Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Opera/Archive 111

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 105 ← Archive 109 Archive 110 Archive 111 Archive 112 Archive 113 → Archive 115
Archives Table of Contents


Category:Opera terminology being considered for merging

Please add your voice to the idea of merging Category:Opera terminology into Category:Opera concepts at Categories_for_discussion/Log/2012_December_22#Category:Terminology -- kosboot (talk) 00:57, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

I'd like to see some advantges of this proposed change: "if it 'aint broke...." or is it "broke"? Viva-Verdi (talk) 23:39, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
No, it isn't broke, and the proposed change from "opera terminology" to "opera concepts" is completely ludicrous, especially if you have a look at Concept. Feel free to add your voice to the numerous Opposers who can be found at kosboot's link above. --GuillaumeTell 00:34, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
  • The result of the discussion was: no merge/rename. Voceditenore (talk) 11:02, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Toronto Light Opera Association

Hi guys, just wanted to notify you about Toronto Light Opera Association which was recently created through the WP:AFC initiative. It is very well redacted and with a vast amount of sources. Unfortunately, most sources are either in microfilm or behind paid subscription. Could you give a hand to User:Anne Delong on this article? She is a newcomer so please WP:NOBITE. Happy New Year to all! —Ahnoneemoos (talk) 22:10, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

I did some re-org on this and shall contact User:Anne Delong. Viva-Verdi (talk) 02:23, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Dear opera enthusiasts:

While looking through newspaper back issues from Toronto for information about the Toronto Light Opera Association, I was amazed at the number of performances of Gilbert and Sullivan operettas reported. There were high schools, university clubs, church groups and company employee groups, as well as local amateur and professional companies and traveling shows. The residents of Toronto must have had an insatiable appetite for light opera. My question is, was this typical? Was it happening everywhere at that time? —Anne Delong (talk) 05:13, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

This is a very good question. From my own personal knowledge, yes. One can think of good reasons: post-war desire for community-based activities, the wide-spread availability of the performing materials, the lack of a need for advanced technical ability, the reliable quality of the entertainment that amateur performances of the G&S repertoire gave etc almost-instinct 14:48, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Your input is requested regarding infoboxes of opera companies

—Ahnoneemoos (talk) 14:34, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Anna Renzi

Hi, I have revised the article on Anna Renzi substantially, which was formerly a stub (and is still listed as such). Stockholm Opera (talk) 08:04, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

I've re-listed it as Start-class on the Talk page, but can't work out how to change the A stub-class article from Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia under the page's title. Maybe there's a Bot that deals with these things? --GuillaumeTell 11:58, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
How strange! I never see that wording even on pages with existing stub tags. It simply says "From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia" beneath the title. Voceditenore (talk) 09:05, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
Ah, I see. You have " Display an assessment of an article's quality as part of the page header for each article. (documentation)" checked in the Gadgets section of your preferences. I just tried it and the bot (or whatever) seems to have caught up. The wording under the title now lists it as "start class". Voceditenore (talk) 09:15, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Karel Burian

Do we have better sources for this tenor: Karel Burian? Know more on this baritone: Karl Hill? (both born 12 January) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:05, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Re Karl Hill... According to this source he sang Klingsor at Bayreuth with "a fine timbre of voice and thrilling delivery". And according to this one worked in the postal service until his debut in 1868. Voceditenore (talk) 11:58, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
Re Karel Burian... I've added several more sources, fixed the broken link on the original source, and added and/or corrected information in the article. Should be OK now. Voceditenore (talk) 13:24, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
Thank you! (Don't have extra time right now.) What do you think about yesterday's "opera" DYK, opera mentioned in hook and lead, but not once in the article? I asked the author, there's also a question on the talk. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:33, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
I commented at the talk page. The "opera singer" was then changed by the article's author to just "singer", which I think is better until the article has more research and better references. Voceditenore (talk) 16:02, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Georges Rochegrosse (and other, much more recognisable names)

File:Georges Rochegrosse's poster for Jules Massenet's Don Quichotte.jpg

Thought this may be of interest. Adam Cuerden (talk) 19:16, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

