Talk:Jacques Offenbach/Archive 1

French capitalization
As of this writing, most of the French operetta titles (some of which are red links) in the article are capitalized incorrectly. The rule most often misapplied there is that if the first word in a French title is a determiner, one should capitalize the modified noun. For more information on capitalization of titles in the French language, see Laura Lawless's article "French Capitalization of Titles and Names" on About.com. – Ringbang 16:48, 18 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Hi, I have written on your Talk page to explain why I have reverted.


 * If you look at the About.com page you have quoted you will see that the author points to three different ways of capitalizing French. We are using a system similar to the third type on the page.


 * We follow the New Grove Dictionary of Opera style as explained on the Opera Project WikiProject Opera.


 * Hope this is all clear. Regards.


 * Kleinzach 17:30, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

French title?
We follow the Grove? So how come it's Orpheus in the Underworld and not Orphée aux enfers? MOI JE CROIS 13:25, 9 May 2007 (UTC)


 * There was agreement at the Opera Project that some (not very many) non-English-language operas are much better-known in the English-speaking world under their English titles than under their original titles, and that articles on such operas should appear under their English titles (we were following WP:UE here). An explanation of this is here, where there is also a link to the list of those operas.  Of course there are redirects from the original titles. --GuillaumeTell 13:41, 9 May 2007 (UTC)


 * In other words, we have our very own set of rules that does not correspond to any other set of rules in- or outside of Wikipedia. Nothing wrong with that, as long as we take care not to mislead the reader with overassertive language. To give just one example: having arbitrarily decided to follow the Grove's terminology of "genres", does not give us the right to state catgorically that a given work that scholars are not sure whether to call opéra bouffe, opéra bouffon, opéra féerie, or opéra féerique, is an opéra bouffe. MOI JE CROIS 14:09, 10 May 2007 (UTC)


 * No, I don't think that is what GuillaumeTell said. We base our editorial style on WP norms. Regarding the designation of operas as opéra bouffe etc. we follow original texts (such as the livret de censure) as Andrew Lamb did. If there are errors please point them out. We don't have a POV on this, We are compiling an encyclopedia. --Kleinzach 14:57, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

If I had the feeling that anyone here was pushing his POV I would not hesitate to say so, but I do not have that feeling. The problem lies elsewhere: The Tales of the Offenbach Scholars have to be taken with a grain of salt. In reality, there's no difference between an opéra bouffe, an opéra bouffon, a bouffonnerie, etc etc. Offenbach, wherever he is, must be rolling with laughter when he sees the scholars earnestly counting and cataloguing "genres" like légende bretonne, anthropophagie musicale, conversation alsacienne. Compiling an encyclopedia means that we have to present the works and views of the specialists, neutrally and in a neutral tone of voice. It certainly does not mean that we have to copy their ways. MOI JE CROIS 18:22, 11 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, we aren't categorizing légende bretonne, anthropophagie musicale, conversation alsacienne etc. so I don't see any problem. All we are doing is recording the designation - which may only be of whimsical interest as you suggest. --Kleinzach 11:22, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

There's nothing wrong with the whimsical designations that Offenbach and his librettists thought up. On the contrary, in the case of Oyayaie (1855) e.g., I am sorry that you decided to use the pedestrian opéra-bouffe in place of the Grove's wonderful anthropophagie musicale. The problem is that the way these designations are presented in our article misleads editors to use them as definitions in other articles. I see two solutions: either we use quotation marks (Le violoneux - "légende bretonne" in one act etc), or we explain what's what in a short note on terminology. MOI JE CROIS 12:52, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Musicals Project
According to both the List of musicals and the Internet Broadway Database the music of Offenbach was used in several musicals. Thus he falls into the Musicals WikiProject along with the opra WikiProject. If the Musicals WikiProject finds that the article needs no mention of the musicals that Offenbach's music was used in, the tag will be removed and the article will remain the same. For now, however, please leave the Musicals-project tag on this page. Thanks! --omtay38 19:21, 1 July 2006 (UTC)


 * That's fine. Offenbach is nevertheless an important composer of opera and operetta, and the editing of articles about him and his works follows specific styles (for French) etc. I hope we won't see any radical changes of the articles just because some of his music was reused in some musicals. Usually information about the use of music in other contexts is included in a special separate section. Regards. - Kleinzach 22:52, 2 July 2006 (UTC)


 * No problem. Chances are, the article won't see anything to drastic as a result of the musicals project, the tag was added to allow for the project to attain an overall sense of the number of articles related to musical theatre within wikipedia, not necessarily to find articles that would be radically changed to fit a musicals template. Your thoughts are well received. Thanks! --omtay38 01:05, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Hortense Schneider
You missed the point. The item (cf Piat e.g.) says something about Offebach! I won't insist. But next time please don't remove important items without discussing them first. Thank you! MOI JE CROIS 13:32, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Relevance
I removed the "itinerant violinist" and the "Offenbacher" and his "audience". They are as irrelevant as the "Napoleonic edicts", and just as misleading. Everybody who learned a trade like bookbinding had to go "wandering" then, and if he played the fiddle at that time, that doesn't make him an "itinerant violinist". Also, anybody coming from Offenbach (with or without a fiddle) would have been known in Deutz as the Offenbacher; and it was the most natural thing that he would end up with this name. This is how Eberst's greatgrandfather had come to his name btw: he came from Eberstadt (Eberscht); no violins and no audience... MOI JE CROIS 13:10, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Posthumous works
What exactly are the following and what is the source for them?


 * The return of Ulysses (1913)
 * The Goldsmith of Toledo (1917)
 * The blue shirt of Ithaca (1930)
 * Myriame et Daphné (1907)

--Kleinzach 08:58, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Jacques vs. Jacob
No mention of Jacob instead of Jacques is in the intro, despite numerous occurrences in the text. This should be fixed. (I don't know anything about Offenbach though, I thought he was Jacques all the time.) --Rajah 06:22, 25 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, there were only two mentions of "Jacob" in the text, and it was obvious from the text that he changed his name to Jaques in 1833 or 1833, but, pursuant to your suggestion, I have added an express statement in the first paragraph under Biography that he changed the name. Usually the change from a birth name to a name used throughout most of a person's life is not discussed in Bio article intros unless it is otherwise important.  -- Ssilvers 06:50, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Fact tag in the first paragraph
The article currently has this sentence:

 While his name remains most closely associated with the French operetta and the Second Empire, it is his one fully operatic masterpiece, Les contes d'Hoffmann (The Tales of Hoffmann''), that has become the most frequently performed of Offenbach's works. ''

This seems perfectly reasonable to me. Most opera houses do concentrate on Hoffmann. Other works are rarely performed. However it would be difficult to prove without a lot of statistics which might constitute original research etc. etc.

It is now challenged by a fact tag and a invisible text note  "I find this hard to believe, particularly if you count amateur productions of Orpheus in the Underworld/Orphée aux Enfers" .

The problem here is that (a) a citation is unlikely to exist, and (b) if it did then it would almost certainly be unreliable.

To solve the problem I have removed the fact tag and rewritten the sentence as follows:

'' While his name remains most closely associated with the French operetta and the Second Empire, it is his one fully operatic masterpiece, Les contes d'Hoffmann (The Tales of Hoffmann), that has become the most familiar of Offenbach's works in major houses. ''

I hope that's acceptable.

-- Kleinzach 23:41, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Image
In the French article on Offenbach there is an excellent colour portrait. Does anyone know how to import it? Best regards -- Ssilvers (talk) 15:27, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Composer project review
I've reviewed this article as part of the Composers project review of its B-class articles. This article is nice B-class article; it mainly lacks some detail on his early composing history, and inline citations. My full review is on the comments page; questions and comments should be left here or on my talk page.  Magic ♪piano 15:39, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Edits to Bio
I am a descendant and published genealogist to the family, and will shortly supply references to support my changes. Д-р СДжП,ДС 23:35, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

vague point
would it help to rephrase the first sentence thus?

Biography

Offenbach's father, Isaac Juda Eberst, born 26 October 1779 in Offenbach am Main, took the name Offenbach in 1808 when he was already in Deutz where he had moved in 1802.

The alternative would appear to be a long explanation of the Napoleonic edict.

