Talk:List of major opera composers/Archive 2

Candidates for addition/deletion July 2006 (part 2)
[I am hoping we can reduce the size of the list to make it more practicable. - Kleinzach 13:28, 24 July 2006 (UTC)]

Delete Haydn: Great music, but rarely performed outside Eszterháza during his lifetime and only revived during the past couple of decades. No great influence on opera history.--Folantin 15:42, 24 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom. We only have one article on an opera by him. - Kleinzach 15:48, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Ditto. Moreschi 16:36, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. No major significance to opera. --Doublea 22:01, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Now deleted - Kleinzach 14:57, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

[If you really want to cut the list down then:]

Delete Saint-Saens - Folantin
 * Delete per nom. Kleinzach 16:52, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't see how Saint-Saens can be deleated. Samson and Delilah is a big time French opera and one of the best operas for mezzo sopranos. That one opera catipults him to the list. A composer of one great opera of a particular genre should be included. --Doublea 20:40, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Having one great opera is no bar. There are other examples (Beethoven etc.). The question is simply whether S&D is great enough. I'm not convinced it is. - Kleinzach 22:58, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, then, couldn't the same be said for Leoncavallo and Mascagni? Like both only really composed one notable opera each (Pagliacci and Cavalleria rusticana, yet they're still on the list.  As far as I'm concerned, Samson and Delilah is much greater to French Opera than the above two are for Italian opera. As well, if Samson and Delilah isn't on the list, why should Debussy be there?  Like, he only composed one complete opera (Pelléas et Mélisande). --Doublea 00:19, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Pelléas et Mélisande is major IMO no qualification. On the other hand you are probably right regarding Leoncavallo and Mascagni. If you wanted to suggest deletion of these two (below and as part of the list), i wouldn't oppose it. Kleinzach 03:12, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Now deleted - Kleinzach 14:57, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Delete Borodin - Folantin
 * Delete per nom. - Kleinzach 16:52, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Probably keep Borodin but cut Saint Saens. Moreschi 16:36, 24 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Both composers of one famous opera. I like both a lot, but they weren't particularly groundbreaking and they have secondary importance in the repertoire. We have Gounod, Massenet and Bizet to represent the French composers of S-S's era; and for the Russian 19th century, we rightly have Glinka, Mussorgsky and Tchaikovsky.--Folantin 16:16, 24 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm entirely in favour of deleting Borodin, much as I like much of Prince Igor. More ambivalent about S-S, but probably delete. --GuillaumeTell 21:35, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Now deleted - Kleinzach 14:57, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Candidates for addition/deletion July 2006 (part 3)
Delete Leoncavallo- Doublea
 * Delete per nom. - Kleinzach 15:57, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. --Doublea 20:06, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Hey, that's your second vote even if you are on the right side! Kleinzach 09:29, 27 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I like Pagliacci, but nothing much else by Leoncavallo is performed, so I'll go for Delete -- GuillaumeTell 16:35, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete --Al Pereira(talk) 02:03, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Now deleted - Kleinzach 16:28, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Delete Mascagni- Doublea
 * Probably keep. I'm not personally much of a fan, but I think people passing by and looking at the list would expect to see them there, because they wrote two of the rock solid members of the standard repertoire. In other words, someone will probably come along and add them again even if we delete them.--Folantin 07:10, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. I still think the list is too long (41 composers) and if any of them are to go these are the two obvious candidates. Half a notable opera each, after all! - Kleinzach 15:57, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Mascagni produced quite a body of work, with L'Amico Fritz on the fringe of the repertoire and other operas revived and recorded from time to time. And there's no doubt of Cav's importance as the first Verismo opera, so I vote for Keep. --GuillaumeTell 16:35, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I argued for the keeping of S-S (Samson and Deliah) and lost- like Leoncovallo and Mascagni, he only composed one notable opera. So, if he's gone, than surely Mascagni and Leoncavallo have to go. --Doublea 20:06, 26 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete --Al Pereira(talk) 02:03, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Now deleted by simple majority Any objections? - Kleinzach 04:01, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Add: Antonín Dvořák. I agree that this is a marginal case, but Rusalka is often performed and has often been recorded, and The Jacobin and The Devil and Kate are given outside Eastern Europe from time to time and are well worth seeing. Plus there are other operas of his which deserve an airing. --GuillaumeTell 16:35, 26 July 2006 (UTC)