It's currently a Featured Picture candidate (discussion here). It's a high-res restoration of the original poster and it's currently in Don Quichotte replacing the the previous rather dim, low-res version: File:Don Quichotte.jpg. Voceditenore (talk) 12:13, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Update: The FA discussion closes on 21 January and needs more participants—pro or con. The minimum participants needed is 5. There are currently 4. Voceditenore (talk) 10:04, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
I actually have two other Massenet posters. Cendrillon is next, then Sapho. But please don't tell people they're about to close next time - it's alright to mention the FP, but more than that might be seen as canvassing =) Adam Cuerden (talk) 03:04, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
Yikes! You're right. :) Best, Voceditenore (talk) 16:04, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Move {{Navbox opera topics}} to {{Opera}}

I left this note at Template talk:Navbox opera topics:

User:CsDix proposed the speedy renaming of this template [{{Navbox opera topics}}] to {{Opera}} which redirects to {{WikiProject Opera}}. I oppose that request because the name {{Opera}} has been used for a very long time and we must assume that editors will continue to use it to tag new articles. This template, Navbox opera topics, has exactly one use, so it's difficult see any benefit at all from the proposed move. The rationale given by CsDix, "Navbox" (and "topics") don't appear to be standard.", doesn't seem valid to me – I see plenty of template starting with the word "Navbox" or with the word "topics" in their name, although none with both. If the name "Navbox opera topics" must be changed, "Opera topics" seems a much less disruptive choice. This ought to have been raised at the Opera Project's talk page before taking any action.

-- Michael Bednarek (talk) 05:10, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Please wait with a further rename, - the template name move came as a surprise, I missed a discussion before, such as this one (a completely different story: the template was renamed, but it shows nowhere, and some want it moved back), --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:56, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
I left a strong opposition note at Template talk:Navbox opera topics. Absolutely daft. I suggest members put that page on watch as well as Template:Opera. The editor also went into people's own talk page archives changing {{Opera}} to {{WikiProject Opera}}, in some cases making nonsense out of the discussions.Voceditenore (talk) 10:27, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

I have deleted the 'speedy rename' proposal, as, since it is contested, it does not meet speedy rename criteria.--Smerus (talk) 11:30, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

File:Alfons_Mucha_-_1896_-_La_Dame_aux_Camélias_-_Sarah_Bernhardt.jpg

Poster for La Dame aux Camélias, which was adapted into La Traviata.

Is this poster any good for the La Traviata page? It illustrates the source rather well, but, of course, not the opera itself. Adam Cuerden (talk) 11:53, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Still working on Cendrillon, by the way; just this one looked quick, whereas Cendrillon is taking a while due to - well, want an honest answer? Because there's another version of the poster with obviously incorrect colours that I don't want to give anyone even the slightest excuse for saying it should be used instead. It smoothed out the colours into flat colours, by removing all signs of the actual printing; I'm not comfortable doing that, so am doing a rather tricky compromise that's far more work than either option. Adam Cuerden (talk) 11:57, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
By the way, how come there's no operas based on Irish mythology, or, at least, if there are, they're quite obscure? Did Lady Gregory just come too late and at the wrong period? Adam Cuerden (talk) 11:59, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
I don't think it's very good for La traviata. It's an 1896 (Art Nouveau style) poster which makes it rather anachronistic for an opera (and play) set in 1852. Voceditenore (talk) 12:21, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
True. It's notable for the play, as Sarah Bernhardt was a very notable performer of it, but we'd probably want an older one for the opera. Adam Cuerden (talk) 12:26, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
Yes, it's very good for the play itself. Although they're not FPs, this book cover or one of the illustrations from the original play published in 1852 would be better for the opera as it gives a better idea of the intended period and setting. Voceditenore (talk) 12:35, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
The latter of those is available at big enough size that it might, in fact, pass FP. Unfortunately, they do the tile thing, so we'd need someone with the tool to assemble it, because god knows I don't have the patience to assemble several dozen small squares by hand, with perfect alignment needed, when a tool exists. Adam Cuerden (talk) 12:52, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Wagner's Männerlist