Cg2p0B0u8m (talk) 14:32, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you, that sounds good, although I would prefer a link to an explanatory article or some footnote, but maybe that's just me. One more thing: the italics around his father's name and the bolding of Offenbach ought to be dropped. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 15:26, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Play titles
Confusingly, in 'other stage works', three of the play titles with a Wikipedia link are no longer spelled the same (case) as given in the articles about the plays... Cg2p0B0u8m (talk) 20:04, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Can you clarify? There are no red links in that section. -- Klein zach  23:11, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
 * There aren't any red links because the three plays in question are piped links to their English titles. Cg2p0B0u8m's observation that the French titles in these articles uses different capitalisation is correct. We know that the most widely used style of French title capitalisation, which is a bit idosyncratic and not cosnsistently applied in French writing, is not used in the opera or classical music projects on Wikipedia where a strict but easily understood system is used. Other projects are not so strict; that's why those articles on the plays use a different spelling. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 04:18, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Ah. Missed that. Shouldn't we be using the English titles? After all The Tales of Hoffmann appears just below. -- Klein zach  07:00, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Wouldn't that make for an awkward list as we don't have English titles for all these plays? -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 08:46, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Perhaps, but then what is the least bad solution? My primary editing instinct tells me that consistency should come first — at least within the article. -- Klein zach  09:20, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
 * But at the cost of consistency within the paragraph. — (shrug) Whatever, no biggie. The list itself is a useful improvement to the article, in whichever language the titles are listed. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 09:27, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes, it's not a major thing. From Manual_of_Style_(France_%26_French-related) it seemed that only classical music and opera had opted out of l’Académie française / into 'Grove'; no problem. Cg2p0B0u8m (talk) 19:16, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Also visual arts, but as we have often remarked, this is a classic 'no-win' situation. -- Klein zach  03:21, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Assessment comment
Substituted at 20:34, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Archive?
Apart from the Bizet/Offenbach friendship (being dealt with) is there anything outstanding from any of the above topics on this page? I'll archive in a few days' time unless anyone suggests otherwise. Tim riley (talk) 13:46, 26 August 2011 (UTC)


 * I think the above comments have been dealt with except possibly the following, about "cultural influence" (plus, of course, we still need help from someone who can make a sound file):

[Does anyone] know of anything else like Zola's book Nana, where an important book, film or other item of broad cultural interest has a substantial plot reference to, parody of, or other use of Offenbach's work? Some movies that use entire Offenbach pieces in their soundtracks are listed here. Offenbach was a character [phttp://www.imdb.com/character/ch0064875/ in these films]. There was a TV miniseries called "Les folies Offenbach". This seems to be a documentary on Offenbach: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0338875/  These Broadway shows and these and this have used Offenbach's music extensively. Which of these references might be important enough to mention? There must be lots of pieces of music that extensively quote Offenbach music or parody it? -- Ssilvers (talk) 22:34, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Sondheim pastiches him (quite well) in "Please Hello". (Incidentally, I've been asked to look over Sondheim at PR: do look in if you're interested.) The Valse des rayons from Le Papillon achieved independent success, not to say notoriety, as the Apache Dance famously performed by Mistinguett with Max Dearly before WWI. Nothing else comes immediately to mind. Shall ponder. Tim riley (talk) 07:18, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
 * This book came up in my search: Senelick, Laurence. "The Cultural Influence of Jacques Offenbach" (2008), Cambridge University Press, ISBN 0521871808.... -- Ssilvers (talk) 12:59, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

I'd forgotten about sound files. Very good point. Didn't you have a G&S collaborator who was red hot with media stuff? I think the other gleanings above can rest in peace, particularly the baffling CUP book known to Google but not to the British Library or WorldCat. That way madness lies. Tim riley (talk) 11:31, 27 August 2011 (UTC)


 * User:Adam Cuerden used to do sound files, but his page now says "Retired". I will try to e-mail him, but I am not optimistic that he will come back for this.  Likewise, User:MusicMaker5376 used to do such files for the Musicals project, but he has been mostly retired for a couple of years now.  I left a message on his talk page, but again I am not optimistic.  I think you should put a request on the talk page of WikiProject Media and any other relevant wikiprojects.  By the way, you said you have trouble playing ogg files.  See WP:SOUND.  -- Ssilvers (talk) 16:12, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Du lieber Gott! I have read that page and am none the wiser. Shall nonetheless consult the techie experts at the media project as you suggest. Good idea - many thanks. Tim riley (talk) 16:27, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I have just spent an hour listening. Free, yes, but also frightful. Of historical interest undeniably, but not, I think of use to the casual reader of a Wikipedia article. Anyone else care to listen and vote on this? Tim riley (talk) 18:38, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Offenbach in America
The assertion that Offenbach was in the U.S. "1876-77" is untrue. He departed Le Havre on 22 April 1876 (Faris page 174) and boarded the Canada at New York, bound for France on 8 July 1876 (Yon page 548).Pyrrhura.molinae (talk) 01:34, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you for spotting that. The source cited also confirms his return date as July 1876. Now corrected. Tim riley (talk) 07:29, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Some late comments
My apologies for missing the deadline ; as I mentioned on the peer review page I have now read the article through (the 22 August version) and will try to type my comments as quickly as possible. This starts with the four introductory paragraphs.

1)	1st paragraph, (first sentence) “composer and cellist” – also quite an important impressario/theatre manager (and a conductor)
 * I'm not sure I agree with this. He was certainly all the things you mention, but I think "composer and cellist" are the crux. What do other contributors think? Tim riley (talk) 16:38, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Harding's Part II is called 'His Own Theatre' and part V 'Misunfortunate Impressario'. Founding a theatre which had an almost hundred year history (and managing it for the first 7) and running another seems quite significant to me. Also I notice that Yon has chapters on ‘La création des Bouffes-Parisiens’ (IV) and Directeur de la Gaîté (XIV) (II is ‘Les ambitions d’un virtuose’ - for the cello), although I am not sure just what word [to describe this activity] would do. There also ought to be the relevant Category at the foot.Cg2p0B0u8m (talk) 21:15, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Would "...and impresario." be all right? It would mostly answer your point. I really don't think we need add "conductor" in the lead. Tim riley (talk) 19:46, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

2)	Delete “uncompleted” – it makes it sound like say Rodrigue et Chimène – the complicated position of Hoffmann is well explained in the Late Years section
 * Point very well taken, but isn't the (excuse the word) unfinishedness of the piece crucial? Tim riley (talk) 16:38, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

3)	His influence was also on French composers.
 * Would you like to develop this point a bit? I am not quite up to speed. Tim riley (talk) 16:38, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

4)	2nd paragraph – “From 1835 to 1855 he earned his living as a cellist” ; from joining the Comédie Française in 1850 he had regular salary from them.
 * Good point: I'll revisit and report back. Tim riley (talk)
 * Would "earned his living as a cellist and conductor" do? Tim riley (talk) 19:46, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

5)	3rd paragraph - “18 full-length operettas, as well as 15 more one-act“adding up first versions of operas in Yon, there are 37 in total – maybe this sentence should just be more vague?
 * Interesting: more on this anon. Tim riley (talk) 16:38, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Would saying "at least" or "about" help? -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:04, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I think so. What say you, Cg2p0B0u8m? Tim riley (talk) 19:46, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

6)	4th paragraph – I think Offenbach “fall out of favour” right at the start of the war, with newspaper attacks starting immediately, even before his retreat to Étretat?
 * This is an important point; may I have a short interval to follow it up and report back? Tim riley (talk) 16:38, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
 * So sorry: have not yet returned to the sources on this. More anon. Tim riley (talk) 19:46, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

7)	At the end I think also there should be brief mention of his rheumatism and gout; I am not sure when this first started but it affected his work.
 * I have been bounced from pillar to post in the sources about Offenbach's ailments. I have sometimes wondered if the more genteel biographers shied away from "gout". Shall revisit and report back. Tim riley (talk) 16:38, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Harding (p. 197) mentions this in the context of Offenbach conducing the 100th performance of the spectacular revival of Orphée aux enfers at the Gaîté. --Robert.Allen (talk) 16:54, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
 * The illness should really be mentioned, as it also relates to and ties in with his visits to Ems. I only have Harding as an English source at hand, but there is good mention on page 91 and again on page 209 (and probably many other mentions, and more in Yon). I hope this helps.Cg2p0B0u8m (talk) 21:03, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
 * See Ssilver's note below. I rather agree with him that this need not go in the lead. Tim riley (talk) 19:46, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

8)	One main point on this introduction is that after only five words of the piece, the reader is directed to a footnote and from there to a reference! This is rather a trivial note - there is no confusion about his date of birth at all - and if it must stay in the article, could be lost further down the piece.
 * Yes, on reflection I think this is otiose. Anyone else's views on this gratefully received. Tim riley (talk) 16:38, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I would try to retain this information further down, perhaps somewhere in the sentence that begins "When Jacob was six years old..." -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:04, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

