Talk:Ariadne auf Naxos

Comment
Nothing here is incorrect, but I feel that the article only gives a limited impression of what Ariadne is like. I'm going to work on an expanded synopsis, maybe other material as well....some account of the first version? Herbivore (talk) 02:33, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Am updating performers at Stuttgart premiere. The playbill as reproduced in Hartmann's book says the first Harlekin was Albin Swoboda...but maybe there's a reason for the listing for Duhan? Not knowing more about it, I'll leave it as is. 63.3.13.131 (talk) 01:17, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
 * The listing at AmadeusOnline.net confirms that it was Swoboda, so I've altered it. Duhan was the Music-master. --GuillaumeTell (talk) 17:06, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Gosh, this is kind of meagre. There really isn't a difference of plot between the two versions. But can I/we add a section like "differences between 1912/1916 versions"? -- kosboot (talk) 13:03, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Good idea - the changes to Grossmächtige Prinzessin, Zerbinetta's other aria, etc. --GuillaumeTell 17:45, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Versions draft
How about something like this? I don't have either score in front of me (which I hope to have later), but I would hope to add more details and even rehearsal numbers (for those with scores). -- kosboot (talk) 18:18, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

American premiere?
Why is the American premiere listed here? Any special reason? Rather than the London premiere, or Paris or. . .? Normally we only list world premieres and first performances of revised versions. -- Kleinzach (talk) 13:00, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

November 2010: "Edit wars" re: singer category
I have posted the following on User Talk: 71.103.84.212’s page in order to request justification for the constant changes he/she has been making to this article. I support User talk:Francesco Malipiero changes. Viva-Verdi (talk) 16:19, 16 November 2010 (UTC)


 * "Your continued reverals of the contributions of one editor have result in EDIT WARS. I have reverted your last change.


 * If you continue to make these changes without any justification on the Ariadne auf Naxos Discussion (AKA "Talk") page, you may be regarded as a VANDAL and blocked from editing.


 * Before you make any further changes, please contribute to the discussion and justify the reasoning behind your changes. Viva-Verdi (talk) 16:19, 16 November 2010 (UTC) "


 * I have looked into this some more and have come up with the following two (reliable) sources that list the role of the composer as "soprano": the Boosey&Hawkes page on the opera and page 4 of the score at IMSLP. Since (as far as I know) we always follow what the score says when voice-types are concerned, maybe we should remove the mezzo-soprano alternative (despite the listing by Murray in Grove)? --Francesco Malipiero (talk) 23:26, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
 * That sounds reasonable, though I think we should keep the explanatory footnote. -- Klein zach  04:35, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I favor keeping both voice types. The sources support it, and it would be incorrect to ignore the entry in The New Grove Dictionary of Opera. It is also quite common for the role to be sung by mezzo-sopranos, so I find to omit this would be to disregard common practice. --Robert.Allen (talk) 07:20, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
 * This problem has been occurring elsewhere (e.g. re Masetto in Don Giovanni) and an explanatory footnote is the best solution. In this case, both of the Composers listed in the table were sopranos, but these days, in my experience, the role is normally taken by a mezzo, e.g. Sarah Connolly in the current Welsh National Opera production. --GuillaumeTell 12:03, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

This same problem occurred with the role of Brangäne (Tristan und Isolde), and in that case it was decided to keep the voice type mentioned in the score in the roles table, and mention the alternative (which in that case however was not documented by a printed source, only by the voice type used on most recordings) in a footnote. --Francesco Malipiero (talk) 16:24, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree with the footnote solution as well. Another use of a footnote, is Rosina in The Barber of Seville. I'm sure there are others as well.4meter4 (talk) 16:29, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Grove voice types follow the composer's description (normally written in the score) so Murray (or his editor) has either made a mistake or been unaware of publication rules. We don't know his reasons, hence it's reasonable to have a footnote. (Referring to Grove is important, but we should remember that all books are fallible.) That fact that mezzos often sing the role is not really relevant. Listing all the alternative voice types in, say, Die Fledermaus would be merely confusing for the reader. -- Klein zach  01:01, 18 November 2010 (UTC)


