Talk:Opera/Archive 5

Introduction

As explained on the Opera Project, I am proposing a new introduction for this article - one that doesn't represent opera as the ugly step-child of music and drama but as the leading member of the performing arts. Here it is. Comments, criticisms are welcome before or after I post it.

Opera is one of the performing arts (alongside music, dance and drama), and its special character derives from combining elements of the others, as well as visual effects. Opera is invariably live and given in a specially-equipped opera house or theatre. It is unamplified to order to feature the beauty of the natural voice. While the scale can be greater or smaller - there are many different genres of opera - performance typically involves artists with different talents such as singers, instrumentalists and often dancers and actors. Usually an orchestra led by a conductor accompanies the singers. The opera world is internationa - in contrast to spoken theatre. German, French, Italian and English etc. works are performed world-wide in their original languages, and artists travel from country to country performing.

-- Kleinzach 05:15, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Maybe have "Usually an orchestra directed by a conductor", not "led by", in British English usage the leader of the orchestra is the Principal First Violin/Concertmaster or whatever else you want to call him. David Underdown 14:48, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

I suggest combining the best of what Folantin previously wrote, and what Kleinzach suggests above, as follows:

Opera is one of the performing arts (alongside music, theatre, and dance), which combines elements of the others and focuses on conveying the drama of the work through music and singing. Opera is generally performed in a specially-equipped opera house, unamplified in order to feature the beauty and athleticism of the trained operatic voice. While the scale of an opera can be greater or smaller – there are many different genres of opera – the music is typically played by an orchestra or a smaller musical ensemble.

Opera emerged in Italy around the year 1600 and is generally associated with the Western classical music tradition. Opera uses many of the elements of spoken theatre such as scenery, costumes, and acting, but is distinguished by the importance of singing and conventions of vocal technique. In contrast to spoken theatre, which is generally performed in the language of the audience, operas are often performed in their original languages, most often German, French, Italian, English or Russian, and opera singers, conductors and directors travel from country to country performing.

Then, the stuff about Chinese Opera, etc. could be moved down further. -- Ssilvers 15:39, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, that was helpful. I have done a new version - hopefully covering all points raised and most of the phraseology - and put it up on the article. Please hack as necessary. One point: I have avoided using the word 'theatre' (meaning drama rather than a building) when possible because usage problems. - Kleinzach 10:04, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

I disagree with the new introduction for the following reasons (most of which are reflected in what I wrote above):

• What makes opera special is the importance of the singing, the kind of singing, and what the article used to call "operatic conventions". Other performance arts combine drama, music and dance, such as musicals and ballet. In fact, most dance also incorporates music and drama. The first paragraph is very misleading. If you did not know what opera was, you certainly would not understand it from this introduction.
• Why is opera more "live" than other performance arts? Besides, opera is often recorded.
• Chamber opera is played by a smaller ensemble rather than an orchestra, and indeed small-scale productions of operas are often performed with only a piano.
• It doesn't mean anything to say that the opera world is "international". Musicals and other theatre, ballet, and other performance arts tour worldwide. The only thing that is true here is that opera is more often done in original languages than theatre and that star singers and conductors travel a lot.
• I thought you wanted to move the Chinese Opera stuff out of the introduction, and I agreed with that.

I really am not trying to be difficult, but I don't think that this is descriptive or even true. -- Ssilvers 05:20, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Before you changed the text, Paragraph 1 was a defintion. Paragraph 2 was description and Paragraph 3 cultural/historical context. What you have done is muddle the first two. (Fortunately, despite your comments, you seem to have left paragraph 3 alone!). (And I was hoping that some other people would have a chance to read it and have a chance to comment!). In answer to your individual points:

• Many people would disagree with your statement that "what makes opera special is the importance of the singing etc." (Try Wagner, or perhaps this quote by the great soprano Lotte Lehmann: "For me acting was always the main thing.")
• The original text didn't say that opera is more live than other performing arts - it said invariably live (i.e. recognizing the existence of a few TV/radio operas). Note that recordings are not stand-alone works, they record performances, either directly or indirectly.
• There are only 21 works in the chamber opera cat, out of about 1,000 total works, so not very significant. ASAIK there is no opera scored for a piano. (Pianos are used for rehearsals.)
• The polyglot nature of opera is much greater than you think. Many non-star artists travel - witness the large numbers of American singers in small German houses. Opera directors will often switch between three or four different languages when they are working with performers. (Dance etc. doesn't involve language etc.) In any case the 'international' comparison was with spoken drama. Before you removed it the sentence read: The opera world is international - in contrast to spoken theatre - and Italian, German, French, English, Russian and Czech etc. works are performed world-wide in their original languages, while artists travel from country to country performing. -- Kleinzach 07:07, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

I replaced Kleinzach's version for discussion. By the way, drama is the literary form. Theatre is the performing art, according to the relevant Wikipedia articles. Here is another attempt at an introduction for this article that I think is clearer:

Opera is one of the performing arts, which combines music, acting and dance, and focuses on conveying the drama of the work through music and singing. The special character of Opera derives from the sound of the trained operatic voice. It is generally performed in a specially-equipped opera house, and the music is typically played by an orchestra or a smaller musical ensemble. Like other forms of theatre, opera employs scenery, costumes and lighting, but it eschews amplification so that the sound of the human voice may be heard unaltered.

Opera emerged in Italy around the year 1600 and is generally associated with the Western classical music tradition. In contrast to spoken theatre, which is usually performed in the language of the audience, operas are often performed in their original languages, most often German, French, Italian, English, Russian or Czech, and opera singers, conductors and directors often travel from country to country performing.

The stuff about Chinese Opera, etc. could be moved down further. Best regards, -- Ssilvers 13:03, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Three quick points. (1.) I have tried to make the intro as neutral as possible. Sentences like "The special character of Opera derives from the sound of the trained operatic voice" (Ssilvers) describe a point of view. (2) It's better to keep history separate from the description in paragraph 2. (3.) Let's avoid theatre/drama terminology problems (largely a US/UK thing) that exist elsewhere on WP. Our perspective here is that of opera. -- Kleinzach 23:45, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

(1.) How is the new language better?: Opera's "special character derives from the combination of elements of the others, as well as visual effects conveyed by scenery, costumes, and lighting." This language would better describe musicals. The first paragraph is not a useful definition of opera. (2.) Putting up this new language the way you did is not collaborative. There was and is no WP:CONSENSUS here. IMO, the old language is preferable. Since it looks like no one cares enough to discuss this except for the two of us, I assume that this new introduction will remain. Therefore, I took out the most obviously untrue statements in paragraph 2. (3.) I don't see how we can disregard the definitions of theatre and drama in those Wikipedia articles. If you disagree with them, go to those articles' talk pages and raise your objections. In any case, you should at least de-link "drama" if you are not going to use it in the sense given at that article. -- Ssilvers 13:26, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Not a lot of time for this but I see the Drama article has tags all over it so it's hardly a reliable reference for anything, also Theatre starts with a definition which invalidates your point, i.e. if theatre had an unambiguous meaning it would not need to be defined. Anyway I don't see much relevance. As I said before (I think) this is all about the big picture. Time for someone else to comment - though I see you have made another edit. -- Kleinzach 14:12, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to weigh in but I don't have enough time at the moment. I think we should get straight to the point: opera is a form of music drama associated with the Western tradition of "classical" music and it began in Italy around the year 1600. To be honest, I'd rather go back to my version [1] with the necessary modifications. --Folantin 14:33, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Let's discuss this when you have more time. When I started this I didn't realize that it was your version that was here, however I realized this was a potential mine field so I did post my version on the Project page first, and I remember you agreed that the introduction needed fixing and expanding. There are some aspects of my intro that I feel strongly about, but perhaps we can work it all out when you have time. I'm willing to work towards an intelligent compromise that doesn't cross anybody's red lines. The important part for me is the first sentence. -- Kleinzach 15:03, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

OK, but I've added a first sentence which tries to define what opera actually is (compare these [2]). Opera= sung drama. We really need to get that across. --Folantin 09:12, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

That's certainly an improvement! -- Ssilvers 12:44, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