9)	1st para (“His best-known works were continually revived during the 20th century and continue to be staged in the 21st.” If you look at the rare opera section on Operabase (http://www.operabase.com/), there are still performances of other works of his, as well.)
 * Hmm. Well yes, but the second statement doesn't invalidate the first. Happy to see a rewording if you care to dive in. Tim riley (talk) 16:38, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
 * How about this: "...during the 20th century, and many of his operettas continue to be staged in the 21st. The Tales of Hoffman remains part of the standard opera repertory." -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:04, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Looks good to me. Would you do the honours? And ditto for your suggestions at points 5 and 7 above? Tim riley (talk) 12:06, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I did 3, 5 and 8. See what you think and revise as necessary.  #7 above is about rheumatism and gout.  I don't think this should go in the Lead, but I think you should add something in the "last years" section, if it affected his productivity and lifestyle.  -- Ssilvers (talk) 16:01, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Good point. The poor man was certainly racked by something for years. Gout and/or rheumatism. I'll check the sources and report back. Tim riley (talk) 17:05, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
 * The question is, I think, where best to make first mention of this. As I obviously can't adjudicate between the conflicting sources, perhaps we might say something along the lines of "From about 1860 [subject to further check of sources] he suffered frequent pain from gout, rheumatism or both. [Cite sources]"?

I hope this helps and will do the rest soon. Cg2p0B0u8m (talk) 16:04, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you so much and there is no hurry whatever! As with all Wikipedia articles, this is a consensus affair, and everyone's input is equally important. I look forward to your next lot of comments as and when you are ready. Tim riley (talk) 16:09, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

I am happy with your comments at 19.46, thanks. Cg2p0B0u8m (talk) 22:24, 1 September 2011 (UTC)


 * I would like to suggest the following text for the last paragraph of the introduction, so that (from point 6) the chronology of the 1870s is correct (rehabilitation in Paris, followed by American tour), and (from point 2) to avoid repeating ‘complete’, and also make some nuance about an opera where, to quote Grove “When Offenbach died the opera was in rehearsal and the music apparently conceived in its entirety…” . (I also wonder if 'and musicologists' should be deleted, unless there is evidence that some are not musicians.)
 * Offenbach became associated with the Second French Empire of Napoleon III; the emperor and his court were genially satirised in many of Offenbach's operettas. Napoleon personally granted him French citizenship and the Légion d'Honneur. With the outbreak of the Franco-Prussian War in 1870, Offenbach found himself out of favour in Paris because of his imperial connections and his German birth. He remained successful in Vienna and London, however. He re-established himself in Paris during the 1870s, with revivals of some of his earlier favourites and a series of new works, and undertook a popular U.S. tour. In his last years he strove to finish The Tales of Hoffmann, but died before the premiere of the opera, which has entered the standard repertory in versions completed or edited by other musicians and musicologists. Cg2p0B0u8m (talk) 21:58, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
 * (Just to add that my proposed final sentence is still factually correct). Cg2p0B0u8m (talk) 22:07, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
 * That looks good to me. Tim, what do you think about the musicologists?  -- Ssilvers (talk) 02:38, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Not passionate about it, but perfectly happy to go along with it. (Perhaps I am biased by Beecham's mot "A musicologist is a man who can read music but can't hear it.") Tim riley (talk) 17:52, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Take that, you musicologists! -- Ssilvers (talk) 00:04, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Later comments - Early Years
10. “needed to leave” could be more positive = indicating that Isaac felt that the boys would benefit from the musical education and wider musical experiences on offer in Paris…
 * I thought (and still think, rather) that this is plain as the sentence stands, but by all means redraw. Tim riley (talk) 19:58, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

11. “Isaac hoped to secure employment” I cannot see any mention in Yon of this – once the father had sorted out the sons’ studies, accommodation and income from work he went home
 * Shall check the other sources. Even the marvellous Yon doesn't cover everything mentioned by his predecessors. Tim riley (talk) 19:58, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Gammond is unequivocal on the point: "Isaac tried to find a permanent post in Paris but failed and eventually returned to Cologne..." Tim riley (talk) 08:50, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

12. “on one occasion he and the principal cellist” – can we name Hippolyte Seligmann? He may get his own article one day (it seems he wrote some memoirs)
 * I am wary of red links that are going to sit there for ages. If you are toying with the idea of adding an article on Seligmann, then fine, but otherwise I think a red link is no help to the reader and is in fact rather a distraction. Grateful for anyone else's thoughts on this. Tim riley (talk) 19:58, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

13. A link for Carlist ? - perhaps not clear otherwise?
 * Sorry - not quite with you. It has been linked since I first added it. Tim riley (talk) 19:58, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

14. “He fell in love with her” = They fell in love,
 * Quite so! Will you redraw? Tim riley (talk) 19:58, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

15. “a friend said H gave him courage” – name Victorin de Joncières could be linked and in the main text.
 * I pondered that when writing this bit. My feeling was, and is, that for the reader it is a bit away from the main point. I can't think why any reader would want to click on a link to Victorin de Joncières here, but am of course happy to go with the consensus. Tim riley (talk) 19:58, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

16 “Felicien David’s currently fashionable music” = Le Désert by Felicien David (parodied by Offenbach as ‘Citrouillard au Désert’) – also performed on 27April 1846 at the Opéra Comique as part of a benefit [Yon]
 * Just so, but again I considered this too much extraneous detail for this article. When you've got a 400-page book to spread yourself in, it's another matter. As above, other views sought, please! Tim riley (talk) 19:58, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I have now created a short stub on Le désert so naming and linking should be no problem now. Cg2p0B0u8m (talk) 23:24, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Just the job! Thank you. I have redrawn and linked accordingly. Tim riley (talk) 11:50, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

17. Returning to Paris [in February 1849]

18. bottom of page 5 = About the management of the OC “remained uninterested in commissioning him to compose for its stage” – it isn’t clear that this was fairly normal – the situation was the same for other inexperienced composers. Also there are more mentions about this lower down – it seems a bit over-stated. He had premieres there in 1860, 1867, 1869 and 1872 (and Hoffmann in 1881). (For his 3997 visits … are we supposed to take that literally?)
 * It is true that this is mentioned again, but it seems important to mention it in the section about his earliest compositions. I don't know what you mean, Cg2, by "normal" - didn't the theatre ever premiere a work by a young composer?  Of course young composers must find it difficult to get a first opera produced, but Offenbach was conducting at the theatre, and presumably they needed new pieces, so it is worth noting that they would not give him a chance; plus, it is important in itself that he could not get his foot in the door, so that he had to start his own theatre.  BTW, this reminds me, TR: Were all or most of these 11 plays for which he wrote incidental music for the Comédie Française?  It is implied so but not clear.  -- Ssilvers (talk) 22:46, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I am not saying it should be deleted but Offenbach's position was not unusual - and anyone consulting the List of operas by Offenbach page may be surprised to find five works there. 'Normal' - it was more normal for established composers to get commissions than those who hadn't proved themselves yet. All the plays with Offenbach's music were for the Comédie Française (Yon). Cg2p0B0u8m (talk) 18:17, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
 * More anon after a rummage in the sources. Tim riley (talk) 19:58, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
 * (There is a very neat summary of the state of Parisian operatic life in the 1850s on page 10 of Martin Cooper’s 'French Music from the death of Berlioz to the death of Fauré.') Cg2p0B0u8m (talk) 21:42, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

19. end of this section; the Debussy quote might be better lower down in the article, as Offenbach had yet to compose much... Cg2p0B0u8m (talk) 22:13, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you, Cg2p0B0u8m and Ssilvers, for these points. I shall enjoy working through them in the next few days and reporting back. Tim riley (talk) 07:51, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Source review and spot check
First off, I'd like to say that this is an excellent article by any standards let alone wikipedia's. I've checked the article text next to the footnotes below against the sources, and not found any problems with regard to close paraphrasing. All the sources are of a high quality and reliable.