Wagner's early work is here Männerlist grösser als Frauenlist, but the word "grösser" doesn't exist in German (unless it's all capitals). This source and this (http://www.kulturstiftung.de/publikationen/patrimonia/archiv/detail/?tx_kslpatrimonia_pi1[showUid]=151), [1] [2] all have "größer". I suggest to move, willing to do it myself, if there are no voices against it. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:13, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

I think there is a prejudice against eszett on English Wikipedia as it might be confusing for those with no knowledge of German - please check this first - otherwise I have no strong feelings.--Smerus (talk) 12:21, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
but see here, here, and here for apprent counterexamples using -ss-, so i think that (at least in English) the case is not clear for a change.--Smerus (talk) 12:36, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
(ec) see for example Wilhelmstraße (Wiesbaden), - also umlaut yes, eszett no looks inconsistent, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:39, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
If it was clear I would not even have asked ;) - Readers with no knowledge of German will have a problem with that title however it is written. If it's in German I suggest correct German, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:42, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
ps: your first example has both(!), the third has grosser (which is at least consistent), --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:47, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
I agree that it should be moved to Männerlist größer als Frauenlist for the reasons Gerda mentioned (de:Wikt:grösser). As for English sources using the "ss" variant: we must be careful to exclude sources which for reasons of policy or capability never use umlaute, accents, and such. There was a similar discussion at Talk:Weiße Rose (opera)#Title. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 13:34, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
At the very least the actual correct form should be a link to the article! I'm a bit horrified that doesn't even exist as a redirect. Adam Cuerden (talk) 15:08, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Done, thanks to all! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:30, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Infobox comment removal discussion

A discussion about removing the infobox comments on Boxing Day is taking place at Wikipedia:Bot_requests#Removal_of_comments. Input from project members would be appreciated. Thanks, Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 21:32, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

It is not a discussion, it is an attempt at a coup - Please see here - User:Pigsonthewing (Andy Mabett) has used Boxing Day to commission a bot to remove the request on composers pages not to add an infobox: and moreover this has been effected within four hours without any formal notification to the project (or anywhere else). I hardly think this stealth operation is in the spirit of WP. Is it to be taken up with administrators?--Smerus (talk) 21:28, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Yes. User:Antandrus might be able to help - or alternatively pick your own favourite admin. --GuillaumeTell 21:48, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

The perennial infobox timesink marches on Chez WikiProject Classical Music. (See also Wikiproject notes in articles below.) When I revamped and reorganized the Opera Project pages last year, I took an executive decision and while keeping our explanations as to why they are inappropriate and recommendation not to use them, I removed the suggestion that hidden notes be left in articles about not adding an infobox. See here. First, because they are counter-productive red flags to the proverbial bulls leading to tri-annual timesinks. Second, because they generally don't work if you have a determined editor (or one who doesn't read hidden notes). Third, because they create ill-will towards this project and its editors.

The link to that section can be used in an edit summary if reverting the addition of an infobox. However, my preferred tactic when encountering the rare occasions that people attempt to add them to opera singer bios, is to simply switch {{Infobox musical artist}} to {{Infobox person}} and remove virtually all parameters apart from the very basic dates/places of death, birth, etc. Infobox musical artist is totally unsuitable, not to mention the amateurish and distracting "color coding" which often clashes with the images and is meaningless to readers. Voceditenore (talk) 18:06, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Disinfoboxes is worth a read, as is Wikipedia:Disinfoboxes can be Useful. --GuillaumeTell 22:06, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
Good idea! I've added them to the Infobox section of the OP article guide as "Further reading". Now I really AM off to deepest darkest Tuscany :) Best, Voceditenore (talk) 22:16, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
The current Signpost has an long article (really multiple interviews) on the status and purposes of Infoboxes (COI: I'm one of the respondents). It's worth a read: [3] -- kosboot (talk) 21:42, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Wikiproject notes in articles

Pls see Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Wikiproject notes in articles - The issues may be much bigger then just the note on the pages - However I believe the viability of the note its self is what we should talk about at this time.Moxy (talk) 23:53, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Now archived here. Basically inconclusive, some talk of yet another RfC. Voceditenore (talk) 10:05, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
  • On the general issue of infoboxes, there's more to come in next week's Signpost. The draft article is here. - Voceditenore (talk) 10:05, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