 * No. I think Smetana and Janacek are quite enough for Czech opera.--Folantin 18:08, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
 * No. I don't think Rusalka justifies inclusion and it's not as if he is a neglected composer. - Kleinzach 01:02, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
 * No, don't add Dvorak. --Doublea 22:11, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Result: not added - Kleinzach 04:02, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Delete: Rimsky-Korsakov He wrote some interesting operas, but they've never really established themselves outside Russia. We have Glinka, Mussorgsky, Tchaikovksy, Prokofiev and Shostakovich for the Russians. That's probably enough.--Folantin 18:08, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. His operatic output was substantial - and we have articles. Taken as a whole his works are often performed. A major figure, surely? - Kleinzach 01:02, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. Less performed outside his own country than Dvořák, I'd say. --GuillaumeTell 10:36, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm surprised. Rimsky's The Golden Cockerel, The Legend of the Invisible City of Kitezh and the Maiden Fevroniya, Sadko, The Snow Maiden, The Tale of Tsar Saltan, The Tsar's Bride  less performed abroad than Dvorak's Alfred, Armida, The Devil and Kate, Dimitrij, The Jacobin, Rusalka, Vanda! Surely this can't be so! The Mariinsky have been all over the world with R-K. - Kleinzach 16:53, 28 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree. Delete. --Doublea 22:11, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Now deleted: majority vote Any objections? - Kleinzach 04:07, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, I think it's shame that such a major Russian figure with so many operas with a toehold in the rep. has had to go! - Kleinzach 04:07, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I object. I wonder if people considered his completions and editions of major Russian works besides his own.  Yes, his edition of Boris Godunov may be unfashionable now, but he got it into the international repertory. DrGeoduck 08:29, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree, but unfortunately you didn't vote, and even if you had we would have been in a minority 2 to 3. - Kleinzach 08:37, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Delete: Schoenberg. The serialist stuff is covered by Alban Berg, whose operas genuinely have made it into the repertoire.--Folantin 18:08, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
 * As much as I dislike Schoenberg's opera Moses und Aron, I think he, unlike Leoncovallo, Mascagni, and S-S above, was of major influence to composers following him (like Berg). He should be kept for his influence. --Doublea 20:09, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Yes, he is important, but Moses und Aron was unfinished and is seldom performed. Folantin's point re Berg is well-founded. - Kleinzach 01:02, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. --GuillaumeTell 10:36, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Now deleted: majority vote Any objections? - Kleinzach 04:10, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Delete Meyerbeer. Mostly historical importance. Modern revivals have failed to resuscitate him. We have Gounod and Massenet. --Folantin 18:29, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Yes, this is an obvious candidate to go as the operas are seldom performed. Historically important yes, for this list no. - Kleinzach 01:02, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete --Al Pereira(talk) 02:03, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. --GuillaumeTell 10:36, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. --Doublea 22:11, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Now deleted - Kleinzach 16:28, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Delete: Beethoven. Definitely not an opera composer. Only one title, not so influential. --Al Pereira(talk) 02:03, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Beethoven should be deleted. --Doublea 02:52, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep absolutely. Fidelio is one of the very greatest operas. You have to have Beethoven to represent German 19th century opera alongside Weber and Wagner.