I've listed all the sources I checked, which are mostly those that I have access to, in numerical order. DrKiernan (talk) 14:13, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
 * [15]a I don't see Bernhard Breuer mentioned, but the quote is accurate.
 * [15]b The source says that Offenbach claimed to be younger, but I think the interpretation of why he did it is Gammond's?
 * [15]c I presume these old sources have been superceded by modern scholars? The article says the early works were well-received but Grovlez says Pepito was a failure. On a side note, "the previous year" could be 1852 or 1854 when preceded by "between 1853 and 1855".
 * [15]d OK for "or the Salle Comte"
 * [15]f OK
 * [38]abc OK
 * [52] OK for "Offenbach found more encouragement..." onwards (Compare with 15c.)
 * [53]abc On the profits, the article says they were "handsome but not spectacular"; the source says "one hundred thousand francs". Working from ,that's about 200,000 euros. So, yes, I can agree that the characterisation is a fair one.
 * [71] OK
 * [81] OK
 * [82]a OK
 * [82]b OK
 * [95] OK
 * [96] OK
 * [100] OK
 * [115] OK
 * [116] OK
 * [125] OK
 * [130]a OK
 * [130]b OK
 * [134] OK, but I wonder if we should attribute that to "John Towers writing in the Musical Times" rather than to the journal itself? This is not an important point, just a thought.
 * [139]a OK
 * [139]b I see Rossini, Bellini and Meyerbeer covered by this source, but not the first two sentences in this paragraph. I'm not saying this material is contentious, so it is not something to obsess over. I'm just saying I didn't find it in the source given later in the paragraph.
 * [148]abcd OK
 * [154] Only appears to cover the sentence immediately preceding the tag not the full part of the paragraph preceding it. (Compare with 139b.)
 * [155] OK
 * [165] OK
 * [166] OK
 * [172] OK
 * [179] OK
 * [181] OK: I enjoyed reading that source, it's so redolent of its era: "His features were distinctively Jewish...".
 * [185] OK
 * [187]ab OK: Are we supposed to include the French ennemie publique and bête malfaisante? I wouldn't personally, but I just thought I'd mention it. Is "monstrous" a good translation? I would have said "malevolent".
 * This is marvellous stuff and I'm sure other contributors to this article will share my gratitude for your thoroughness. Thank you so much. I shall enjoy working through the points, in consultation with other contributors. If I can ever be of any assistance on any article with which you are associated, please don't hesitate to call in a debt. Tim riley (talk) 15:28, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Offenbach work template
I do not want to criticize other's conscientious work, but I don't understand the need to place this template under the opera articles:

under the picture of Offenbach at the top there is already a list of all the stage works which have articles (the template only covers those with articles) - there are also links in Jacques Offenbach to a List of operettas and a List of compositions.

The template isn't doing any harm, but I think it is very large and unnecessary. Cg2p0B0u8m (talk) 19:26, 13 February 2013 (UTC)


 * I agree: it's redundant and unnecessary.  -- Ssilvers (talk) 18:02, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

image of 1874 - not 1858 poster for Orphee
The image described as Poster for the first production of Orpheus in the Underworld is for the 1874 "Opera-Feerie" version of the piece. The artist is Jules Cheret and is typical of his 1870s work. The wikipedia page for Orphee makes the same error describing the image as 1858 playbill. Can comebody fix both? Pyrrhura.molinae (talk) 00:33, 21 June 2012 (UTC)


 * The poster certainly says "Opera-Feerie" on it. Do you have a source that we can cite that describes this poster and notes the date of the production?  -- Ssilvers (talk) 03:18, 21 June 2012 (UTC)


 * I don't have a source for this poster specifically, but as it is for a run at the Theatre de la Gaite (Lyrique) which Offenbach ran as director c. 1873-75, and this coincides with the Orphee/Feerie production, I think lacking a specific source might be forgivable, this once. Pyrrhura.molinae (talk) 17:24, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Link to a page(on the Reunion des Musees Nationaux site) referencing the Cheret poster with 1874 as date of creation: http://www.histoire-image.org/site/etude_comp/etude_comp_detail.php?i=732&d=1&a=431&y=10&id_sel=1286 . Pyrrhura.molinae (talk) 02:17, 26 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks! I added the info to the image's page, and I deleted the reference to the original production.  I'll also make a change at the opera's page.  -- Ssilvers (talk) 02:45, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Théâtre Marigny vs. Salle Lacaze
Although Andrew Lamb calls Offenbach's first theatre the Théâtre Marigny in his New Grove article, most sources seem to use the name Salle Lacaze. For instance, it is referred to as the Salle Lacaze in a contemporary guide book (see the bottom of p. 495 in Galignani's New Paris Guide for 1852). Yon 2000, p. 135, appears to say that by his license Lacaze was not only limited to a capacity of 300 spectators, but was also prohibited from using the term "théâtre" in referring to his establishment. (Am I reading this correctly?). --Robert.Allen (talk) 21:19, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Good point. I'll rummage in the archives and report back. Yon is superb, but I am conscious of Wikipedia's preference for vernacular references where possible. Yon is mightily impressive, nevertheless. Tim riley (talk) 21:45, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes that is right. Vocal music and drama was forbidden. At the bottom of the page Yon says that when Offenbach appeared he was renting "une dépendance de la salle Bonne-Nouvelle [which seemed to have permission for pantomimes] et non la salle d'un prestidigitateur"... Cg2p0B0u8m (talk) 22:31, 15 August 2011 (UTC)


 * I've been rummaging through Google Books. It seems to have first acquired the name Théâtre Marigny in 1864, when it became the Théâtre Folies-Marigny. Some Lecocq operettas were first presented there at that time. --Robert.Allen (talk) 23:01, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I am wildly envious of US colleagues for their access to Google books; in the UK our access is very much more restricted. However, with the aid of the British Library and my own shelves:
 * I had a look to see what Offenbach's contemporaries called the building. Martinet (1887) refers to it (p. 20) as the "théâtre Lacaze" (located "au carré Marigny".)
 * The misspelling of "Lacaze" in Gammond is doubly puzzling, as in my copy it is, now I look again, spelled "Lazaca". Bekker, pp. 18–19, gives the same quotation (translated) from Offenbach, spelling Lacaze's name correctly. I admit I can't recall seeing the original quotation in French, but I think it is reasonable to assume that Lacaze is correct.
 * On the question of the licence, Faris states that on 4 June 1855 Offenbach received a licence authorising him to present "one-act comic plays with music for two or three characters only." Tim riley (talk) 08:14, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

The passage in Yon on p. 135 concerns the permission for construction that Lacaze received from the préfecture de police on 29 August 1848 after which he had the building put up. If I'm reading it correctly it was effective for 3 years. As he was apparently losing money he asked to have the terms expanded in March 1852, but it his request was denied. BTW, I checked my copy of Gammond: "This edition published in 1986 by Omnibus Press..." The Offenbach quote is on p. 37 as cited here. (I was speculating that either Offenbach misspelled his name, or Lacaze was actually a Spaniard who adopted a French spelling for his last name, but maybe it's just a typo!) --Robert.Allen (talk) 09:56, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I think we are getting round to a consensus that we should call the building the Salle Lacaze rather than Salle/Théâtre Marigny. I'm entirely onside for that. Shall I make the necessary changes? Tim riley (talk) 11:09, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I hesitate to intervene in this intellectual discussion, but the statement that "Offenbach had chosen his theatre, the Salle Marigny,[6] sometimes called the Salle Lacaze,[61] in the Champs-Élysées" seems to me to be slightly at odds with the Théâtre Marigny article. First, the theatre doesn't seem to be called the Salle Marigny anywhere other than in the Offenbach article, whereas it's the Salle Lacaze in the Marigny one (and everywhere else, as you agree above), and second, is/was it on the Champs-Élysées or just off? Shoot me down in flames if you wish. --GuillaumeTell 16:11, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Oar most welcome as far as I'm concerned. I haven't seen the theatre article, and know not whence its info comes, but your comment is further evidence in favour of changing this article to read "Salle Lacaze". Andrew Lamb is, of course, a great authority, but he does seem to be in a minority in this case. Tim riley (talk) 18:03, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Some imposter must have been impersonating you at the TM article on 11 July, then! --GuillaumeTell 18:13, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Oh, Lord! So sorry! Senility setting in after less than a year's retirement! Tim riley (talk) 18:39, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Later: I neglected to answer your other point, above. I am by no means expert on the geography of pre-Haussmann Paris, but I think the building was in the Champs-Élysées when they were, well, champs, more or less. The present Avenue is a different kettle of drums. Tim riley (talk) 19:37, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