"the characters sing most or all of the text" worries me a bit - there is a lot of spoken dialogue in Carmen, though it's usually cut. And then there's G&S! I rather favour Amanda Holden's definition in the Viking Guide: "any dramatic work that can be sung (or at times declaimed or spoken) in a place for performance, set to original music for singers (usually in costume) and instrumentalists." --GuillaumeTell 17:55, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

I've changed it a bit and added a few clarifying sentences. --Folantin 18:13, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Now the first paragraph covers a lot of what is in the second paragraph, so you could delete the second paragraph and just keep any sentences from it that are not covered in the first paragraph. However, the whole thing is more like what we had before, except that it's unwikified. Here's a crazy idea: go back to how it was before, which was basically OK. By the way, I think the third paragraph does not belong in the intro. Why spend so much space in the intro discussing non-Western traditions, when we already said that Opera is based on the Western classical music tradition? Best regards, -- Ssilvers 19:31, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

You're probably right, although I think we should still mention the famous singers in the new version. --Folantin 19:40, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

OK, but why only mention 20th century singers? Was no one so famous before that? Were no conductors as famous as the greatest singers? Best regards, -- Ssilvers 20:31, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

I didn't only mention 20th century singers (from the early days of the art form performers have won international fame for their vocal skill.) but the names I gave are a selection of the ones most readers will recognise. Add others from earlier centuries (Senesino, Farinelli, Melba?) if you wish. As for conductors, they tend to be famous for being conductors of classical music in general rather than opera in particular, so I'm not sure why we should single any of them out for mention. Plus opera managed without a conductor as such for most of its first two centuries of existence, whereas the form is completely impossible without the singers. --Folantin 20:48, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

I've just read the current version of the lead, and, with three well-filled paras, it is simply too long (and almost looks as if it needs someone to stick in a "wikify" tag!). If the 2nd and 3rd paras are that important, they should get their own heading(s) and appear in the TOC. --GuillaumeTell 20:39, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Actually, it's probably not long enough for an article this size (see WP:LEAD). Some of the repeated material in the second para can be slashed (assuming we keep the current version). The third para can go completely (or we can consign it to a footnote). We then need to summarise the contents of the rest of the article in the intro. --Folantin 20:53, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

I disagree with the new first sentence: Opera is a form of musical drama in which the text is wholly or partly sung. This is fine to say if you are an critic/composer or whatever, but it is a point of view. This is an encylopedia and we should aim at the most neutral, overarching, all-embracing, general definition possible. The text which now leads Para 2, (a kind of second-chance definition?) is neutral: "Opera is one of the performing arts (alongside music, drama and dance), and its special character derives from the combination of elements of the others, as well as visual effects conveyed by scenery, costumes, and lighting." This should lead the article.

Why is this important? When I was working with the Arts Project on the categorization of the arts in general, people questioned whether opera was a genre of music or so-called 'theatre' and referred to the definition on this page.

Para 1 was originally definition and Para 2 was (bare bones) description. What we have now is Para 1 (definition then a lot of description much of it superfluous), and Para 2 (definition then description, some of it repetitive, e.g. second orchestra reference). The beginning of the article should be about essentials. Having composer names in the first paragraph IMO is a bad idea, let alone the singers. (How many people will agree on the primacy of Caruso, Callas and Domingo? Isn't this an open invitation to edit wars?).

I am in favour of deleting the first paragraph altogther and then looking at the rest to see if it can be improved. -- Kleinzach 01:03, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Opera's special character does *not* derive from the combination. First, dance is optional. Opera's special character derives from the type of singing and music that is used to convey the drama and the fact that the singing is more important than in any other form of staged, dramatic performance. -- Ssilvers 02:50, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree with SSilvers here. I had a look at several definitions of opera (follow the link above). Another example from the Concise Oxford: "dramatic performance or composition of which music is an essential part". There's also this [3]: "Opera. A wholly or mostly sung drama written for operatic voices" (though I'd change that "mostly" to "partly" per GT). All the definitions mention "music" and "drama" (or their equivalents) somewhere. The early Italians called the form dramma per musica or dramma musicale. Opera can get by without scenery, dancing etc. if necessary; it can't do without words and music. Singing defines opera; if the characters don't sing at some point, then I can't see how a piece can be called an opera. The opening sentences are there to provide a succinct definition for readers who don't know what opera is. As for the singers, I chose them because they were the names likely to be most familiar to non-specialists (I could have added others, such as Pavarotti, of course). I think virtually everybody has heard of Caruso and Callas. It's important to get the idea that opera depends on a specialised kind of singing in there as early as possible and mentioning a few famous names should give readers a good indication of what this singing entails. (As I say, I'm also quite happy to go back to the previous - i.e. early May - version and we can modify that if people prefer). --Folantin 07:48, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

As a latecomer to this erudite exchange, may I say that I think the tone of the early May opening better than the revised version proposed above, which has me judice an air of special pleading? I don't think I can add much to the above attempts at a definition, but Prima la musica, poi le parole is and always has been true, whatever Wagner's theories. No canary fancier I, but it must be conceded that opera is performed by singers who may or may not be able to act. No-one became an opera star by acting well and singing badly, unless you count... No no! Tim Riley 13:40, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Prima la musica, poi le parole is echt-POV, witness Richard Strauss who carefully left the dispute between the poet and the composer unresolved in Capriccio. I haven't had a chance to look at this for the past few days, but I see we still have the singers (with - pause for uncontrolled laughter - Joan Sutherland!) etc. in the first paragraph. Hmm, perhaps we can all make a new effort to bring some intellectual rigor to this discussion?

Before then please see Music drama and the opening of that article Music drama is the term ascribed to the revolutionary medium of artistic expression created by the German composer Richard Wagner. It was in large part through this novel form (my emphasis) that Wagner had a major effect on the course of European classical music. . . . Also see Category:Music dramas. So it's not a good idea to start our flagship article with the sentence Opera is a form of musical drama etc. I am as good a post-Wagnerian as the next contributor, but this is an encyclopedia with a NPOV policy. -- Kleinzach 03:52, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

John Deathridge (Viking p.1173): Posterity is still oblivious to the fact Wagner rejected the term 'music drama'. Whichever way you look at it, opera is a combination of music and drama. It's basically a play set wholly or partly to music for singers trained in the operatic style(s). All the definitions I've looked at have said something along those lines. The famous singers should be mentioned somewhere in the introduction. Before last week, they weren't even mentioned in the article, which is a bizarre state of affairs. Again, I'm quite happy to revert to the early May version, as some have requested here, and we can work from that. --Folantin 07:37, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

John Deathridge (and your good self by extension) may well be right. (I don't use Viking.) So, are you going to re-write the Music drama and reclassify the category? -- Kleinzach 08:25, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

I have no intention of working on that article in the immediate future but I do think it is under the wrong title and should be moved to something like "Wagnerian drama" or "Wagner's concept of drama". Wagner certainly doesn't have a monopoly on the phrase "music drama". --Folantin 10:36, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

I'll present the long version of my argument shortly. It doesn't look as though a compromise is going to be possible, but let's see. As to the rest of the first paragraph, I think most of it should simply be deleted. Why Enrico Caruso, Maria Callas, Joan Sutherland, Luciano Pavarotti? Lowest common denominator? Because no-one has heard of any 19th century singers? Or for that matter Chaliapin, Ponselle, Flagstad, etc.? And why in the name of the sacred groves, Rossini, Wagner and Puccini? Why those three? I might understand Mozart, Wagner and Verdi! But Rossini, Wagner and Puccini aren't even anybody's lowest common denominator, are they? (Of course later in the article a paragraph on composers and a paragraph on singers would be perfectly reasonable.) -- Kleinzach 08:17, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't understand your objections to naming those singers. I chose them because they are immensely famous and they were/are great artists. This is our most basic article and if any page should be addressed to non-experts it should be this one. I clearly stated my reasons for choosing those particular composers: "some celebrated names, such as Rossini, Wagner and Puccini, are almost entirely associated with the genre." I might have added Donizetti and Bellini there too. The idea is that you can become an extremely famous composer by writing nothing (or almost nothing) but opera, which stresses the importance of the form. Of course, we can eliminate these problems by going back to the early May version and improving that. I do, however, think we should probably be addressing the other inadequacies of this, our core article. Cheers. --Folantin 10:29, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Suggestion: Why don't we (1) go back to the May version and tweak that; and (2) move the discussion of famous opera singers down into the body of the article. Also, if we examine WP:Lead, I think we could probably do a better job of giving an "overview" of the article i in this intro. -- Ssilvers 13:10, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. Once we have a section on famous singers then we can summarise it in the introduction anyway. (Another vague thought: at the moment we have rather a lot of space devoted to the history of opera in various contries; once we have revised the main "national opera" sub-articles, maybe we can compact this material a bit). I'll consign the para nobody likes about other musical theatre traditions to a footnote (or it can be deleted entirely). --Folantin 13:16, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

OK. I bit the bullet and reverted to a prior version. I hope it was one of the few unvandalised versions, but if anybody has a preference for taking this back to a different time stamp, then go ahead. I'll try to summarise the history of opera in a single paragraph (per WP:LEAD) some time today. Cheers. --Folantin 13:32, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Going back to the May version?