--Folantin 06:36, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep absolutely+. Removing Beethoven would diminish the authority of this list. - Kleinzach 09:29, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. --GuillaumeTell 10:36, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Result: keep - Kleinzach 04:14, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Add: Ponchielli. The protagonist of Italian opera transition (1870s and 1880s), very influential (surely much more than Verdi) on all the composers of the "Giovane scuola", beginning with Puccini and Mascagni. If you can, listen Marion Delorme or read the vocal score of Il figliuol prodigo. One worldwide popular title: La Gioconda. --Al Pereira(talk) 02:03, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I have to agree on this one. Ponchielli should be added. --Doublea 02:52, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Don't add. More influential than Verdi? I think of Ponchielli as a minor-league composer. Top 100 maybe, but not on a short list like this. If we've cut Mascagni and Leoncavallo, then I don't see how his inclusion can be justified. We have precisely eight composers to represent the 17th and 18th centuries. Maybe you'd expect more 19th century inclusions, of course, but if we're going for the minimal approach, it should be cut down to the basics too.--Folantin 06:36, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Don't add per Folantin. - Kleinzach 09:29, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Don't add. La Gioconda isn't performed that often and the only music from it that's well-known is the Dance of the Hours!  His other operas are hardly ever (never?) performed. --GuillaumeTell 10:36, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Don't add. --Doublea 22:11, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Result: not added - Kleinzach 04:16, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Candidates for addition/deletion July 2006 (part 4)
Delete: Francis Poulenc It's a tough call but I think the least notable remaining composer on the list - apart from the names above - is Poulenc. So for the sake of a shorter list I put him up for deletion. Save him if you will! - Kleinzach 09:37, 27 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete as per nom. Very, very reluctantly. Of the post-war composers, I suppose only Britten is an absolutely unarguable member of this list.--Folantin 11:04, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. One of the few international operatic successes of the post-war. DrGeoduck 08:40, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. Perhaps a success, but he isn't great enough IMO. --Doublea 23:06, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Now deleted - Kleinzach 13:34, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Delete: Béla Bartók. Yes, a notable composer, but only one short opera and not (IMO) a very influential one. If Leoncavallo has to go, why should Bartók stay? We don't have to include a Hungarian composer. --GuillaumeTell 10:36, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
 * OK, delete. It's a great, great opera, but because of its poor reception, Bartok's operatic career was nipped in the bud. A tragedy. But if we're going for a minimal list (say 30 composers max), then cut. --Folantin 11:04, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. IMO Bartok was a much better composer than Leoncavallo. - Kleinzach 16:21, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. If Beethoven is kept, each great composer who made one only important opera should be kept. --Al Pereira(talk) 16:46, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. Great as Bluebeard's Castle is, it's hardly a major part of the operatic canon. DrGeoduck 08:40, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, but Bartok's really borderline.... --Doublea 23:06, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Now deleted - Kleinzach 13:40, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Delete: Igor Stravinsky. Another notable composer, but only one real opera and not an influential one. --GuillaumeTell 10:40, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete (although maybe it's a bit too early to start talking about influence for such a recent work).--Folantin 11:04, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. More than just the Rake's Progress - there are several works. Surely much bigger than M-A Charpentier!. - Kleinzach 16:21, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. If Beethoven is kept, each great composer who made one only important opera should be kept. --Al Pereira(talk) 16:46, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. Composed a variety of great works. DrGeoduck 08:40, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. --Doublea 23:06, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Result: keep - Kleinzach 13:38, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Delete: Weill. I think if major composers like Stravinsky, Bartok and Poulenc are to go, then Weill must get the chop too. --Folantin 11:04, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. - Kleinzach 16:21, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. --GuillaumeTell 17:12, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. --Doublea 22:44, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. DrGeoduck 08:40, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Now deleted - Kleinzach 16:57, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Proposal
Proposal: if we are going for a "minimal" list, I propose there should be a maximum of 35 composers on it. --Folantin 11:04, 27 July 2006 (UTC)