I know this is a bit off topic, as I have been working on the possibility of splitting Salle Lacaze off from Théâtre Marigny, but we have a pic thanks to Yon's wonderful book of what it looked like in 1881 shortly before it was demolished (see also Commons:Category:Salle Lacaze). Most sources say the building was a "wooden structure", but the pic shows stone. We also have a short account of it in an 1852 Paris guide book (linked above) which not only calls it "Salle Lacaze" but also mentions that it was constructed of stone. One would hope that whoever contributed this little blurb to the guide book had been to the theatre and knew whereof he wrote. --Robert.Allen (talk) 19:10, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Yon's text (p. 138) is very much to the point about what the building was made of. I try to avoid citing foreign language texts as far as possible, in compliance with WP recommendations, but really Yon cannot be ignored. That's a gorgeous picture, by the bye. Tim riley (talk) 19:18, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Do these sources clarify how many seats it had? The entry currently says 50, but the Théâtre Marigny article says 300.  BTW, Robert, I would *not* spit the article.  There is a redirect.  Why make people look at two articles to find information about the site (unless, of course, each part of the article gets very long).  As it is, anyone looking for one or the other will find out about a different period in the history of the site that he or she might not learn about otherwise. -- Ssilvers (talk) 19:26, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Gammond says 50, but that is not reasonable. The building permit allowed 300, although Lacaze wanted 400. (Which Wikipedia entry says "50"? [Update: I see now, it is this article, probably based on Gammond. The receipts he cites would have meant pretty high priced seats at a capacity of 50, more like going to the Opéra.]). --Robert.Allen (talk) 20:05, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Since it was so small, could it have been a wooden structure with a stone facing? --Robert.Allen (talk) 20:07, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Also, is there evidence that Lacaze was in the 19th or 21st century sense, a physicist? A qualification is needed, perhaps, of this translation (he is referred to elsewhere in Yon as a prestidigitateur). I have a 1901 French dictionary which give the following for physicien: physicist, student of physics, conjurer.Cg2p0B0u8m (talk) 21:58, 16 August 2011 (UTC)


 * I think you may well be right, and foreign authors have been missing that quirk of French vocabulary (the Oxford Fr/Eng dict doesn't mention it). This is what Offenbach's contemporary, Martinet, says on Lacaze: "…on citait le sergent-major Lacaze: physicien de quelque renom, il avait installé dans une des longues échoppes qui s'étendaient de l'hotel de Nantes au Louvre, là où sont aujourd'hui les squares du Carrousel, un magasin dans lequel des amateurs de prestigitation venaient s'approvisionner des goblets et de muscades." Yon, in the booklet for the 1996 Musée D'Orsay Offenbach exhibition, writes "…où le prestigitateur Lacaze a fait bátir en 1848 une salle de trois cents places." Yon elsewhere quotes the minister of Finance writing in 1843 "pour recommander le prestidigitateur Lacaze qui désire ouvrir aux Champs-Elysées (Carré Marigny) un spectacle de curiosités."


 * The snag is, it seems to me, that "physicist" in the present article is within a direct quote from a source, and we can't just change it. I wondered how German authors translated "physicien", but Bekker gives it as "Physiker", which doesn't help. I think we would be OK to add a footnote, though, citing the dictionary definition mentioned by Cg2p0B0u8m, so that readers could decide for themselves. Something like "'Physicien' is translated by [Cite source] variously as 'physicist' or 'conjurer'". Any thoughts on this? Tim riley (talk) 08:31, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I hope I didn't jump the gun on this. I tried adding something I thought was reasonable, since I was already trying to update the info about the Salle Lacaze. --Robert.Allen (talk) 11:27, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Gosh! I'd not spotted it. Your addition seems there or thereabouts to me, but I'll feel happier once we have Cg2p0B0u8m's citation to back it up. Tim riley (talk) 12:29, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I found something, but there seem to be some problems with this particular book at Google Books. Based on your previous comments, I'm wondering whether this particular link will work for you. --Robert.Allen (talk) 20:54, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Here's another: --Robert.Allen (talk) 21:10, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

I've been nosing around a bit. The Théâtre des Folies-Marigny says that Lacaze was a magician (refs from Faris and Levin). In Jacques Offenbach, section "Bouffes-Parisiens, Champs-Élysées", note 12, about "the physicist Lacaze", says that "physicist" refers to a conjurer. Up above here, we have "un prestidigitateur" (Hm! Just like Barinkay in The Gypsy Baron) or, twice, further down in the Martinet section, "prestigitateur". "Sergent-major Lacaze" seems originally to have been the proprietor of a shop which sold goblets "et de muscades" (what are they?) for the purpose of prestidigitation, so what's the best word for him in both articles? To me, "magician" and "conjurer" aren't synonymous. Maybe "illusionist" is too grand ... ?? --GuillaumeTell 21:40, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I originally added the alternative theatre name Salle Lacaze with Levin as the reference when this was part of the Théâtre Marigny article. She does not identify Lacaze as a person, so does not mention the occupation. When I moved the information to Théâtre des Folies-Marigny, I edited the info adding the Lacaze's occupation as "magician". I believe this was based on the following: Yon p. 111, writing in French, says: "...petit théâtre de magie que le 'physicien' Lacaze a rouvert...". "Physicien" in my Oxford Hachette French-English Dictionary is translated as "physicist", but the 1908 dictionary linked in this article, published in Paris, gives the alternative translations "conjurer" and "juggler". Faris p. 48, also identifies the theatre as the "salle Lacaze" and says Lacaze was a "conjuror", and Kracauer p. 166 says "the conjurer Lacaze". Being uncertain exactly what a conjurer was, I checked my Oxford American Dictionary, which says: " chiefly Brit. a performer of conjuring tricks; a magician." Apparently both Faris and the translator of Kracauer's book selected the British equivalent. I haven't searched for an American French-English dictionary from that era to see how "physicien" is translated. I thought the term "conjurer" might be confusing to many readers of the Wikipedia, especially as it is a localism, and substituted "magician" since it is likely to be a more generally understood term. In addition Yon described it as a theatre of "magie" for which "magic" is the first translation given in Oxford Hachette and "conjuring" as the second (of course, that's a British dictionary). I'll try to add a footnote to that article to document this. --Robert.Allen (talk) 09:22, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I've just looked up "muscade" in my 1940 Harrap's French dictionary. It says 1. "nutmeg"(!) and 2. (believe it or not) "Thimble-rigger's vanishing ball or pea".  It then adds "Passez muscade!" "Hey presto!"  A thimble-rigger sounds like something out of What's My Line.  Oh, and by the way, if you google "Sergent-major Lacaze" you get a book about the Crimean war, complete with vast quantities of optical-character-non-recognitions. --GuillaumeTell</i> 10:41, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
 * We're getting a bit carried away, aren't we! --Robert.Allen (talk) 10:51, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
 * To put it mildly! And I've just remembered that the classic UK WML occupation was a saggarmaker's bottom knocker. --<b style="color:forestgreen;">Guillaume</b><i style="color:blue;">Tell</i> 11:58, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, I for one (another retired librarian) am pleased to know the secondary meaning of muscade. "There's confidence tricking, bad coin, pocket-picking, And several other disgraces. There's postage-stamp prigging, and then thimble-rigging. The three-card delusion at races". (1887, by a former translator of Offenbach.) Tim riley (talk) 14:09, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Some comments
(I am not sure if the peer review is archived now so I place these here). I have some comments about the current text:
 * 3rd paragraph ‘marital intrigue’ = ‘sexual intrigue’?
 * On the question of the adoption of the surname Offenbach, on 9th april 2011 edits I tried to suggest a solution (which was not accepted - see also http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Jacques_Offenbach/Archive_1#vague_point) According to Yon, Isaac settled in Deutz in 1802, and adopted Offenbach from 1808 as a result of the Napoleonic edict (p10 of Yon, notes on 673). Currently it reads that he did it quite voluntarily.
 * ‘Bizet became, and remained, a devoted friend of Offenbach.’ I think this is exaggerated: on 311-312 of Mina Curtiss’s book about Bizet she quotes a bitter letter of 1872 attacking Offenbach’s dominance and methods (it is in Yon p445 in French). Cg2p0B0u8m (talk) 23:17, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
 * First point above: your wording seems to me to be better: will you change or shall I? [Later: I have Tim riley (talk) 19:35, 12 August 2011 (UTC)] On the other two - most interesting points - I confess to skipping in Yon (there's a limit to the amount of scholarly French prose I can absorb at one go) - shall look again and compare him against other sources on these points. I hope to do this later today. Is there a form of words you'd suggest for the Bizet point? The peer review is still very much open for business at present - any further thoughts most welcome there. Tim riley (talk) 07:45, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Later:
 * Isaac's surname: Yon certainly seems to say that Isaac, though dubbed "der Offenbacher" ("un surnom 'der Offenbacher' qu'on lui donnait à Deutz depuis son arrivée") was still Eberst until he followed the Napoleonic decree in 1808, and Faris (p. 17), though not mentioning the decree, goes no further than to say that "He had become known on his travels as 'der Offenbacher'", which is wholly consistent with Yon. On the other hand, Almeida (p. ix) says, "some years before marrying, [Isaac] had changed his name." Gammond (p. 13) concurs. What about something like this: "He was generally known as "der Offenbacher", after his native town, Offenbach am Main; by the time of his marriage in 1805 he had adopted the name of Offenbach [with Gammond and/or Almeida citation here] and in 1808 he officially registered it as his surname in compliance with a Napoleonic decree".[with Yon citation]?
 * Bizet: point taken, but it seems clear that Bizet remained very much en famille with the Offenbachs all his life; Auguste evidently worshipped him, and he was a frequent house guest. Could we go for a revised wording embracing this and the point you make? – Tim riley (talk) 13:15, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