I don't think going back to the May version is particularly helpful. I originally tried to start this discussion on the Opera Project (May 15), then here (May 22). Now it is June 4 and we are suddenly switching versions all over the place! When I've had a chance to write out my ideas - as I said I would - I'll start a new section on the definition of opera so we can discuss the main issue a lot more thoroughly, carefully and deliberately than hitherto. The singers/composers won't pose much trouble if we agree that they are to have their own paragraphs in an appropriate, logical section. (Incidentally I had to laugh, if there was one singer capable of disproving that opera has anything to do with drama (or texts) it was dear old Joan Sutherland, the lady who tried to abolish consonants!) Until later. -- Kleinzach 14:45, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

BTW I can't understand why the third paragraph has been deleted! I thought this has been accepted by everybody! (It was not written by me so I am not arguing for my own text.) -- Kleinzach 15:04, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Because it is more important to discuss what opera *is* than what it is not. Also, it has not been deleted. Rather, Folantin put it into a footnote, which seems like a good solution to me. Note also Folantin's offer above to add another paragraph giving an overview of the rest o the article per WP:LEAD. -- Ssilvers 15:07, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes. Footnotes are useful for adding nuances. They also leave us less vulnerable to attack from Wiki-pedant "slashers" who are likely to turn up complaining this article is too long (i.e. over 32k) and should be broken up. I think up to 50k (?) is defensible for a topic this important but we should aim to be succinct where we can. As I've already said, we can cut some of the history material once the sub-articles are up to standard. --Folantin 15:19, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

It's impossible to discuss the introduction if you continue to edit the article every 5 minutes. It's been 9 times in the last hour. -- Kleinzach 15:25, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

General reply to Kleinzach: Those were mostly minor edits (typos and such, plus getting rid of some possible advertising someone had placed in the article which I'd only just noticed). I'm quite happy to consider any changes you'd like to make and I apologise for not reading your version more carefully earlier. It's just that in May there seemed to be a mass of conflicts on operatic topics on WP (plus I was caught up in real life events). One thing I would say, as a veteran of several Wiki-wars, is that it's probably not a good idea to approach rewriting the intro on this basis: I am proposing a new introduction for this article - one that doesn't represent opera as the ugly step-child of music and drama but as the leading member of the performing arts. Opera is a fusion of music and drama (though it's certainly not an "ugly step-child"). Showing that it is a leading member of the performing arts is fine, but the leading member is just asking for trouble round these parts. Best. --Folantin 15:35, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Minor edits? At least three paragraphs disappeared.

For the record, the word 'leading' did not appear in my version. It was used in an innocent context, unlike the comment above. No-one was trying to initiate a (completely irrelevant) competition between different art forms. Pulling political correctness is not going to help discussion - assuming it's still going on which may, in itself, be a big assumption. -- Kleinzach 01:36, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

OK, I've experimented with summarising the history in one paragraph. The results are here [4]. I'm sure there's something to displease everybody and no doubt it reflects my own personal knowledge with all its preferences and areas of weakness, so feel free to alter it as you like. It's currently about 3k long, by the way. If you feel it's beyond redemption, just say so and you can either try to come up with your own version along the same lines or we can try a different tack. Whatever the case, I think we will have to have a summary of some sort to conform to WP:LEAD. Thanks. --Folantin 16:32, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Operalala's points about the introduction

If I may weigh in here, I'd like to make a few points (not knowing what the version of the introduction is on deck now):

• I agree with a generic reference to musical ensemble, because different genres use different kinds of ensembles. Most often fairly large orchestras are used, but that doesn't necessarily define an opera. Even a small baroque ensemble can be heard in an opera house.
• I would not mention dance in the introduction, because most operas don't include it, and most that do fall under the genre of grand opera, not French opera. (Grand opera started in France, but not all French operas include it, and it spread to Italy as well, and then there's Salome too.) Opera is a combination of theater (sets, costumes, lighting, acting, libretto) and music (score, singing, orchestra), and isn't any different from musicals in that respect.
• Music takes precedence as evidenced by the international nature of opera, the preference for supertitles in place of translation, and the fact that operas may occasionally be performed as a "concert performance of x-opera". (Removing the singing parts will make it no longer an opera but an orchestral version).
• Opera houses wouldn't be called "specially equipped". They are set up for maximum visibility to the stage, like any theater. But they are not like concert halls with maximum acoustic advantage. Opera houses are larger than theaters used for operettas and musicals (even miked).
• The "real" reason opera isn't amplified is because opera was around before the technology existed. Most opera houses have amplification systems installed, usually for the sake of operetta or other performances in the house, but sparking rumors of so-and-so singer being amplified. Opera remains an unamplified art for the same reason that a concert in a concert hall is unamplified, for balance and beauty, so it isn't unique to opera, and doesn't really define it - musicals were also around before amplification. And operas, like concerts, have been performed in amplified venues such as outdoor events, or studio recordings for that matter.
• I would not mention opera singers being "specially trained" because many of the best singers had no voice training at all. Opera voices are bigger and have a larger range than non-operatic voices, and training will help bring out what's there, but it won't create an operatic voice any more than it will turn a soubrette into a dramatic soprano.
• I would leave out the vague phrase about 'many genres of opera', without giving a quick overview.

Operalala 00:51, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

(I have started a new section for Operalala's long post which I hope is acceptable to everybody.)

While I agree with much, if not almost all, of the above, there is no distinction between definition and description. Definition is hard because it (should) cover all, or nearly all, cases. Description is easy because we are talking about norms, about what is typical. So which is which?

BTW I also don't know which version is on the deck now. Every time I look at it, it just gets worse! I haven't touched the text myself for the past three days and I wish other people would show similar restraint. Panic editing is bad editing. -- Kleinzach 02:01, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

I also agree with Operalala's points and have removed the reference to dance and "specially equipped", since there's a link to the opera house article anyhow. I added the draft overview that Folantin and I worked on today for everyone's consideration and corrections. This is intended to give a brief overview of the entire article per WP:LEAD. Best regards, -- Ssilvers 04:14, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Why are you editing while the discussion is ongoing? -- Kleinzach 04:43, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Regarding dance in opera: and most that do fall under the genre of grand opera, not French opera. Not true. Dance was an important part of French opera from the very beginning (i.e. Lully) and some of Rameau's works contain about 50% ballet. But I won't make too much of a fuss about this. We no longer need to mention the different genres as some are touched on briefly in the new history overview. Agreed there's no need to mention amplification as it's self-evidently true; for most of opera's history no mechanical amplification was available.

Having looked at the introduction as it is now, I'd say I was relatively happy with it. Per WP:LEAD, we are allowed one more paragraph in the intro. I'd suggest we create a few new sections in the article to cover famous opera singers and other topics, then use part or all of that paragraph to summarise them. --Folantin 07:04, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Can I make some more suggestions?