L'incoronazione di Poppea

Hi, I'm new to Wikipedia editing and therefore, unreflectingly, revised the article on "L'incoronazione di Poppea" rather substantially without yet having a user name and without categorizing all the changes I made. Sorry for that. However, I am an opera scholar and Monteverdi specialist, and the article struck me as suffering from a number of inaccuracies and out-of-date assumptions (concerning dating, sources and other matters), just as it wasn't up-to-date with the most recent research on the field (cf. my revision of the section "Roles"). I also omitted the section "Historical context", which almost exclusively dealt with Monteverdi's prior life and oeuvre, which seemed to me out of context in an article on an individual opera. Stockholm Opera (talk) 07:58, 9 January 2013 (UTC)


Opera historiography

While we're taking a rest from the infobox wars... The recent reviews of Carolyn Abbate and Roger Parker's new book, A History of Opera have piqued my interest. I've also read an article by Richard Jensen, a retired professor and author (and WP administrator!), Military History on the Electronic Frontier: Wikipedia Fights the War of 1812. One of the points he makes is that Wikipedia is not good when it comes to historiography. Both the book and the article have made me think of a new article: Opera historiography, that is, the history of writing about opera. It would be a major project, and I have a few ideas, but I'm wondering if others have some ideas about how such an article could get off the ground. (Don't bother looking for articles on this topic in reference works - I've already checked and there aren't any.) -- kosboot (talk) 20:44, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Jenson's article is quite fascinating; thanks for posting it. I was struck by one comment though:
Wikipedia’s tone is old fashioned and amateurish. The active editors seem comfortable with the sort of books one finds at Barnes and Noble, which means recent popular titles are favored, and older monographs are overlooked. (page 17)
Surely, for those of us involved with the Opera Project, this is far from the truth. Many of us have acquired or have access to some of the specialized sources such as Grove (just bought the paperback 4 vols. version myself) and specialized opera mags such as Opera and many others. However, the article's examination of many of the characteristics of editors and the editing process makes interesting reading.
Now, how do we go about setting up an article on Opera historiography with no reference works as sources??? Viva-Verdi (talk) 21:38, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
One could start by creating articles (or maybe a single article whose organization would be put off until enough content was generated) on significant books that discuss operatic history, or focusing on works that have altered operatic history. The current Abbate and Parker book is one. I'm also thinking of articles by Richard Taruskin where he discusses the history of Boris Godunov revisions from the point of view of those who altered it, seeking to "improve" it. It would take a while, but I think it would be possible. -- kosboot (talk) 10:15, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
a complete reading of Taruskin would be a great incentive to editors working on such articles! You may not always (or maybe you only rarely) agree with him, but he certainly forces you tp think. By the way, as regards the Opera Project/Classical music projects and 'the sort of books one finds at Barnes and Noble' - too many articles on 'popular' composers (Dvorak, Puccini, Rachmaninoff....) show traces of such sourcing. Anton Rubinstein is a really horrible example... but life is too short.... --Smerus (talk) 12:49, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
Maybe I'll try to expand the Taruskin article as a beginning and see where that goes. -- kosboot (talk) 17:12, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
I was thinking of Taruskin's books, but I forgot about the Oxford History. In the index volume, he has a whole column of citations devoted to "music historiography" (not a separate article). I'll see what I can do about extracting the information. -- kosboot (talk) 20:30, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
Vol. 3 ch. 8 has a lot to say.--Smerus (talk) 21:34, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
I can't really get my head around the word "historiography", let alone "opera historiography", but I wonder whether Tom Sutcliffe's Believing in Opera (faber & faber) might fit some part of the bill? Also, I see that the article "Opera" in Grove Opera has a section III entitled "The nature of opera" (it's in vol 3, pp. 675-681) written by none other than the philosopher Bernard Williams. Ignore if either or both of these suggestions is just me barking up the wrong tree! --GuillaumeTell 22:21, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for the citation although that's not quite it. Historiography is the study of writing history. A simple example would be Meyerbeeer. The general notion that one hears -- even today -- is that Meyerbeer's work is not stageworthy. As an examplar, Taruskin quotes Paul Henry Lang who wrote extremely negatively on Meyerbeer's abilities. Taruskin then states that Lang's ideas were simply a repetition of received wisdom - all of which he traces back to Wagner and his followers who were motivated out of jealousy and--in particular--anti-Semitism. So this is an understanding of how history (of opera in this case) was created (and hopefully demolished). Another example would be Mozart. Until the 1980s, it was generally believed that Mozart could compose everything in his head - divine inspiration led him to remarkable feats of composition. Thanks to the work of Alan Tyson and others, we know that Mozart sweated it out just like anyone else, and in the case of Le nozze di Figaro, possibly changed things after its first performances. Yet another example: Bizet died of a broken heart because of the supposed failure of Carmen. Evidence shows no such thing: Carmen was successful from the very start and Bizet was well until a specific incident (unrelated to his operas) led to his death. So in general, historiography deals with the issues of writing history--not necessarily correcting specific incidents, but in general, questioning the historical narrative that has been constructed. (I hope this explains things a little better.) -- kosboot (talk) 22:56, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Something that may have some bearing on this. I remembered that about 1000 years ago I extensively chopped up music criticism, which them consisted largely of writing about rock music; this latter I split off into a separate article music journalism, adding some comments about modern journalism about 'classical' music. I've since then omitted to work up, as I orginally intended, 'Music criticism' to take it through the nineteenth century, so it remains a stub which I ought to resolve to develop. It quotes the Oxford Companion to Music as saying that music criticism is 'the intellectual activity of formulating judgments on the value and degree of excellence of individual works of music, or whole groups or genres'. And it refers to a further existing article Aesthetics of music which is a bit more extensive but is pretty vague. All these loose ends probably need to be, if not tied up,at least knitted a bit more closely.