I thought "marital" intrigue was better - the problem isn't simply that people are having sex, the problem is that they are married or engaged to someone else. How about a compromise that has something for everyone: "sexual and marital"? -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:00, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I think sexual intrigue is best – Offenbach and his collaborators don’t extol marriage very much, whereas...
 * For Bizet maybe leave at the moment but there may be more evidence of things cooling after 1871 in which case it could be amended.
 * I would really go with Yon’s recount of the name question – as a general point, although Faris and Gammond are much respected writers, and a good basis for this article, from the list of sources cited in Yon it is apparent that much new research was undertaken in France and Germany the years after the death centenary, up to Yon’s book in 2000, and since. Cg2p0B0u8m (talk) 22:10, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
 * While on Yon, if you have a look at his p. 23 you'll see that he puts in question the accepted line that it was hard for foreigners to gain admission to the Conservatoire. Do you think we need to expand on this or does the existing text (as intended) adequately accommodate the point? Tim riley (talk) 10:15, 14 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Yes the ‘foreigners’ bit could be toned down since it really only came into play for the concours. Yon seems on solid ground there and goes into some detail. (Ironic that the Florentine Cherubini was the man enforcing the competition ban.) Cg2p0B0u8m (talk) 18:15, 15 August 2011 (UTC)


 * I wondered about that. Would you like to redraw the sentences about Isaac's name change and the Conservatoire's admission policy? I'll have a go, if not. Tim riley (talk) 21:45, 15 August 2011 (UTC)


 * It may be better for you, as I am not really able to do complicated references. Cg2p0B0u8m (talk) 22:33, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Now done. Perhaps you'd have a look and see what you think. Tim riley (talk) 11:15, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Sound file
Are y'all still in search of a public domain sound file for the article? This site has a bunch of old cylinder recordings of the Barcarolle and a couple of the Orpheus overture (among other things)! Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 22:39, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I have added thanks on Roscelese's talk page (and repeat them here). Tim riley (talk) 10:28, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid that I can't actually do anything in the way of helping add them to the article, since I do not know how to make mp3 files into ogg files, but if y'all weren't previously aware of the site, I'm glad to have been a help. Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 20:05, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I think we really must revisit this before going to FAC. All help gratefully received. Tim riley (talk) 13:18, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

influence
There is a mention that “two numbers in Offenbach's Maitre Péronilla (1878) bear "an astonishing resemblance" to "My name is John Wellington Wells"”. I have listened to this song and then to the whole of Maître Péronilla, but cannot hear any similarity – does Hughes say which songs they are? Cg2p0B0u8m (talk) 17:32, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
 * No, but different ears hear things differently, and I think it is right to report the views of learned sources. While we have you here, have you got a citation for your old French dictionary in re "physicien"? Tim riley (talk) 17:47, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, I will have to listen better the next time... (taken to an extreme this means we have things like the sentence in Les Brigands which we are told has intimations of the gypsies in Carmen.)
 * I will give the reference for the dictionary, but I strongly believe that the incorrect information from Gammond or his translator should be replaced - why do we make readers read wrong information then make them go to a footnote to find the right information - odd! The reference is : Gasc FEA. A Concise Dictionary of the French and English Languages. Hugo's Language Institute / George Bell and Sons, London, 1901. It says in the preface that it is an abridgement of a larger work of 1897. Cg2p0B0u8m (talk) 18:16, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much for the ref. Short of dropping the quote altogether, I don't see how to get round this. A quote is a quote is a quote, and the only two versions we have of it - Gammond in English and Bekker in German - both render the word as physicist/Physiker. If someone could lay hands on the original French version (which Gammond says is a letter Offenbach wrote - we are not told the date or the recipient; Bekker doesn't even tell us that much) it would help greatly. Tim riley (talk) 07:26, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Bizet and Offenbach
Another editor is currently researching Bizet, and has kindly agreed to keep an eye open for info on Bizet's relations with Offenbach, as mentioned above. More on this anon. Tim riley (talk) 18:34, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Bouffes Parisiens, Champs Élysées
19. I think ‘In a centennial study of Offenbach’ is not essential.
 * I concur, and have redrawn. Tim riley (talk) 07:57, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

20. Oyayaye ou La reine des îles - I know it is difficult to be consistent with translating things but I wonder if this should be done? (Harding gives ‘Blimey O’Riley’ but I am not sure if that would be understood.)
 * As you may imagine, I smiled at reading that in Harding, but I agree it might be less than helpful to people unfamiliar with that British idiom. As you say, it is difficult to know when it is helpful to the reader to have a translation. Do we, for instance, translate "La belle Hélène"? Tim (Blimey O') Riley (talk) 07:57, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Later: I had forgotten we had a footnote there already, mentioning the two different spellings retailed by the various sources (which I must say I find inexplicable). We could pop an extra sentence in the note, perhaps, explaining the import of "Oyayaye/Oyayaie". Views, please. Tim riley (talk) 12:11, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Er, what in the world does it mean? Is it "The Ogre-queen; or, the Ruler of the Islands"?  To even this non-French speaker, La belle Hélène is pretty clear on its face.  This discussion makes me wish that I had been eaten by cannibals.  -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:47, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
 * "Oyayaye", or "Oyayaie" doesn't really mean anything. It is, says Harding, "an idiomatic interjection" (hence his choice of "Blimey O'Riley" to render it in English). I had a rummage in Google.fr, which threw up a bilingual book that uses the word but treats it as untranslatable: "'Oyayaie!' dit Pamphile, consterne, 'personne ici ne l'a jamais su!'" translated a few lines below as "'Oyayaie!' said Pamphile with consternation,'nobody here knew it!'" Tim riley (talk) 15:28, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
 * OK, but if it doesn't mean anything, why translate it? Also, if I am anywhere close with "Ruler of the Islands", then I don't see any reason to translate the name at all, since I am the worst French speaker who is likely to read this article.  Ssilvers (talk) 18:31, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
 * That's fine with me. Any thoughts on that, Cg2p0B0u8m? Tim riley (talk) 18:41, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, I think it will be too difficult to deal with here, but it is important to give a reader a feel for the world of Offenbach and the way his mind worked; the word is not just made up or meaningless, but is what a Parisian double-bass player would say when cornered by a hungry cannibal queen (the word would probably be accompanied by two or three loose shakes of the hand). To me this is more important than different spellings! Maybe this will have to wait for the piece’s own article. Cg2p0B0u8m (talk) 21:55, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

21. “Its success encouraged Offenbach to press ahead with plans he had already made to present his works himself at his own theatre and to abandon further thoughts of acceptance by the Opéra-Comique”. Yon (141) does not follow this sequence, stating that the opening of the Salle Lacaze was well in view and only waiting for official go-ahead. Huart may have held it back until just before the opening of the Bouffes to compete with Offenbach’s venture.
 * I struggled with this when writing it. The difficulty is to remain cogent while combining an accurate chronological sequence of actual events with a correct description of the progress of Offenbach's plans. Faris is particularly good on this (better than Yon in some ways, I'd say). My draft is certainly susceptible of improvement. What wording would you prefer? Tim riley (talk) 07:57, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
 * From some specific dates in Yon 139-141 it is clear ‘Offenbach was already pressing ahead with plans to present his works at his own theatre’ –


 * 12 May, opening of BP announced in ‘L’Illustration’ for 20 or 26 June 1855


 * 15 and 22 June Offenbach visits the SACD about the new theatre, while eminent decorators are fitting it out


 * 26 June creation of Oyayaye

Cg2p0B0u8m (talk) 21:55, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
 * 1 July rehearsals with Halevy present, 4 July general rehearsal, 5 July opening. So I think the current sentence implies importance for Oyayaye which it clearly doesn't have. Yon goes as far to say that it is a backward-looking piece rather than a precursor of the pieces to come.