• Some mention might be made of Mozart's leading importance in late 18th century opera (in addition to everything else he did), rather than burying him with Handel and comic opera.
• Verdi shouldn't be buried in a list of Italian composers. And the way the paragraph is laid out, it looks like Wagner was the most significant thing in the 19th century. Mention might be made of the high point of bel canto early in the century. Then the "Golden Age" of opera or some such thing, in the mid to late 19th century, with the significance of Wagner and the importance of Verdi and lasting through Puccini, etc. Then go on to the new traditions emerging from Eastern Europe during this time.
• The biggest issue I have is with the first paragraph - opera is really music first, with vocalists (setting it apart from orchestral works), and with staging added to it (setting it apart from concert pieces like Verdi's Requiem), rather than drama that's sung. This is true of operettas and musicals as well, but even more so for opera, for the reasons I listed yesterday and more:

• We identify operas by their composers, not librettists.
• An opera with good music will be successful even with a problematic libretto (i.e. Turandot, Don Carlo, Wagner).
• Operatic performers are musicians first and many wouldn't be put on stage anywhere else.
• Opera is closely tied to musical trends, but only incidentally to theatrical or literary trends.

etc. Operalala 22:32, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

How about starting off like this: "Opera is one of the performing arts, a form of staged musical performance in which singing drives a dramatic story. Opera uses many of the elements of spoken theatre such as acting, scenery and costumes, but singing and conventions of vocal technique distinguish it from other dramatic forms."? -- Ssilvers 23:08, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

I rather like Ssilvers' new version (although it doesn't get across the point that some operas are only partly sung). I'd disagree with Operalala that opera isn't a form of sung drama. Yes, in many (perhaps most) cases the reality is that the singing and music is vastly superior to the libretto but the ideal was that they should be a partnership, as happened in the case of Lully & Quinault and Gilbert & Sullivan. And it's difficult to underestimate the influence of Metastasio on opera seria; his libretti were known by heart by the audience and were often set by twenty or thirty different composers. Likewise, literary movements do have an effect on opera; when opera began to be influenced by Romanticism (Schiller, Walter Scott, Victor Hugo) the form underwent a major change of direction. But Ssilvers' version is quite in compliance with all this and strikes the right balance. As for the history, maybe it does need expanding a little in the direction Operalala says, but it is only meant to be a routine summary of the things we deal with at greater length in the article. I'd like to use "bel canto" to describe Donizetti, Bellini and Rossini because they do go together and it's a convenient label, but I've noticed some expert editors on WP objecting to it as inaccurate. --Folantin 07:34, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

How is this?:

"Opera is one of the performing arts, a musical performance in which singers drive a dramatic story, accompanied by a musical ensemble ranging from a small instrumental group to a full symphonic orchestra. Opera uses many of the elements of spoken theatre such as acting, scenery and costumes, and the performance is usually given in an opera house. Opera emerged in Italy around the year 1600 and is part of the Western classical music tradition. (footnote)"

(I particularly agree with what ssilvers wrote about singing driving the drama, because it highlights the dramatic nature of music itself. Using 'singers' will include the recitative and acting parts of it.)

Not being a Baroque expert, I have to ask if Mozart was a primary influence in comic opera. If so, the last sentence in the second paragraph could be set up something like 'Mozart was the most important figure in opera in the late 18th century, having a significant influence on the new genre of comic opera, Singspiele, etc. ....'. Something to elevate Mozart from being a mere example of comic opera...

What is the bel canto controversy? - I couldn't find it on the bel canto page. (I didn't really want to expand the history, just raise Verdi from the midst of a list, and put Wagner on roughly equal footing.)

Operalala 23:06, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

I like Operalala's suggested first paragraph (one thing at a time) above (although the last sentence of it might be better integrated with the historical paragraphs?). One minor suggestion to shorten the accompaniment clause: "accompanied by an orchestra or smaller musical ensemble." In fact this clause could be moved down a sentence to go immediately after "opera house" as follows:

"Opera is one of the performing arts, a musical performance in which singers drive a dramatic story. Opera uses many of the elements of spoken theatre such as acting, scenery and costumes. The performance is usually given in an opera house, accompanied by an orchestra or smaller musical ensemble. Opera emerged in Italy around the year 1600 and is part of the Western classical music tradition. (footnote)"

Best regards, -- Ssilvers 02:51, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

I'd prefer to keep the opening sentence as it is now. I've looked at some of the foreign versions of WP and they say much the same thing. But I agree with Operalala about the history. We should say something like "Mozart was the outstanding opera composer of the late 18th century and was particularly famous for his comic works. His Singspiel The Magic Flute... etc.". The bel canto debate arose on some talk pages elsewhere (whose location I can't remember). I think it was due to the fact "bel canto" generally means "beautiful singing" in Italian and dates back to Monteverdi. But we should go ahead and use it to refer to the early 19th century Italian school here (I've been asking the Italian experts to help me fix the 19th century section in Italian opera for months, but I've had no takers, so if they don't like the use of "bel canto", that's too bad!). Verdi should certainly be given more prominence as the leading 19th century Italian. Maybe something about how he completely transformed Italian opera from within. But someone whose more knowledgeable about the area than I am should deal with it. Cheers. --Folantin 07:16, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

I like ssilvers' because it's clear and succinct. The intro now kind of unfocused and meanders from drama and action to music and singing to Italy and 1600, back to theater, back to dramatic forms to vocal technique and on to orchestra and opera house.

If we mention Italy in the first sentence of the next paragraph the whole phrase with Italy and 1600 could be omitted altogether. Is 'portray' perhaps more expected than 'drive' here?

"Opera is one of the performing arts, a musical performance in which singers portray a dramatic story, using many of the elements of spoken theatre such as acting, scenery and costumes. Opera is usually performed in an opera house, accompanied by an orchestra or smaller musical ensemble, and is part of the Western classical music tradition. (footnote)"

I'm also not sure that 'action' necessarily describes Opera, it seems to me to apply more to other forms of theater (although some operas do have more of it than others). Ssilvers probably has a better idea of what distinguishes opera from operetta and musicals than I do. I saw a definition of opera in the Theater article, describing it as story and emotion, which seemed quite apt to me. To throw it out there, here's another tack on the first phrase:

"Opera is one of the performing arts, in which the drama and emotion of a musical performance is portrayed in story form by singers, using many of the elements..."

eh, on second though, it makes it sound like the libretto comes after the score Operalala 22:46, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

I can write up the 19th century section, but I don't know enough about Mozart's context to do the Mozart part.

Operalala 22:46, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

How about: "Opera is one of the performing arts, a musical performance in which a drama is conveyed primarily through singing, but also by using many of the elements of spoken theatre such as acting, scenery and costumes. Opera is usually performed in an opera house, accompanied by an orchestra or smaller musical ensemble, and is part of the Western classical music tradition. (footnote)"

I am trying to blend Folantin's and Operalala's ideas: I think that "primarily" is correct, because (pace GT), even though there are some operas with a lot of spoken dialogue, in *general*, the key element of opera that makes it different from other dramatic performances is the emphasis on, and type of singing. If Folantin and Operalala and/or GT and others can get behind this formula, we can move forward. Operalala, I suggest that you proceed to do what you can to add to Folantin's singer section, since right now it has a gaping hole, and then we can come back and focus on Messrs. Mozart and Verdi. I think that getting their place in all this exactly right will be less of a problem once we cover the main issues. -- Ssilvers 23:07, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

It's too vague for my liking (plus the repetition "performing/performance" has to go). I've looked at several definitions of opera and I'd prefer something more succinct in the opening sentence. The nuances can come later. We should state it is a type of musical drama from the outset (the opera begins with the libretto; if there is no libretto and no musical score, there is no opera). As a point of interest, compare some of the opening sentences in the foreign versions of WP (rough translations only). French: Opera is a musical and dramatic work, often entirely sung, in which the performance is accompanied by music. Italian: Opera is a musical and theatrical form in which the stage action is combined with music and singing. Spanish: Opera is a sung drama with instrumental accompaniment.... Swedish (a featured article): Opera is a form of musical theatre associated with Western classical music. They get straight to the point. --Folantin 07:56, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Reaching consensus on intro

OK. How about this?: "Opera is a form of musical and dramatic work in which the action is conveyed primarily through singing. Opera also incorporates many of the elements of spoken theatre such as acting, scenery and costumes. The performance is usually given in an opera house, accompanied by an orchestra or smaller musical ensemble. Opera is part of the Western classical music tradition. (footnote)"