Another approach perhaps is exemplified by Critical reputation of Arthur Sullivan - many articles on opera composers have sections on how their reputations have fared over the years, though with certain composers (e.g.Meyerbeer as above) one could certainly create whole articles. It's interesting that the (now) traditional animus against Meyerbeer continued to infuse the remarks of critics on the recent London staging of 'Robert le diable'. --Smerus (talk) 11:09, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Alfred Kidney

If anyone has access to old newspapers from Dundee, Scotland, or has nay information about light opera performer and director Alfred Kidney, please see my request for help at: Talk:Alfred Kidney. —Anne Delong (talk) 17:54, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Richard Wagner as FA candidate

The discussion here contains a number of points, particularly in the recent reviews by User:SandyGeorgia and User:Gerda Arendt, which spark some general issues on which project members may wish to reflect and/or comment.--Smerus (talk) 15:41, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

In the context, I suggested to move The Flying Dutchman to Der fliegende Holländer, reason: original German name, consistent with Wagner's other works, such as Die Walküre. The opera is by now performed in German not only in Bayreuth, but in international opera houses. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:19, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
I agree - it is the only one of W's operas to be listed in English title (Mastersingers is under Meistersinger).--Smerus (talk) 16:51, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Promoted to FA. Congratulations to Smerus and everyone who worked to get it there. Voceditenore (talk) 18:47, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
Announced in the Signpost - bravo: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/Single#Featured_content -- kosboot (talk) 21:43, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Operas by Wagner

Do operas by Wagner receive the WPOPERA tag? -- 76.65.128.43 (talk) 08:13, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

AFAIK this was last discussed in July 2012 at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Opera/Archive 109#Double bannering Wagner and G & S project articles revisited and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Richard Wagner/Archive 7#WikiProject Opera banners. I can't quite work out what the outcome of the discussion was, but I think no action was taken. If Wagner operas should be tagged with {{WikiProject Opera}}, and I think they should, it ought to be done in an organised and concerted (sorry) fashion. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 10:24, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
PS: If Wagner operas are to be tagged with the Opera Project template, that template should make use of the current article class in the Wagner template, and not be added as "unassessed" as was done here at Talk:The Flying Dutchman (opera). -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 10:31, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

As the cruel fact is that the Wagner project has lapsed into desuetude, I am in favour of tagging the operas with WPOPERA.--Smerus (talk) 10:35, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