22. The 'physicist' question – well, I have mentioned before: I don’t understand why Wikipedia presents a mistake in a quote. Better to remove it while a better citable translation is found (and then the footnote can go as well).
 * I agree with you that "physicist" seems almost certain to be a mistake, but we must not be guilty of OR and assume so. As things stand, the only two sources we have say "physicist". I suppose we could simply blitz the whole thing and make no reference to M. Lacaze, but it would be a pity to lose this pleasing quote from Offenbach himself. How about keeping the quote and replacing the dodgy bit with an ellipsis, thus: "a little theatre to let ... closed for many years."? Tim riley (talk) 07:57, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I have gone ahead with the ellipses, which is a good solution that lets us remove this unnecessary point of confusion. -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:47, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I think that perhaps we now need to add a word or two in the preceding lines, "the Salle Lacaze built for the conjurer Jules [or whatever, if I can find his given name somewhere] Lacaze in [year]". As Yon is in French we can conscientiously cite his "prestidigitateur" for "conjurer". And I really think we owe it to our readers to mention in a footnote that some English and German authors mistranslate "physicien", lest (fond, impious thought) our article sends them off to read more in e.g. Gammond and they find an apparent contradiction there. Tim riley (talk) 17:36, 3 September 2011 (UTC) Afterthought: I have just remembered Robert Allen's point, higher up this page, that "conjurer" is not a familiar word to U.S. readers. I take Guillaume Tell's point that "magician" and "conjurer" are not quite the same, but could we compromise on "magician" here? Tim riley (talk) 17:53, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Magician would be better for US readers, if it works just as well for you. But why not just put it in the quote in brackets: "the [magician] Lacaze".  The quote already says that it was built for him. I thought we were striving for brevity?  I don't think we really want to waste much ink on Mr. Lacaze in this article.  I think the whole physician thing is merely distracting and would suggest omitting any mention of it.  I think the footnote would give  Gammond's mistranslation far too much importance.  It seems that the actual quote in French is unambiguous.  -- Ssilvers (talk) 18:42, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Physicist solution is fine.Cg2p0B0u8m (talk) 21:55, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

23. “the libretto for one of the pieces” = should it mention Entrez, Messieurs, Mesdames ?’
 * I am wary of adding too much peripheral information. In my view an encyclopaedia article should focus on the central information as far as possible, though I know others take a different view. Tim riley (talk) 07:57, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

24. Les deux aveugles in Vienna and London – and other places as well
 * If you would like to add that info, please do. Tim riley (talk) 07:57, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

25. “near the Opéra” – and just as near the Opéra-Comique! Cg2p0B0u8m (talk) 22:20, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
 * True - a matter of 50 yards difference, at a guess. But again, beware OR. I don't think any of the sources I have seen mentions the proximity to the O-C. Tim riley (talk) 07:57, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't think that a well-known geographical fact like this is OR. A map of Paris is general knowledge.  However, isn't this confusing, because at that time the Paris opera was at the Salle Le Peletier?  What if we just say "in central Paris", or something to give a general idea of the location? -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:47, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Good point. I'll ponder. We want something more specific than "central Paris", I think, as the casual reader would think us very strange to suggest that the Champs Elysées isn't central. Perhaps a ref to the arrondissement might serve (but when did they come in?) My knowledge of the geography of pre-Haussmann Paris is not extensive, but I'll dig in the sources for something useful. Tim riley (talk) 17:23, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Arrondissement is jargony. How about just the street name then?  -- Ssilvers (talk) 18:49, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Many thanks for these points. I look forward to more in due course. May I emphasise that there is absolutely no deadline, so please don't feel under the slightest pressure to hurry with your further points. I am not planning to take the article to FAC until November or December at the earliest, and it wouldn't matter a bit if it took even longer. Tim riley (talk) 08:27, 2 September 2011 (UTC).

Later 1860s / War and aftermath
34 seconda donna Léa Silly – Italian phrase seems out of place, especially for Oreste?
 * By all means redraw if you have a better phrase for a No 2 female singer. This survived peer review nemine contradicente. Tim riley (talk) 11:00, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
 * How about "the company's secondary soprano" or "supporting female player" or "soubrette" or "supporting female comic lead" or some combination of those? I agree that the Italian phrase is unclear, and I also think it's not very descriptive.  -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:57, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
 * would 'other female principal' or 'person singing Oreste' work? Cg2p0B0u8m (talk) 22:42, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Now redrawn. See what you think. (I love your edit summary - I was briefly taken aback till the penny dropped!) Tim riley (talk) 09:20, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

35 La Grande-Duchesse “was quickly followed by a series of successful pieces” Again this leads to what is defined as success: Robinson Crusoé? Le château à Toto? L'île de Tulipatan? (I’ll return to the concentrating on success versus failure lower down.)
 * I'll await your later comments with much interest. Tim riley (talk) 11:00, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

36 First para of War and Aftermath - chronology from start of Franco-Prussian war. Not according to Yon, who details (p396): 6 July he departs Ems (where he had gone for the cure) for Wiesbaden, which he then leaves before declaration of war on 19 July to go to Étretat
 * Perhaps you could redraw accordingly? Tim riley (talk) 11:00, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

37 La haine “Collaboration with the dramatist Victorien Sardou led to financial disaster” - according to Traubner in his book 'Operetta', Le Roi Carotte was a ‘hit’. It was as much the extravagant productions made for La Haine and Geneviève de Brabant as the collaboration itself which led the way to financial disaster(Yon).

38 Also, from Traubner (p68) re bankruptcy “heedless of the vast sums lost in producing two failures at the Gaîté, embarked on yet another expensive project, a Sardou version of Don Quixote. But impending financial ruin intervened. Rather than go through the painful and humiliating process of bankruptcy, Offenbach bravely took the initiative, sold his interests in the Gaîté, gave up or leased his property, and mortgaged three years of forthcoming royalties.”  Cg2p0B0u8m (talk) 22:09, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
 * 37 and 38: All true, I have no doubt, but these points don't, I think, invalidate the existing draft. I always worry about overloading articles with peripheral detail, lest the casual reader should find his or her view of the woods blocked by the trees. But by all means elaborate in the text if you think it would be helpful to the reader. Tim riley (talk) 11:00, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Legacy and reputation + Notes
50. I commented previously about the flimsy paragraph about The Sorcerer, but I also don’t understand why note 25 is there: this seems peripheral(?). In terms of including something about influences on Offenbach, Traubner has some nice things in his opening chapter, including this sentence (p8 of the paperback)“When Offenbach paid hommage to Rossini and Mozart in his second season at the BP by mounting Il Signor Bruschino and Der Schauspieldirektor, he admitted his influences… Both Offenbach and Sullivan knew their Italian operas thoroughly; and Rossini rather graciously called Offenbach ‘le Mozart des Champs-Elysées’. The Rossini of the Champs-Elysées might have been just as apt.” I think generally the phrases on musical influences on Offenbach need strengthening (ie the French opéra comique school, Rossini, Hervé) but find it hard to find really good referenced quotes! Richard Osborne hints at it in passing in relation to Comte Ory, but I will keep looking. In terms of others who were in some way formed by Offenbach there is the remark that Saint-Saens (Piano Concerto No. 2 (Saint-Saëns) starts as Bach and ends as Offenbach. Plus Chabrier – particularly L’Étoile; possibly Sousa, others?

51. is ‘(dubbed "Musical Snobs Ltd" by Gammond)’ needed?

52. Most of this sub-section is about Offenbach’s reputation immediately after his death (and mainly from London and New York). I wonder if there should be something from elsewhere and more from the 20th century?