 * In the New Grove Opera article on "Mezzo-soprano" it is stated that in 19th-century German opera, "the central mezzo repertory includes ... Brangäne". So, regardless of what is written in the score, this what the authors (Owen Jander, J. B. Steane, and Elizabeth Forbes) say, and some might might argue that the Wikipedia is incorrect to list it as a soprano role. The article also says: "Two sympathetic travesty roles in operas by Strauss, Octavian in Der Rosenkavalier and the Composer in Ariadne auf Naxos, both written for and created by a soprano, are now usually sung by mezzos, whose voices sound more like that of a boy." Perhaps we should add this to the text of the article. I don't think it should be relegated to a footnote. And is it really so unwieldy to keep both in the table? Is the situation here, which involves a single role, comparable to Die Fledermaus? (I also notice we have Octavian as a mezzo-soprano. If it was originally for soprano, that doesn't seem entirely consistent to me.) --Robert.Allen (talk) 10:29, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
 * The decision is not based on the role creator. It's simply a matter of what's in the printed score. Octavian is printed as a mezzo role. The composer is not. After having long battles over voice types at other pages this is the solution we have come up with at the opera project to avoid conflicts like these. It's non-biased, objective, and follows wikipedia's policies reguarding WP:Verifiability.4meter4 (talk) 18:00, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

IMO we have a reasonably consensus here for following our usual practice of going by the score. I've removed the mezzo designation from the table, leaving the footnote, which we may like to develop to make it clear that in practice mezzos often undertake the role and may perfectly legitimately include it in their repertory. -- Klein zach  00:42, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
 * OK, thanks for the explanation. This doesn't sound like an unreasonable approach. Hopefully a footnote will help keep less well-informed editors like myself from changing the table. I also added a citation to the New Grove Opera in the footnote for Brangäne in the Tristan und Isolde article. --Robert.Allen (talk) 06:35, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

International performance history section
Am I alone in thinking that "International" is hugely Americo-centric, give or take a bit of British stuff at the beginning? I realise that the Met Database produces lots of interesting material, but perhaps there are also "international" performances of the opera that have taken place in, uh, Germany, Austria, Switzerland, even France, Italy, Sweden, Russia, Holland, Australia ....? --GuillaumeTell 00:18, 18 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Well, first of all, let's drop the "International" bit. Other opera articles just say "Perf. history".  And then we should research others perfs. in Europe and elsewhere. Viva-Verdi (talk) 00:55, 18 November 2010 (UTC)


 * I've added a Met Opera subhead, but we have a problem. If we had similar sections for the Vienna, Paris, ROH etc the article would be unmanageable, so I think the ideal solution would be to cut the Met text down to a couple of sentences. -- Klein zach  01:10, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree with Kleinzach. I think a mention of both Met productions would be good, but beyond mentioning the opening cast members of each, I don't think an entire list of performers is necessary. A possible addition would be to mention the Norman, Battle, King, etc. recording which was also notable because, according to the New York Times, "it was the first time that an American cultural event has been televised live in the Soviet Union".4meter4 (talk) 04:38, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

First, David Murray may well have listed the role as "mezzo-soprano" based on an analysis of the pitch range of the role rather than a score designation, which may well have been inserted by someone at the publisher (and not specified by Strauss), possibly due to an adventitious casting decision made for the first production which depended on the availability of a particularly outstanding singer well suited to the part. Is it then "cast in stone" that this is a soprano role? Based on the information we have right now, we do not know why David Murray designated the Composer as mezzo-soprano, and he does not say, but I'm not sure we can second guess the author and say it is just an "error". It does seem possible, from the detailed performance history at the Met, that the role is really more suited for a mezzo-soprano, although performable by many singers in either voice category. Many readers, perhaps mostly those who attend the Met (again more performance history at other houses would be helpful), might reasonably be confused if the role is categorized solely as one for a soprano. And this may account for one editor's so-called "vandalism". Anyone who attends the Met might be forgiven for thinking the Composer is primarily a mezzo role, and personally, based on the data now at hand, I would not necessarily disagree. Given the balance of voice types used in the role at that house, is it really a good idea to relegate mezzo-soprano to a footnote?