  • We discussed this back in July with members from the G&S and Wagner projects and decided to go ahead. See Double bannering Wagner and G & S project articles revisited in the archives. There hasn't been a lot of activity actually adding the banners, though. Voceditenore (talk) 11:53, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
    • Wile I wouldn't do this for G&S - Gilbert wrote a lot of non-opera plays - Why not just edit the Richard Wagner project template to auto-double-tag? Adam Cuerden (talk) 13:26, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
      • The idea with G&S was to banner only those works that fall under the opera/operaetta category, i.e. ones that would be suitable for (and indeed do appear} on Portal:Opera. The fact that Gilbert also wrote plays, doesn't mean he wasn't also a noted operetta librettist. Most opera librettists have also been poets, novelists, playwrights etc. As for the double auto-tag idea, there are a lot of articles in the Wagner Project which are less relevant to ours. Again, the idea was to double banner only the operas. Voceditenore (talk) 14:09, 22 January 2013 (UTC
        • Not quite the point I was making: Richard Wagner-project articles should all be opera related, so why not make the template for the Richard Wagner project include the opera tag? Adam Cuerden (talk) 10:56, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Translations

in the context of Richard Wagner:

  • Die Laune des Verliebten is given as The infatuated lover's caprice, surprise, no idea why "infatuated". Source? I would say The lover's caprice.
  • Männerlist größer als Frauenlist is very freely translated to "Men are more cunning than women", literally "Mens' cunning greater than womens' cunning", if "cunning" is the best word for "List". Source?
  • Both these English versions or their alternatives are no titles, just translations of titles, right? Then no italics, no capitalisation.
  • "Bühnenweihfestspiel" = "festival play for the consecration of the stage" - really? Source? I would say Sacred festival play on/for the stage, I don't see any reason why the stage should be consecrated.
  • "Bühnenfestspiel", festival play on/for the stage, this is how Wagner termed The Ring (or the Ring). The term does not appear in that article, nor in the work's four parts, nor in Wagner, only in List of opera genres, List of compositions by Richard Wagner and List of works for the stage by Wagner. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:38, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Titles

In the template Richard Wagner, we have 14 opera titles in German and one in English. I think that is odd, especially for a composer who wrote his own libretti, in German. Almost all others who spoke up (6) think differently, I respect that. The vast majority seems not to care, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:41, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Or he vast majority exercises WP:SILENCE. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 11:11, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
Oh, ok, I care. The rule about titles is to do with the name by which the opera is known in the endlisg-speaking realms. For some reason that is nothing to do with us one opera is known by its translation. Actually I would argue that Tristan is known by its english title too, but hey. This is a good rule, and shouldn't be trumped by the desire to be tidy in a list. Happy now? almost-instinct 17:02, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
I should be silent, but it really is not about "tidy", but have a work named as its creator called it and thought of it, a creator who was very German (too much so, for my taste, but that doesn't matter, my taste, I mean) and very picky about language, - and as opera houses of the world have come to call it, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:53, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Another Massenet image

150px

A rather fun little poster, full of interesting imagery. Nominating it for featured picture, so there's a good chance it'll get on the main page. Adam Cuerden (talk) 09:28, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

The Featured Picture discussion is here. Voceditenore (talk) 14:29, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Di Stefano or di Stefano?

What does Grove say? WP's article is titled with "Di" but mostly uses "di" in the text. Concise Oxford isn't clear, because it capitalizes the entry (Di) and doesn't repeat the name in the text. Milkunderwood (talk) 06:46, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

His grave uses "Di": http://www.findagrave.com/cgi-bin/fg.cgi?page=pv&GRid=25177173&PIpi=52731937 or http://image2.findagrave.com/photos/2011/339/25177173_132316911018.jpg . -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 07:01, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
Apparently (per the article) he must be buried in the general vicinity of his home near Milan; so that looks pretty authoritative, then. Thanks. Milkunderwood (talk) 07:45, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
His official site http://www.giuseppedistefano.it (English landing page here) seems to have the approval of the family, and it uses "Di Stefano". Scarabocchio (talk) 08:42, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
Modern Italian names always capitalize Di, Del, Della etc. (although Italians can sometimes be a bit random). We had the same discussion a couple of years ago re Mario Del Monaco. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 09:07, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Ewa Podleś