You have my thumbs up for that. Thank you. --Folantin 08:43, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I haven't had time to really look at this. I had assumed the "performing arts" bit had to be there - I'm glad it's not required. Operalala 02:29, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Responding to SSilvers - I didn't have enough time last weekend, and I thought you just went ahead with it. Two quick, presumably uncontroversial comments: If you used 'singers' instead of 'singing' you bypass the issue of spoken recitatives and won't need equivocal language like 'conveyed primarily through singing'. Another point is that you could call opera a musical work instead of a performance, because an opera can refer to the object (Leoncavallo wrote an opera) as well as to a performance. -- Operalala

I agree with your second point and have made that change in the article, but how would you express the first point? I thought that "primarily" covers the recits, and "conveying" the action through singing is, I think, the key way to distinguish opera from other performing arts (except musicals, and there the question is one of degree). What changes do you propose that will distinguish both theatre and oratorio in one phrase? -- Ssilvers 02:48, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Just a note to say that I have serious reservations about the introduction as it now stands (12 June 04:03). I will be writing in detail explaining my views when I have time for this later. The introduction is important not just because it is the flagship of opera on WP but because it is referred to by WP editors in the course of various editing procedures and it's important to have a definition of opera which is usable in that context. Thank you. -- Kleinzach 04:03, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

I had wanted to rephrase the "singing" phrase to remove the equivocal word "primarily", i.e. "drama conveyed through singers, using many of the elements ..." This also connects the second sentence to the first, and makes it a little smoother.
Here's another take:
"Opera is a musical work set in the framework of a theatric libretto. Special singing voices are used to convey a dramatic story using many of the elements of spoken theater..."
Can we say theatric libretto? Operalala^talk 21:01, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

LOL! No, I don't think we can. Also, I'm not crazy about "special singing voices".

G-Tell, what do you think? Folantin? Moreschi? Mak? -- Ssilvers 03:17, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, I've always been a little hesitant about most of the characterizations of "opera voices" put forward for this. Granted, I'm not an opera singer, but it seems to me that the point in the end is that everyone involved in opera is highly trained, including the instrumentalists and stage directors and everyone. This dichotomy of "opera singer" vs. ...not an opera singer, seems like a pretty new thing to me. It seems like for most of its life as an art form, opera singers have been highly trained and highly skilled singers, not some other species. Mak (talk) 03:44, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

I'd prefer something like: "Opera is a form of musical and dramatic work in which the text is wholly or partly sung." The foreign-language definitions I've seen are much more succinct and this is closer to them. "Wholly or partly sung" shows operas may include large amounts of spoken dialogue. The problem with the version at the moment is that it's not really true that "the action is conveyed primarily through singing" in many operas, because the action often stands still for the arias, which are expressions of emotion. Otherwise it seems fine. The changes to the history section by Operalala are good too. --Folantin 07:42, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

I changed action to "text". But does that explain that the emotional content of the drama is expressed throught the singing? I don't see why we are afraid to say that Opera is mostly about singing. What separates opera from a West End or Broadway musical? It's the importance and style of the singing. In some cases, at the edges, like Sweeney Todd, we might say that the work can be either an opera or a musical. But in creating this definition, don't we have to try to give a sense of what the distinction is? "wholly or partly sung" does not do this. So, I think we need to say something like "primarily" through the singing, to give the reader a sense that the key distinction between opera and other forms of musical theatre has something to do with the singing. -- Ssilvers 13:49, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

The simplest way of making a distinction between musicals and opera is by saying opera is associated with the Western classical music tradition, whereas Broadway musicals aren't. It's a difference of musical style. Also, as GT says, some operas have a great deal of spoken dialogue (particularly French opéras comiques - sometimes less than a third of their length is singing), so I think we need that "wholly or partly sung". --Folantin 16:31, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

What's wrong with saying "...in which the drama is portrayed through singers, using elements of theater etc..."? I don't think it hurts to use drama twice, and using "singers" skirts the issue of spoken recitative.

I'd kind of like to see the first phrase read something like 'Opera is a musical work set in the context of a libretto'...

-- Operalala^talk 19:20, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

I find that very awkwardly phrased. I've gone ahead and referenced the first sentence as it now stands, giving definitions of opera from various sources (complies with WP:V and avoids WP:NOR). I think we're now chasing our own tails trying to improve this opening further. --Folantin 20:01, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Folantin, you have a good point about how classical music separates opera from musicals. I also find that awkward-sounding, Operalala. Drama isn't "portrayed". However, I think your "singers" idea could work (see below). BTW, I was thinking, why not say that opera is a form of "musical drama"? I agree with whoever it was that said a while ago that just because some critics refer to Wagner works as "music drama" doesn't mean that we can't use the plain meaning of the phrase "musical drama". It seems rather efficient. "Opera is a form of musical drama in which the text is conveyed by singers.(footnote)" OR, if we still don't like "musical drama", then "Opera is a form of musical and dramatic work in which the text is conveyed by singers.(footnote) -- Ssilvers 20:45, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. I rather like the third definition (from "Pear's") I just added to the references: Musical work for the stage with singing characters, originated in the early 17th century. It's rather neat (although "originated in the very late 16th century" would be more accurate). Maybe we could steal the "singing characters"? It's vague enough to get round the whole problem of how much they sing, but it's also quite true. There is no opera without characters who sing. Maybe: "Opera is a form of musical drama [or musical and dramatic work] for the stage which uses singing characters". (The "stage" means we don't have to point out the difference from an oratorio). Then we say it's associated with the Western classical music tradition, so we don't have to worry about musicals or Chinese "opera". --Folantin 20:50, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

"Singing characters" makes me think of a Disney movie. Also, "uses" singing characters" is not very descriptive. What do the singers do?: They convey the emotion and exposition of the text and portray characters. So I think that saying that the text [or drama] is "conveyed by singers" says more. (shrug) -- Ssilvers 20:59, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, OK then. Let's stick with the current version then. At least we have sources now which give a few (slightly varying) definitions. The readers can pick the version they like from among them. As I say, I think we're now getting to the point where we're fixing the first sentence until it breaks and much more work here would be counterproductive. Cheers. --Folantin 21:18, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Latest comments

I've been away/busy, so haven't been following much of the above. I think the first para is pretty much OK, except that I'd put the Western classical music tradition at the start so that musicals, rock operas and what have you are ruled out straight away: "O is p of the Wcmt and is a form of drama...". Is there room still for "classically trained and unamplified voices" or does that make the horse look too much like a camel? --GuillaumeTell 21:24, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

I was more interested in using the words 'drama' and 'singer', the rest was just filler. "drama conveyed by singers" is fine with me.
I agree that the classical music tradition is a way to distinguish musicals from opera. I like the phrase "musical drama" better than "musical and dramatic work" because it's less awkward. I also agree more with the Pears definition, and agree with Ssilvers that "singing characters" sounds funny. I'm not happy about saying that "text" is conveyed by singers, because that's just a small part of what's conveyed. I do think a few changes should be made to the first sentence in the current version; specifically, using "singers", using a different word than "text", and combining the second sentence with the first to make it smoother. I'd also suggest omitting "a form of", because that kind of awkward-wordy:
"Opera is a musical and dramatic work, in which the drama is conveyed by singers (footnote), using many of the elements of theater etc..."
-- Operalala^talk 22:05, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Per G-Tell, I tried to move classical music up and got it a little higher. I put the first two sentence together per Operalala, but I do *not* agree withe the idea that singers convey the drama "using elements of theatre." They convey the drama with their voices, and, secondarily with the elements of theatre. So, see if you think it's better or worse. If the latter, as Folantin predicted, just revert back to the previous version. I would rather go with "musical drama", but I know that Kleinzach objected to it, and I am waiting for his promised comments before using that phrase. -- Ssilvers 00:16, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

I just though the first and second sentences sounded awkward. If all the sentences are being moved around, those two don't need to go together. -- Operalala^talk 00:46, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

OK, then. Moved the "classical music" sentence before the "other theatre elements" sentence. It flows better now: Opera is music/drama... classical music tradition... perfs incorporate other elements of theatre... in an opera house w/orchestra. By Jove, I think I've got it. -- Ssilvers 02:42, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