53. Note 18 Bad Ems (spelling) + these were premiered in German versions, so being pedantic (I'm not) these titles should be in that language…

54. Note 21 – Yon doesn’t include it either, nor OEK. I started a discussion on the Talk:List of operettas by Offenbach and will add something more shortly. Cg2p0B0u8m (talk) 22:19, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

some other things
55. Categories – impressarios/theatre managers to add

56. I know that there is some caution about the length of this article, although I don’t think it’s the longest composer, but I think the following aspects are missing: his sociability - parties in Paris and Étretat, physical description of the man, early recordings (Juliette Simon-Girard made some, but there may be others), the fact that English versions in London had the 'naughty' parts removed, and the new Keck edition. Music in the Tuileries could be mentioned as well, maybe other iconography. The banning of his music by the Nazis in Germany and occupied France – although as Frederic Spotts claims on page 211 of 'The Shameful Peace', German officers would have heard the ‘can-can’ every night at the nightspots of Montmartre… Also Eine Kapitulation (http://fr.wikisource.org/wiki/Une_capitulation) sorry I can't find the English web text. I think these would all help give more breadth.

57. Success (and failure) is a major emphasis of this article. (This is my count I hope it is accurate - 10 x ‘successful’, 30 x ‘success’, 5 x ‘well-received’, 4 x ‘profitable’, etc) There is a phrase “Offenbach flourished in the 1860s, with successes greatly outnumbering failures”. (Perhaps there ought to be an objective score – numbers of performances, amount of sheet music sold, number of translations etc.) I know that Offenbach was very keen to be successful but I wonder if this emphasis avoids actually describing the music of the pieces. Many writers take this approach I know, and it is difficult to find solid quotes about the music, but as a goal, it would be nice to give the reader of 2011 a feel for the works, rther than just whether or not it succeeded. Cg2p0B0u8m (talk) 22:24, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

58. (One thing I forgot) The [|Romanian page] has a couple of photos which might be re-used: the one in the top box, and the funeral monument. Cg2p0B0u8m (talk) 19:16, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Orphée aux Enfers – and Early 1860s
30 “an abortive season in Berlin” = is this clear? I think they gave 30 performances at the Kroll starting on 17 June, so abortive is probably not an accurate description.
 * But they lost money, and cut the season short. Tim riley (talk) 10:46, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

31 G de B (1867 revision) “where the duet of the two gendarmes became a favourite number”. This was also the case in France – and the gendarmes were on the cover of the Heugel score.
 * It might also be worth mentioning that the duet forms the basis for the Marines' Hymn, and therefore also a well-known number in the USA.--<b style="color:forestgreen;">Guillaume</b><i style="color:blue;">Tell</i> 20:57, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes. This is mentioned in the opening paragraphs of the Geneviève de Brabant article, but maybe could be mentioned as well here.  Cg2p0B0u8m (talk) 22:11, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

32 How long is Le papillon? I only know the Decca recording which lasts just under an hour. Originally it followed after an opera, so was it ‘full-length’ (this word is also used in Other Works) as in The Sleeping Beauty or full-length as in The Rite of Spring? or does this mean ‘dedicated’ or ‘stand-alone’…

33 Offenbach ‘allowed himself to be persuaded’ – makes it sound like a lack of commitment to what turned out to be a major work. It was certainly difficult working: Nuitter was too slow, the text had to be translated into German, the tenor was taken ill and therefore most of his part was cut, and replacing a production of Tristan und Isolde annoyed the Wagnerites… Would this be better : -Despite problems with the librettist and translation into German, Offenbach composed a serious opera for 1864 at the Vienna Court Opera. Die Rheinnixen, a hotchpotch of romantic and mythological themes was given severely cut eleven times in Vienna and later in Cologne but only performed in full in 2002. However, it contained one number, the "Elfenchor", described by the critic Eduard Hanslick as "lovely, luring and sensuous",[98] which Offenbach later salvaged as the Barcarolle in The Tales of Hoffmann.[99] (Is luring the right word?)


 * I made some edits to this info in the article. I agree with the basic idea here, but have some issues with a few details: 1) Why mention the translation?  What sort of problems with the librettist?  This is either too much detail, or if it is so important, it and might need a footnote.  2) I don't think we should mention that it was performed 11 times in Vienna.  We don't say how many times the other works mentioned were performed, unless we want to show that they had an unusually long run.  The opera's own article can contain that detail.  3)  In what year was it performed in Cologne?  4)  Am I correct in assuming that after the Cologne performance it was never performed at all until 2002?  Has it been performed since 2002?  5) Luring = alluring, I think. 6) Was "Elfenchor" re-used in exactly the same form as the Barcarolle, or was it "adapted" as the Barcarolle?  -- Ssilvers (talk) 22:22, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree with you on (1) and (2). Others may wish to comment on (3) and (4). (5) - "luring" is what the source says. (6) I have only heard tthe overture to Die Rheinnixen, which opens quietly with what sounds to my ears the familiar orchestral version of the Barcarolle note for note. But what happens when the singers are let loose on it during the opera, I do not know. I have so many outstanding points from this page to deal with that one more won't hurt. I'll investigate and report back - when that will be I cannot guess. Tim riley (talk) 16:49, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Cg2p0B0u8m (talk) 19:21, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Very happy with your suggestions at 31, 32, and 33. May I leave it to you to make the appropriate changes? Tim riley (talk) 10:46, 8 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Some answers to the questions:
 * 3 & 4) Premiere (cut in three acts): 4 February 1864 Wien, Hofoper. German premiere also three acts: 1 January 1865 Köln, Stadttheater. Concert premiere of original four acts version: 30 July 2002 Montpellier, Le Corum (Festival de Radio France et Montpellier ; recording issued June 2003, Universal / Accord). Stage premiere of original version: 13 January 2005 Ljubljana, National Theatre (also performed on 14 January). Swiss premiere with same production: 23 February 2005 Winterthur, Theater am Stadtgarten. Austrian premiere of same production 28 April 2005 St. Pölten, Festspielhaus. German premiere of original version: 15 April 2005 Theater Trier, also seen on 15 May 2005 Bad Ems, Kurtheater (Internationales Jacques Offenbach Festival 2005). Concert version 1 December 2005 Opéra de Lyon. New production semi-staged : 27 May 2006 Staatstheater Cottbus. Concert performances 21 October 2009, Lewes Town Hall (UK premiere), 25 October 2009 Eastbourne Winter Gardens and 27 October 2009 London Cadogan Hall 2009. A critical edition has also been published. http://www.jean-christophekeck.com/FeesduRhin%20livre%20OEK.pdf (I have also seen a mention of a performance in Bolzano, but can't find a reference)
 * Thanks. I added the Cologne date and a note that it has been given "several times" since 2002.  Can you add the ref in the text, please?  -- Ssilvers (talk) 16:22, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
 * 6) As this is a chorus in the earlier work (although later combined with the Vaterlandslied), it would have to be altered for its two guises in Hoffmann. The orchestra was smaller at the Opéra-Comique - ‘adapted’ seems a sensible word. (although it appears in orchestral preludes in both)
 * Good. I changed it to "adapted".  -- Ssilvers (talk) 16:22, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) this is described in the Milnes article. Offenbach always set French; Nuitter was very slow and the composer had to send music to tHe German translator to fit words to. The tenor went down with mental problems and as a result much of his role was cut. (Milnes says “Nuitter’s full libretto is hardly a model of coherence; what took the stage in 1864 must have been simply incomprehensible” Cg2p0B0u8m (talk) 09:19, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
 * OK.  I think all of this is summarized by simply stating that "Despite problems with the libretto," he completed the opera in 1864.  This is enough detail, as any further details should go in the opera's own article, not here.  One could argue that the problems with the libretto do not need to be mentioned at all here.  -- Ssilvers (talk) 16:22, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Next steps
May I canvass opinion on where to go with this article? There are multiple drafting points raised above that need to be dealt with, and any further input on those would be most gratefully received on my part. I wonder what other contributors think about where to take the article once we have dealt with those outstanding points? I am minded to take it to GAN, but an alternative is to take it straight to FAC, if we think it is good enough. All views gladly received. And whether we go to GAN or FAC, would anyone be willing to be conscripted as co-nom? – Tim riley (talk) 15:29, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I will gladly try to do any points above where there has been no objection so far. I am not au fait with the GAN/FAC processes. Cg2p0B0u8m (talk) 18:37, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I should be very glad indeed if you would be so kind. Where you and I have differed, we have not differed all that much, and I happily yield to your superior knowledge. Please go ahead and make the changes you suggest. If I then spot any changes with which I disagree I'll bring them up here, but I doubt if I shall need to. Tim riley (talk) 10:43, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I will try, but not until next weekend. Cg2p0B0u8m (talk) 22:55, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I would be willing to be a co-nom at GAN, but I don't have time to be a co-nom at FAC on this. -- Ssilvers (talk) 19:06, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Oh, Lord! Horatius at the Bridge, anybody? Tim riley (talk) 10:43, 18 September 2011 (UTC)