Please see the history of Ewa Podleś and watch out for more "international celebration", --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:26, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Hmmm, yes... I've copyedited and referenced the article. I've also left a note on Talk:Ewa Podleś and one on the talk page of the editor involved, with links to the pages on edit-warring and sockpuppetry [4]. There were 2 IPs at work, but pretty obviously the same person. Interestingly, one of them traces back to the University of Alberta. The other is from the same city. Voceditenore (talk) 19:22, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
Thank you! Did you see all her links, Maria Callas etc? I wonder, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:37, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
They've IP hopped once again, even as we speak [5]. No edit summaries, no discussion on the talk page. One more time, and "they" are going to find "themselves" at SPI and/or Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring. Voceditenore (talk) 20:25, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Number (music)

Hey, guys? All my reference books are a bit packed away at the moment - I thought I wouldn't need them that soon - but I am right in thinking the claim about the Wagner-led demise of number operas is patently silly as stated, at least unless you're making an artificial distinction between opera and operetta? Adam Cuerden (talk) 02:47, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

  • This is anyway unacceptable as a WP article. Basically, the first paragraph which seems largely or entirely WP:OR should be deleted, and the whole article should be renamed Number opera, and corrected to deal with Adam Cuerden's point.--Smerus (talk) 06:21, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
I agree, and it should be moved to Number opera (currently a redirect). Apart from the dictionary definition and the OR speculation as to how useful the term is in rehearsals, there isn't a lot to say about the use of "number" in music in general. A brief bit about the origin of the term is appropriate in the newly retitled article. According to my Shorter Oxford English Dictionary (which is actually very long), the term was first used this way in 1878 for one of a collection of published songs or poems, and 1881 for the stand-alone parts of opera, oratorio, etc. It might be possible to move it over the redirect without needing an administrator, although the redirect page did have one further edit to add a category. Voceditenore (talk) 10:05, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
I have initiated a move.--Smerus (talk) 14:41, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
It has about 20 incoming links [6], none of which refer to "Number opera". So that would need to be fixed. Frankly, they're all pretty unnecessary/redundant If there's serious concern that readers won't know what a (musical) number is in an article about a music-related subject, then the article can link to the Wikionary entry, or rephrase. Voceditenore (talk) 15:04, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
  • OK, it is now moved to Number opera and I have removed the first para and done some minor tidyng up. I've also edited Number (music) on a preliminary basis, and checked the incoming links to both. Over to others to improve the articles themselves.--Smerus (talk) 06:04, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
    I've done a search and added wikilinks to the phrase "number opera" where there wasn't a link. (I was rather surprised to see that Organ concerto mentioned number opera - whoever did that seems to have meant "opus number" which makes a lot more sense, so I altered the phrase.) --GuillaumeTell 11:20, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
I've expanded Number (music) lest it gets AfD-ed as a DictDef. Voceditenore (talk) 18:54, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

AfD: Annemarie Kremer

Discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Annemarie Kremer. Voceditenore (talk) 10:18, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Result was WP:SNOW - withdrawn by nominator, thanks to much digging by Voceditenore. --GuillaumeTell 22:01, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Happy Birthday Rossini

If this were leap year, tomorrow would be his birthday. Buon compleanno, Gioachino! Voceditenore (talk) 22:43, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Happy to join, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:26, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
I attended The Magic Flute on his 50th. No one batted an eye when Papagena stated her age. Sparafucil (talk) 07:51, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Holländer

In Richard Wagner, we read "Wagner's middle stage output began with The Flying Dutchman (Der fliegende Holländer, 1843)..." which is not true, his output began with Der fliegende Holländer. I was reverted and don't want an edit war, just the fact. See also this comment: "the use of English titles in certain parts of Wagner's biography is decidedly odd". --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:24, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