I like it. A minor point - I think you should omit "form of" in the first sentence and just say "Opera is a musical ...". -- Operalala^talk 01:49, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

"...a ...work" is singular and sounds like there's only one opera. We're talking about the art form. It could be "An opera is....", but I think we want to talk about opera, the "form" of work" that has all these characteristics that we are describing. So that's why I didn't make that change. I'm happy to be outvoted. Everyone? -- Ssilvers 02:14, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Let's stick with the current version. It's not 100% perfect but no matter... --Folantin 18:23, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Famous singers

I started a section on famous singers. I dealt with the 17th and 18th centuries then left it there. It's not really my area of expertise, so someone with a better knowledge of the subject should handle the rest. I can see it getting quite long, which might be a problem, but a spin-off article can be created (maybe one exists already?). Cheers. --Folantin 07:42, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Lead photo

Surely the lead photo for this page should be of an opera performance, not an opera house? Can anyone find such a picture? SaintedLegion 17:06, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Origins of Opera proposed merge

I've suggested the anomalous Origins of Opera be merged here (and perhaps in some other overlapping articles). --Kleinzach (talk) 23:51, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Any particular reason? I have already asked you to follow the correct procedure for merges in setting up a survey, so I suppose I'm wasting my time doing so again. Johnbod (talk) 00:04, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Johnbod: You are abusive [5]. You shouldn't assume that everybody else is on the same time zone as you - and yes, you're wasting your time. --Kleinzach (talk) 00:24, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm afraid when someone blithely invites me to complete his half-finished nomination that is how I regard him. Johnbod (talk) 00:33, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

• Strong Oppose Nominator refuses to produce any rationale for this proposal, but it is pretty clearly a bad idea. The current Origins of Opera is perhaps about 1/4 of the whole Opera article, and had an "expand" tag on it until K removed it just today. It certainly could and should be expanded. If added to the existing article it would unbalance it, and it is clearly not feasible to add all the other "main articles" in to "opera", which would then be far too long. In addition the article functions as a central point for the ancestral forms like intermedio; if it were removed something similar would have to replace it. Johnbod (talk) 00:33, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

I would argue against the merge and encourage people to consider expanding the article. I don't speak Finnish, but just looking at the Finnish language version of the Origins of Opera page gives me a sense of what can be accomplished with some effort. Theshoveljockey (talk) 01:56, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

• Comment If we're going to merge it, I think it should be with Italian opera, not this article. "Just looking at the Finnish language version of the Origins of Opera gives me a sense of what can be accomplished with some effort". Unfortunately, the link to the Finnish page is misleading. It's not about the origins (except the section "Oopperan synty") but about the whole history of opera. --Folantin (talk) 08:52, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

• Don't merge, at least for now. Merging would not necessarily overpower the Opera article, since a fair amount of what is in Origins of Opera is also here. But it would make it considerably longer and rather... er... dense, even with redundancy edited out. I don't think merging it with Italian opera is a good idea, since 'Origins' covers French and English precursors as well. Like Theshoveljockey, I'd also encourage people to expand the 'Origins' article and develop a more coherent narrative. It would serve a useful function in collating the various pre-cursors of opera in one article. By the way, I note that it is also entirely unreferenced. Ahem.;-) The thing is, it would take a lot of work to integrate it properly into the Opera article and elsewhere. Who wants to do that? I'd suggest keeping 'Origins' for the time being and see if it can be developed. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 12:05, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

"'Origins' covers French and English precursors". Already dealt with at the relevant French opera and Opera in English articles (the latter is still awaiting major revision). I don't think we should treat the founding dates of each national operatic tradition in the Origins of opera article. But, yes, there is plenty that could be added about the "pre-history" of opera to the Origins article, so I'd go with expand rather than "merge". --Folantin (talk) 12:11, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

• Comment The article is in almost the same state it was 18 months ago when Klingoncowboy4 originally split it from Opera. Whether it is merged or expanded is perhaps not the main point - in practice sections which just duplicate the other articles should be deleted. We use links to connect information on WP, IMO we shouldn't repeat whole paragraphs of information from one article to another (e.g. the Dafne sections). (There is a WP policy on this here.) Having said that obviously if someone was willing to do a thoroughgoing article about the origins of opera that would be great! Best. --Kleinzach (talk) 13:54, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, there is information there which isn't in this article (and at 52k the Opera article can't take much more expansion). I think it's certainly possible to expand Origins of opera but I'd rather confine its scope to the pre-history of opera and the first experiments in opera in Italy around 1600. Currently, we seem to be getting a rewrite of the first paragraphs of Opera in English. --Folantin (talk) 16:18, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Ah, I'd missed that article, & was struck by the dodgy info in the last paras. I've no intention of adding more on English opera. Needless to say, there was no link or See also - another useful thing a merge would make more difficult. Surely the French tradition needs to be in as well? I have no plans to add on that, but somebody certainly should. Johnbod (talk) 16:33, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

The French tradition is at French opera (and Ballet de cour). We have several articles on national operatic traditions (including obscure subjects like Armenian opera) and I think those pages are the best place to describe how they all started. Let's face it, everybody agrees that opera began in Italy. The basic problem here is the Origins of opera is a mess. It starts with the Renaissance and ends with the Middle Ages! If I get time I might try to sort it out in the near future. --Folantin (talk) 16:40, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

But, leaving Armenia out of it, not all opera descends from Italian opera, or solely from it. Dafne is not exactly the mitochondrial Eve of the form, since almost no one saw it. A sortout would be good, but I think at least a section on France & England should stay. Johnbod (talk) 16:59, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

The French and English traditions (not to mention the German) wouldn't have existed without Italian opera. There wasn't just Dafne, there was a whole range of opera in Italy in the early 17th century that then spread abroad. The first operas staged in France were Italian and the inventor of the French operatic tradition, Lully, came from Florence. The first German opera was a setting of a translation of the libretto of Dafne. --Folantin (talk) 17:08, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

This discussion seems to have gone cold without any action being taken. When I originally suggested a merger I envisaged doing an hour or so's edit to resolve the problem. While the idea of developing the [Origins of opera]] to cover the pre-history of opera as suggested by Folantin is a good idea, it seems no-one has time to do it. Would anyone object if I did an edit to remove the unnecessary, duplicated material in line with the comments of Folantin above (with which i broadly agree)? --Kleinzach (talk) 00:57, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

I suspect my answer to that would be yes, along the lines of my comments above. Johnbod (talk) 01:57, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Rewrite of opening paragraph

The rewrite looks OK, but I would delete the clause "originating in the court theatre", since the second paragraph explains where/how opera originated, and adding the clause makes the opening sentence long and complex. Also, I am not sure that we need the clause "based on a written text (libretto)". If we are going to refer to the "libretto", surely we should also refer to the "score". Or the clause could be made into a short sentence explaining that "An opera's score contains the music, and a libretto sets forth its text." Best regards, -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:38, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

I've attempted to fine-tune it. I also think we need to clarify that the art form is called "opera" and individual examples of it are known as "operas". --Folantin (talk) 17:58, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

The paragraph is continuing to improve. Currently, the opening sentence says that opera "...combines a text (libretto)...." Shouldn't it say that the opera is "embodied" or "set forth" in written form in the libretto and score? I had suggested breaking the sentence in two and making the second sentence read something like: "An opera's score contains the music, and a libretto sets forth its text." This would simplify and shorten the first sentence, which is preferred by the manual of style. -- Ssilvers (talk) 00:48, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Sounds great to me, and I think the opening paragraph should also mention that most operas are entirely sung with no spoken dialogue with the exception of few specific kinds of opera and some modern compositions.Nrswanson (talk) 00:53, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Assessment

Yes, the article is certainly B-class. It's not higher, because it is under-referenced. In addition, if I recall, Folantin had some thoughts about what was missing in the article. Best regards, -- Ssilvers (talk) 13:29, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

sounds

the number of recordings of opera available on Wikipedia has increased dramatically inthe last year. Anyone mind if I re-evaluate, and choose, say, two or three to illustrate each section? Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 14:58, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

I think one or two are sufficient. Note that sound samples seemingly cannot be positioned at the left of a page and have the text wrap around them, the way they allow text to flow when the sound is positioned on the right. This limits the available spots in an article where sound files can be placed, unless an in-line template is used, e.g.

