done - Voceditenore (talk) 09:21, 14 November 2008 (UTC))

I was busy this morning, but it's probably not worth adding my piece as well. Maybe I'll do so if s(he) doesn't turn up here within the next day or two. -- 16:36, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Well I'm very sorry for any disturbance I caused. I was honestly trying to help. The category "American opera companies" was the problem I came across, and in my opinion it was wrongly named. There's a North America, South America, and Central America; but the category "American" was being used solely for US opera companies. So I was the one who created the category USA opera companies and put various items in them as I thought was applicable. I also created the category, "Opera companies by country", and then put the countries into them. There were already a few categories for countries, and it seemed like a better way to categorize various companies than just in the broad category "Opera companies". The states' categories I really don't care about, I realized as someone mentioned that the various states don't really have many companies in them. So if you'd rather have them gone, I'd be glad to put their contents back in, say, "USA opera companies" or North American opera companies. But anyway, I apologize again for not running this by the opera project first, I didn't know a) the project existed, and b) that my changes would be so controversial. Raven1977 (talk) 16:58, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Just a further comment: I went to the help page for Category naming to see if there were any guidelines first, before I created new categories, and I saw nothing mentioning Opera companies, and how to name the categories for them. Perhaps it would be good to get something about opera's preferred categorization onto that page so future people don't make massive changes that turn out to be against consensus. Raven1977 (talk) 17:29, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the above. Personally, I think that "Opera companies by country" is fine, but there's no need for sub-categories, e.g. US states, Scotland/Wales etc. As for "American opera companies", were you also planning to do something about the categories from Category:American 5 star officers, Category:American abbots ... all the way to Category:American zoologists and Category:American Zoroastrians?

In the further comment, were you referring to Wikipedia:Naming conventions (categories)? -- 18:19, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

• What's wrong with categories for Scotland and Wales? Aren't those countries too? I have to admit confusion as to them not having their own category.
• And in regard to other categories having designation of "American", I'll reference WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. I know it's largely used in deletion debate, but I think it can apply here as well, in that just because other stuff is not quite right, doesn't mean we shouldn't change what we come across that can be corrected when we have the time/resolve to do so.
• Wikipedia:Naming conventions (categories) was the area I was referring to, yes. I think I tried to use its general guidelines when I named the categories as I did, since I didn't see any specific criteria there for opera-related stuff. I'll be glad to remove the contents of the categories for US states, although I am unsure how to get those categories deleted? So if someone wishes to do so once they're empty, or will point me in the correct direction to do it, I'll be glad to do that too. Again, I apologize for any disruption or aggravation caused here.Raven1977 (talk) 19:33, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Actually Wales and Scotland are part of the United Kingdom and are governed by British parliament and Queen Elizabeth II. It's probably best to lump the UK companies all into one. See how List of opera companies in Europe is structured. Nrswanson (talk) 19:39, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

So, under British opera companies then, or under (the currently non-existing) UK opera companies? Raven1977 (talk) 19:44, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure if British would cover everyone in the UK or not. I'd hold off until some of our UK editors chime in. I think British might be a more specific designation but I might be wrong.Nrswanson (talk) 19:58, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Two more questions. Is the preference to de-populate the contents of US states into category of USA opera companies, North American opera companies or American opera companies? Even though I personally think the latter category is improperly named, if consensus is that it's preferred, that's fine. I don't want to step on further toes, so I'll wait for further clarification on that before I unpopulate the US states' categories. Also, Re Category:New York opera companies, does that need de-populated as well? It seems to be more needed than any of the other US states' categories, as there are a good number of companies that qualify for the category. Raven1977 (talk) 19:44, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Well speaking as an American, I prefer American. I know others can technically use the term but its the way we refer to ourselves. Its the word that identifies us as a people. Not using it just doesn't sit right with me. It's like saying we can't be ourselves. It just seems wrong on a personal level. I can't explain it better than that. To give you an example, if I worked in Germany as a teacher I would no longer think of myself as a "United States teacher" but I would always be an "American teacher" where ever I lived and worked. Nrswanson (talk) 19:55, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

I understand where you're coming from but in my opinion "American" is a designation that's a little too "USA-centric" a term, when we're dealing with an encyclopedia that's being edited and used worldwide. But if "American" has consensus, so be it. Raven1977 (talk) 20:04, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm not convinced that USA or UK are adjectives. So I would prefer "opera companies in the UK/USA" as the cat names.--Peter cohen (talk) 20:20, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

If we organize them by geography as opposed to nationality that would be fine. We would then have to convert all of the other cats as well. (Opera companies in France, Opera companies in Italy, etc.)Nrswanson (talk) 20:37, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

That naming convention does make more sense. There would be a lot of leftover categories to get deleted, but I assume there's a process to accomplish that. Raven1977 (talk) 20:47, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Can I inject a note of sanity here? I am not an American, but I have no problem with anyone using the term "American" to describe a citizen of the USA. Do Canadians think of themselves as Americans? No, they don't. Do Mexicans, or Chileans, or ... - no, none of them do. "Americano" in Spanish (as used in Central and South America) doesn't mean a person from the continent(s) of America, it means a citizen of the USA. I imagine that the same or similar word is used by the Portuguese-speaking Brazilians. So there is no reason why Opera Project "by country" categories - and those don't exist only for opera companies but also for opera houses, singers, composers, etc., etc. - should differ from "by country" categories elsewhere in WP. There is common sense and there is pedantry, and I am on the side of common sense. -- 01:26, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

As I stated before, I saw something that I felt was incorrect, so I took a good couple of hours to correct the issue. And really the more I think about it, it's quite a mountain out of a molehill here, over categories of all things, for goodness sake. In the amount of time this was discussed, especially the amount of time it was talked about before anyone said anything to me on my talk page about it, my edits could have just been reverted. Please feel free to do so, I won't edit war about it. I am disappointed that my well-meaning efforts to make the sub-categorization better was so unwelcome, but I'll get over it. It's a big encyclopedia; I'll leave your pages be from now on. Raven1977 (talk) 03:00, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Dom Sebastiano

The plot summary mentions "the Moor princess Zayda, whom he had rescued from being burnt at stake for trying to escape the monastery she had resided in since her conversion to Christianity" - Shouldn't that be "nunnery"? Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 20:05, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

The Opera Rara synopsis gives monastery. She hadn't become a nun. I've got my programme somewhere from the ROH concert performance by Opera Rara. I'll check, but I'm pretty sure it's a monastery. Voceditenore (talk) 17:35, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Puccini role creators

I just completed a study to determine which Puccini role creators could easily yield articles and which couldn't. I searched in Grove, A concise biographical dictionary of singers by Riemens, and Operissimo.com for articles on every Puccini role creator. As a result I unwikified several red links that are not likely to yield articles since they weren't covered in any of those sources, and I wikified several singers that could easily yield articles. So basically, if its red now then a viable article should be easy to create. I will note that two of this months singers of the month did not make the list of viable articles: Jean-Francisque Delmas from La Rondine and Alessandro Polonini from Manon Lescaut. Of course it's very possible that resources may exist to cover these two but in my experience singers who aren't covered in at least one of the three above sources are not likely to yield an article. We may want to select two other role creators to replace them. On a side note, I have recently created articles on Giuseppe Cremonini, Gustave Huberdeau and Rita Fornia.Nrswanson (talk) 20:28, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

I Just discoved that the French wikipedia has an article on Francisque Delmas: [9]. Curiously it doesn't even mention La Rondine.Nrswanson (talk) 20:54, 15 November 2008 (UTC)