Second, the Met history as it stands is not an entire list of performers, but one selected based on those who appeared most often in each role. I agree that the easy availability of detailed information from the Met online archive can (temporarily?) result in lack of balance in the article, but I would rather see information from other opera houses added to create more balance (although this may be more difficult), rather than deleting the information we have. (BTW, I do not live in New York, I'm many thousands of miles from there. I looked at the database out of curiosity because I thought it could tell us something about actual performance practice, and hopefully not because I'm chauvinistic.) Regarding "unmanageability", perhaps we could create a "Detailed performance history" section placed near the end of the article, after the roles and synopsis section, i.e. given less prominence, to which detailed information from many opera houses could eventually also be added. Might that be an alternative to actually deleting most of the detail? Myself, I found the information interesting and relevant, and that's why I added it. My initial reaction had been that most sources supported the Composer role as being for a soprano, which is why I added the footnote in the first place. I was hoping to forestall edits deleting "soprano" from the voice type column. Now I'm hoping to forestall deleting "mezzo-soprano" (a bit ironic, no?) --Robert.Allen (talk) 09:27, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Carl Alwin with a C - not a K
I corrected Karl Alwin to Carl Alwin citing the Grove biography of Elisabeth Schumann. I could also have cited the Gerd Puritz biography of Elisabeth Schumann which has extensive material on her husband. He preferred the C selling and indeed Schumann always called him - as a nickname - by his initial 'C'. As noted on page 84 of the biography 'K' was used on record labels (and consequently some reference books) because it was considered 'more Germanic' by some people, but 'C' was preferred by Alwin himself. Unfortunately my correction was reverted.

On a matter of wiki procedure, the norm is to discuss here rather than re-revert, especially in contradiction of a cited reference see BOLD, revert, discuss cycle). -- Klein zach  02:47, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but I checked the Grove entry that you mentioned, and in the edition I looked at D S-T spelled it as "Karl", so I found your edit comment rather confusing. I also have Theodore Baker's Dictionary which gives his name as Karl Alwin. With that information I felt I had to respect the spelling in the cited source, and being short of time decided to revert your edit. Perhaps we will soon have an article Carl Alwin in which the spelling issue can be addressed in more detail. In the meantime based on your additional info, I restored your change and mention this in the footnote. Thanks for the additional info and source. --Robert.Allen (talk) 22:13, 21 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Good. The footnote is fine. -- Klein zach  23:55, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Lackey vs. Footman
Every change like this tends to get me going through the books for verification, especially when no source or justification for the change is given. The previous cast list probably originated with New Grove Opera which translates the German in the score, "Ein Lakai", to "A Footman". Many other sources translate it as "A Lackey", including Kobbé and The New Penguin Guide. LEO says either can be a translation and also includes "flunky" and "minion". The OED & American Heritage definitions of "lackey" include "footman", "valet", "toady". "Toady" – that sounds good. Maybe we should try that next. As you all know, I love to add footnotes about such things, but I'll refrain this time. ;-) --Robert.Allen (talk) 01:47, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Mistake
I think it is a mistake to feature the composer on top of the article. If you look at seven opera of the same composer there will always be his pic on top. i think the top pic should feature an extraordinary scene from the opera - as this is the article of Ariadne, I want to see Ariadne - not Richard Strauss.--Meister und Margarita (talk) 22:27, 3 December 2013 (UTC) Just like in The Prince of Homburg. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Meister und Margarita (talk • contribs) 22:29, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
 * You might get better responses if you raise this question which you put here and at several other opera articles at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Opera instead. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 11:39, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Project opera is rather closed for that topic, I'm afraid, the project was so relieved to . There was a general discussion (or not) on Das Liebesverbot. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:12, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

New consensus on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Opera that the composer templates be moved to the bottom of the article. Therefore I will undo the changes made by a user who did not read or respect the will of the majority. I will do so after 15 more minutes unless someone disputes the changes.--Meister und Margarita (talk) 23:15, 22 August 2014 (UTC)