[…] Bizet composed Carmen (Toreador Song^ⓘ), which, once […]

I'm not sure this will meet universal approval, so positioning audio files on the right seems to be the only sensible option. In that case, I doubt there is enough space to provide two or three for each section whithout creating big expanses of empty space. Michael Bednarek (talk) 05:51, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree. These {{listen}} templates are big 'n' ugly with an entirely unnecessary clunky image of a blaring loudspeaker and a way too large play button. Unless or until these can be made plainer and more compact and with a full capacity to float either left or right, only one should be used in a short section. They are intrusive into the text and significantly distort the format, creating reader-unfriendly and aesthetically displeasing chunks of white space. All these files also appear in the linked articles, there's no need to have so many in the main overview article. There, rant finished. :-) - Voceditenore (talk) 09:12, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

One per section would be enough, unless the huge footprint of these files can be reduced. The loudspeaker image should be cut out. --Kleinzach 10:01, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm happy to report that following a request the left-floating property of the template has now been enabled.

Note: the "plain" option in the template allows some reduction of the footprint, as shown on the left. Michael Bednarek (talk) 02:13, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Good, however I tried the 'plain' option and couldn't get it to work. How is it done? --Kleinzach 03:23, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

It seems that the parameter plain=yes prevents the box to float at the right margin. I raised that point at Template talk:Listen and expect it to be fixed soon. In the meantime, one can work around this deficiency by adding style=float:right when plain=yes is used. Michael Bednarek (talk) 05:33, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I've tried to implement this in the article. --Kleinzach 05:51, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

It turns out that the counterintuitive behaviour of the template {{Listen}} when used with |plain=yes cannot be changed: there is an unknown number of this template in use which might rely on it. Thus the workaround of also having to use |style=float:right (if right floating is desired) is permanent. The documentation has been amended accordingly. Michael Bednarek (talk) 08:58, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

External link

Would it be possible to add http://www.classicalmusichomepage.com/directory/categories/Opera to the list of external links? This page lists opera venues and companies in the UK. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ndifrancesco (talk • contribs) 13:57, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

This is what I wrote to a similar request at Talk:Music theory:

"As far as I can see that page is merely a container for links to other sites, some of them useful. The site itself requires registration, which doesn't bode well for wide-spread approval here. There are also too many advertisements."

Also, the list of contributions by Ndifrancesco raise strong suspicion of WP:LINKSPAM, albeit mitigated by asking the question on talk pages first. Michael Bednarek (talk) 15:53, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Gunnar Berg?

An edit on 9 October 2007 by Riana (talk · contribs) introduced a Wikilink at the end of the third paragraph to Gunnar Berg, a disambiguation page which lists one Gunnar Berg (composer). I'm completely unfamiliar with that name and I can't find any opera on his Danish page. Surely, the link is meant for Alban Berg, no? -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 14:09, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Criticism of public subsidies

This article did not mention the large amount of public subsidies that support opera in many countries, so I added a section to this effect. All statements are sourced (several Economist articles) and I avoided weasel words. 94.222.220.70 (talk) 15:45, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

A section on funding wouldn't go amis, though for balance we probably ought to include arguments for subsidy too. The Economist citations are fine I guess, but the citations for the last clause were less obviously reliable, and it's not really clear to me that a law professor's view is particularly notable in this context. So I've deleted that. David Underdown (talk) 16:02, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Well the fact that he is a Yale law professor is maybe not important, but he did write articles called "Should Opera Be Subsidized?" and "Welfare for Wagner?" The latter is essentially a summary of the former, which seemed worth citing since the former is not publicly accessible. Dissent (magazine) is a reliable source. It is certainly left-wing, but it's academic credentials are strong. I thought it was kind of tidy having criticism from the left and right, but I also agree that a counter-argument is perhaps in order. 88.74.222.145 (talk) 02:40, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

OK I accept Dissent is OK, but what makes a law professor's opinion relevant or notable. If it was a musicologist or economist there might be some obvious relevance, but describing him as a Yale professor makes his statement sound more authoritative than is really the case. I note also that the two articles seem to be very similar, though I can't see all the Dissent article as subscription/registration is required. He also undermines his case with some egregious errors. Glyndebourne Festival Opera receives no subsidy, its productions are entirely privately funded (Glyndebourne on Tour does I think receive some funding, but then it largely exists to take opera to parts of the UK which otherwise would rarely see full scale productions). David Underdown (talk) 13:27, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

(ec)I'm really not sure about this section. If we are going to have something then it needs to be balanced with arguments for and against. From the quotes the Law professor's material seems ill informed. Personally I can't see the point of the section, but I am open to something if its balanced. Pending agreement I am reverting it per WP:BRD. --Snowded ^TALK 13:30, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

I think this section adds useful information to the article so I've added it back under the heading "Funding of opera", as per WP:BRD. Of course, the section could be expanded a lot with more information. 92.15.186.234 (talk) 16:32, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

It doesn't contain much useful information. It contains opinions putting one side of the argument from articles that can only be read if you pay for them. Per David Underdown, the Yale law professor is hardly a reliable source in this case. There might be room for a section on the economics of opera through the centuries, but this isn't good enough. --Folantin (talk) 16:59, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Johannes Heesters

It isn't clear to me why the above person's photo has been added to the Operatic Terminology section, or indeed why he should appear in the article at all. What do people think? --GuillaumeTell 15:39, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Reverted, no case made and there is little connection --Snowded ^TALK 15:59, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Francisco Araiza

Does Francisco Araiza belong in Opera#Famous singers? See this edit. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 09:39, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

No, a fine singer but not in the same "fame" league. It should be kept to a few very famous singers. Each one of those could be said (and referenced) to having had a particular influence, are truly well-known via "radio, television and recordings" as stated in the paragraph, and are likely to be familiar even to those unfamiliar with opera. Otherwise, that paragraph could list at least 80 singers. That's one of the problems with a heading "Famous singers". Not sure what to do about it though. Voceditenore (talk) 10:39, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

The Royal Opera

It has been suggested at the talk page of Royal Opera, London that the title of the article should be changed to match that of the other company resident at the Royal Opera House, viz. The Royal Ballet. Thoughts on this would be welcome at Talk:Royal Opera, London#Name redux. Tim riley (talk) 08:15, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Alternative Opera

I think a small section on alternative opera on this page would do quite good. It would be useful to discuss things that are sometimes considered opera but not always like Chinese operas, rock operas and even the connections between operas and musicals without deligitimizing the main definition of Opera. This section would be great in showing that the definition of opera can be very fluid.-Rainbowofpeace (talk) 23:07, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Scandal

An article about opera and not ONE picture of Mozart nor of his works. You can argue as long as you want, forth and back, but Mozart composed at least three of the top ten master pieces of opera. His operas always have been, still are and forever will be amongst those who receive acclaim by public and press. Shame on the one responsible for excluding the most important opera composer of the universe.--Meister und Margarita (talk) 20:26, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

"Scandal" implies controversy. I can't find any in this article's history or on this talk page and its archives. What are you referring to? "You can argue as long as you want" – Who are you addressing? "Shame on the one responsible" – “When you point your finger at someone, three are pointing back at you.” And to be precise, the article does show the overture to Don Giovanni. What exactly are you proposing? -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 03:09, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Good Heavens, Meister und Margarita, can we ratchet down the rhetoric here? As Michael says, we have an audio file of Don Giovanni. He's mentioned fulsomely in the lede:

"Today the most renowned figure of late 18th century opera is Mozart, who began with opera seria but is most famous for his Italian comic operas, especially The Marriage of Figaro (Le Nozze Di Figaro), Don Giovanni, and Così fan tutte, as well as The Magic Flute (Die Zauberflöte), a landmark in the German tradition."