If anyone involved with the Opera Project has thoughts about WP article titles being more appropriately given in their original language as opposed to being rendered in English, there's an ongoing move request concerning Der fliegende Holländer currently attracting much discussion. Any interested comment will be welcomed. Milkunderwood (talk) 05:17, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
I can see the case for making sure to give Flying Dutchman as the English title on first mention in the article. For articles very tangentally related to German opera, it might even be alright to just use Flying Dutchman - Wagner has become by far the best known source for the myth, and, as such, a number of books based loosely around mythology make use of Wagner's Flying Dutchman as a source for plot points; e.g. Nick Pollotta's That Darn Squid God, one of Tom Holt's books, and so on. In those cases, just using the English title may avoid unnecessary pedantic explanation. But in opera articles, just mentioning it has a well-known English title is surely enough. Adam Cuerden (talk) 22:42, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
Just saying that it was relisted, and Michael Bednarek read The Grove. - Please speak up on the article talk, that someone can take courage and close the move request. - I would still prefer that in Wagner's bicentenary, his work gets the title he wrote himself, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:45, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Gramophone Magazine

Just a heads-up about Gramophone Magazine's re-designed website. Unfortunately, most of their archives have now gone behind a paywall. But they periodically bring some out and list them on their Focus page where they are freely accessible along with a bunch of recording guides for various composers. Voceditenore (talk) 17:23, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Of particular interest to this project are:
  • Galina Vishnevskaya (1926-2012). Interview from Gramophone, February 1963. Reprinted to mark the death of the Russian soprano
  • Camille Saint-Saëns (1835-1921). The Gramophone guide to the best recordings
  • Giacomo Puccini (1858-1924). The Gramophone guide to the best recordings
I'm not sure how long these "Focus" features stay up. Voceditenore (talk) 19:07, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Sadko

Copied from Talk:Nikolai_Rimsky-Korsakov, because I'm not sure anyone ever looks there:

  • "I find that there is no mention of Sadko (opera) anywhere at all in the article titled Sadko (musical tableau). In fact it seems more than a little strange that the two are not combined into a single article, which would be considerably less confusing and inconvenient for readers."

Milkunderwood (talk) 04:55, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Also, does anyone know whether the popular so-called "Song of India" comes from the original "musical tableau", or was later composed de novo for the opera? This aria is used not only in the Tommy Dorsey arrangement, but also as an accompanied cello or violin encore. This is what I was initially trying to find. Thanks for any information. Milkunderwood (talk) 05:16, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
In the meantime User:Melodia has responded at the R-K talkpage that "they are completely unrelated musically. Though I do agree there should be mention of the opera in the article for the tone poem." So I guess that answers both my questions. Milkunderwood (talk) 06:44, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Idea: opera subjects

These suggestions of portrayed women for the OoM reminds me of the book Opera Subjects compiled by Charles H. Parsons for the Mellen opera reference series. It's a small book but what I like about it is that lists books (e.g. Homer's Iliad) and subjects (e.g. Napoleon Bonaparte) and provides a list of all the operas that have been based on the book or the subject. Maybe WikiProject Opera could consider doing something like that for legendary women (who probably already have an article)? If anyone can name a subject pertinent to women's month, I can look it up and transcribe the contents (just a list) here. -- kosboot (talk) 17:41, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

There's a big (400 pages?) German-language equivalent which was published 10+ years ago, the work of a music-lover with a lot of spare time. Does anyone know the book I mean? I remember it as having quite a lengthy title, probably involving some combination of 'Quellen' 'Themen' 'historische' 'thematische' 'Musik' 'Oper' 'Lexikon'... I've tried searching Google and amazon.de for these, but without success. I'd like to identify it for the future. Scarabocchio (talk) 10:21, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
Got it! .. the Kompendium der musikalischen Sujets (KdmS) by Alexander Reischert. I was right about the publication date but I got the size wrong ... it's 1,427 pages, in two volumes. More here [8] Scarabocchio (talk) 10:38, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
And those of us who don't know much German are one click away from an English synopsis. I'm not clear whether the books have been translated into English. --GuillaumeTell 11:24, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
Oooh! I'll take a look at it when I get the chance. -- kosboot (talk) 17:26, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

I did notice a Heloise and Abelard on the opera corpus. Adam Cuerden (talk) 18:25, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

You have good eyesight, Guillaume! I didn't see that link to the English summary. The book is only available in German as far as I know. The page of reviews ("Echos zum Buch") include one from 'Notes - Quarterly Journal of the Music Library Association, Volume 59, Number 2, December 2002, pp. 328-329' and that was of the German language edition. Scarabocchio (talk) 07:08, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Opera/Archive_111&oldid=1190142980"