And in the section Reform: Gluck, the attack on the Metastasian ideal, and Mozart

"Mozart, in many ways Gluck's successor, combined a superb sense of drama, harmony, melody, and counterpoint to write a series of comedies, notably Così fan tutte, The Marriage of Figaro, and Don Giovanni (in collaboration with Lorenzo Da Ponte) which remain among the most-loved, popular and well-known operas today."

And in the section German-language opera

"Mozart's Singspiele, Die Entführung aus dem Serail (1782) and Die Zauberflöte (1791) were an important breakthrough in achieving international recognition for German opera."

In light of the above, how does the simple lack of a portrait equate to "excluding the most important opera composer of the universe" from the article? In overview articles like this, the use of images needs to convey a variety of aspects of the overall topic and should be more than a peppering of portraits of famous composers. Where do you suggest an image of Mozart be placed? Voceditenore (talk) 09:23, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

• I've added an image from The Magic Flute to the German-language opera section, thus giving Wolfgang one audio file and one image. He's now tied with Verdi and roundly defeats those puny composers Handel and Monteverdi who get only one pic each. He's arguably one up on Wagner too (two pics but no audio file). . Voceditenore (talk) 10:22, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Opera. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20141221220758/http://www.operayoungprofessionals.org/ to http://www.operayoungprofessionals.org/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• 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 II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 08:31, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Opera/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

The article is still missing components (see recent Talk page discussions), and its citations need to be improved, so I changed it from A class to B. (23:15, 27 September 2006 Ssilvers)

Last edited at 23:52, 15 May 2008 (UTC). Substituted at 01:53, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Opera. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131031082324/http://industryclick.com/magazinearticle.asp?releaseid=5643&magazinearticleid=66853&siteid=15&magazineid=138 to http://industryclick.com/magazinearticle.asp?releaseid=5643&magazinearticleid=66853&siteid=15&magazineid=138
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070824111943/http://www.american.com/archive/2007/july-august-magazine-contents/america2019s-opera-boom to http://www.american.com/archive/2007/july-august-magazine-contents/america2019s-opera-boom

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 18:42, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

Tragedy and comedy, or opera seria and opera buffa?

In 2.2.2 Mozart's operas Così fan tutte, Le Nozze di Figaro, and Don Giovanni are described as comedies, a definition that is incompatible with the latter, as Don Giovanni is dramaturgically better classified as a tragedy. Because of this, I'll be changing the term comedies for comic operas, feel free to talk with me about this. Gottliber (talk) 04:13, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Opera. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101109064153/http://www.thebiggerpicture.us/opera/ to http://www.thebiggerpicture.us/opera
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080630062054/http://opera.emergingpictures.com/ to http://opera.emergingpictures.com/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 12:04, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Contemporary Singers

I think a section listing many of the most famous contemporary opera singers - Renee Fleming, Audra McDonald etc - would be useful for readers looking to learn more about opera in today's context. Thoughts? Kstetson (talk) 21:09, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

you are free to add sources, but always reliable sources, Thanks.--Bolzanobozen (talk) 15:28, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

Such a silly (and boring) picture

Paris is a city famous for the ballet; when it comes to opera one thinks of Milan, Vienna or New York. But above all an article about opera should start with a picture focused on stage action - NOT on a building. Furthermore the Palais Garnier, beautiful as it is, is far from ideal for an opera house; it was built for wealthy Parisians to show off in and most of the building is front of house - and the stage is very limited. In the Vienna State Opera two thirds of the building is backstage which makes all the difference. In Paris they had to construct the new Bastille Opera in order to provide an adequate home for large operas whereas Vienna and Milan are still 100% functional.--Meister und Margarita (talk) 16:52, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

I tend to agree about the image. How about File:Vienna - Vienna Opera main auditorium - 9825.jpg or File:Callas-La-sonnambula.JPG (La Scala). It's not easy to find good quality pictures with stage action on Commons. What there is is so close up and without the stage and house interior to serve as context, they could be a scene from a play. Voceditenore (talk) 18:00, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Three potential images for consideration File:La Traviata in Sankt Margarethen - Bühnenbild offen (Bild 1).jpg, File:DuPage Opera La Boheme.JPG or File:Zauberfloete.jpg Otherwise in the absence of a more vibrant stage image and without the potential copyright issues relating to the Callas picture, how about something a little more classical File:Aida poster colors fixed.jpg Mighty Antar (talk) 22:35, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Meister und Margarita call the picture of the Palais Garnier beautiful and I don't think it is "silly and boring". If you look at the top of this page, you might recognise it in the logos of the WikiProject Opera. Criticising the choice of an image by pointing out deficiencies in the functionality as an opera house misses the point in a big way. Note the the Opera Project's previous logo was the Sydney Opera House which is probably less functional than the Garnier. MuM's "solution" to the perceived problem was to reduce the image's size, a less than imaginative approach. Others have suggested some alternatives:

• the extreme distortion of the Vienna State Opera's auditorium is a bit disconcerting;
• Callas at La Scala is very evocative, although her identity is not clear without a caption and the image's copyright status is a bit dubious;
• I submit that an outdoor production of La traviata is not the best picture to lead this article;
• That leaves La bohème and Die Zauberflöte at rather obscure companies, but, if pressed, the image from the DuPage Opera Theatre has more charm than the Augsburg Zauberflöte.

But none reach the iconic stature of the Palais Garnier. I suggest to keep this image which has been here (in slightly different versions) for more than 3 years. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 05:20, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

I agree. The Palais Garnier is not only beautiful, but says "Opera" in an iconic way that the other options do not (however functional its stage may be). Markhh (talk) 05:47, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

I personally feel that the exterior of any building, no matter how famous or beautiful of a venue for opera, is less than ideal for the lead of the opera article. I much prefer an "action shot" of an actual opera performance. Further, the excellent Palais Garnier photograph might be a better choice for the lead of the French opera article.4meter4 (talk) 20:10, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

I think the image of the Scala of Milan is a good example for the Opera.Bolzanobozen (talk) 15:30, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

Contradiction in lead

These two sentences in the lead seem to contradict each other:

• "Opera is a form of theatre in which music has a leading role and the parts are taken by singers, but is distinct from musical theater."
• "Originally understood as an entirely sung piece, in contrast to a play with songs, opera has come to include numerous genres, including some that include spoken dialogue such as musical theater."

Is musical theater included in opera or distinct from it? Kaldari (talk) 03:07, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

That depends on musical theater (any stage work with music, probably not meant) and musical theatre, a specific genre. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:20, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

Gerda, are you suggesting that the UK & US spellings have different meanings? Really they don't. Johnbod (talk) 17:59, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

Gerda is right about the ambiguous meaning of "musical theatre". Anyway, the phrase was added on 9 January by an IP editor, which also involved citation hijacking. I suggest to remove that phrase ("but is distinct from musical theater") and also from "include spoken dialogue such as musical theater" until we find a better way of expressing the difference. Further, that footnote after "Opera is a key part of the Western classical music tradition." should be removed as well. A footnote is not the place to elaborate on the distinction to other performance art. What the article needs is a new section, "What is opera"/"Characteristics"/"Definition" – no doubt not an easy subject. Until then, and to eliminate the obvious and recently introduced contradiction noted by Kaldari, the term "musical theatre" should be removed from the lead. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 14:08, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

Opera is "distinct from musical theater", with a rather small overlap that the lead can ignore. The second bit "including some that include spoken dialogue such as musical theater." should drop the last 4 words. Johnbod (talk) 17:59, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

I think Gerda is commenting on the inherently ambiguous term "musical theat[re|er]" which can refer to "musicals", as the genre is known in almost every language, or to its literal meaning, "theatrical performance that combines singing, spoken dialogue, acting and dance", an art form that is called "Musiktheater" in many languages and which indeed includes musicals and opera, and more. There is no term in English for this wider category, and I think that's where the need for demarcation in both articles, "Opera" and "Musical theatre", comes from.

… that the lead can ignore and drop the last 4 words: I agree. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 07:01, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

Opera

When did it start 2603:7081:1D05:7269:4DD7:D8CB:9E0C:CDA2 (talk) 19:15, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

Read the article, please. General Ization ^Talk 19:17, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

"Opera eroica" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Opera eroica and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 October 11#Opera eroica until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Steel1943 (talk) 19:54, 11 October 2022 (UTC)