 * We now have 41 composers on the list with 10 proposed for deletion so we are getting close. - Kleinzach 16:03, 27 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't think that having an arbitrary target number is a very good idea. As has been said of the List of important operas, the argument is always about works or composers on the margin, so unless this list consists only of Mozart, Verdi, Wagner, Puccini, Strauss and a few others who can't be omitted, there are always going to be entries that are contentious for some. --GuillaumeTell 17:12, 27 July 2006 (UTC)


 * OK, I don't mind either way so long as this list is finished by the weekend. It's probably been a bit too time-consuming. At least we all seem to agree Gustave Charpentier shouldn't be on there! Sorry, Gustave...--Folantin 08:40, 28 July 2006 (UTC)


 * We are now down to 39 (unanimous sayonara Leoncavallo/Meyerbeer). I think we are close to a viable grouping of major figures. - Kleinzach 16:39, 28 July 2006 (UTC)


 * We now have 36 - with four more still up for deletion (two or three of which I hope will survive). It's looking like a good list. - Kleinzach 04:25, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Annotation
I think that, as with the list of important operas, we need to justify the inclusion of all composers by including an appropriate annotation for each. --GuillaumeTell 21:40, 24 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Writing about the significance of a single opera is much easier than explaining the importance of a composer. The annotations to the opera list have not been completed, and the quality has been mediocre with apparently few of the writers having access to reference books etc. (Unless I am mistaken you didn't contribute any of the notes yourself.) So I don't think it's a practical suggestion. I also wonder whether it would be worth the effort anyway. We should primarily be writing articles not lists. - Kleinzach 22:55, 24 July 2006 (UTC)


 * You are mistaken. And if this list is intended as a guide for neophytes, as you rightly point out up above in the Gustave section, all the more reason that some reasoning should be inserted.  I agree about the poor quality of some of the annotations to the list of operas, but it is open to all of us to improve that as and when we have time. --GuillaumeTell 00:55, 25 July 2006 (UTC)


 * OK. Perhaps you could give us some examples of the kind of thing you have in mind? - Kleinzach 03:05, 25 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Right. Here are a couple (these are not necessarily finished products):


 * Christoph Willibald Gluck was an important predecessor of and influence on Mozart. In his reform operas from Orfeo ed Euridice onwards, he sought to throw off the strait-jacket of opera seria and write music of "beautiful simplicity" which would better follow the situations of the story.


 * Leoš Janáček's first mature opera (Jenufa) blended folksong-like melodies and an emphasis on natural speech-rhythms à la Mussorgsky with a character-driven plot of some intensity; his later works became increasingly terse, with recurrent melodic fragments, lyrical outbursts and unconventional orchestration serving a diverse collection of source-material - just a few bars of these operas can instantly be identified as his.


 * I think that we need a suitable introduction (once the slashing and burning is over) similar to the one for the operas (and losing the word "notable"), and, likewise, arranging the composers in chronological order with their dates. All these additions and deletions are an attempt to make the list more useful and we ought to do the job properly.


 * --GuillaumeTell 21:34, 27 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Splendid, splendid. I really liked your annotations, but it all points to an inescapable conclusion - that Mr GT (M GT?) really is the man to write them - or at least do the first draft. [Pause for general applause!]. Bravo etc. - Kleinzach 16:21, 28 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I'll second that, bravo! No quarrels with the Janacek. I'd say Gluck's influence stretched beyond Mozart though. How about: "Christoph Willibald Gluck was a key figure in the transformation of Baroque into Classical opera, paving the way for Mozart, though his influence stretched far into the 19th century, with both Berlioz and Wagner acknowledging their debt to him. In his reform operas from Orfeo ed Euridice onwards, he sought to throw off the strait-jacket of opera seria and write music of "beautiful simplicity" which would concentrate on the drama rather than musical virtuosity for its own sake." --Folantin 18:13, 28 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Let's not get into detail here. If we have a good basic text up, it can only get better with well-considered editing. - Kleinzach 03:53, 29 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm actually quite busy now, and will soon be away on and off until mid-September (which is one reason why I'm busy now!). I'll try and do a few more before next Thursday.  Should I post them here first until we have a significant body of entries, or just stick them (and the two above, and thanks, Folantin, for the amendment) into the article?


 * However, there is no way that I am going to write anything about Debussy (I loathe Pelléas), Charpentier (about whom I am extremely ignorant) and a few more, so I hope that others will chip in. --GuillaumeTell 10:05, 29 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Post the ones you already have, GT. I don't think anyone would ask you to write all the entries! They are just there to set a good example, a template for the rest of us, if you like. I can do Debussy if no one else wants him. I think Makemi will have his eye on Charpentier (otherwise I'll do him). Just so long as I don't have to touch Donizetti ;) --Folantin 10:20, 29 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes, let's write the article on the article page. This is not a chat room. I'm a huge fan of Pelléas, but I defer to Folantin. My blindspot is Berlioz. Haven't the vaguest idea what he is about. - Kleinzach 13:45, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Peacock terms
Please try to avoid phrases like "the greatest", "masterpiece" and "lavish spectacle". This is an encylopedia, not "Opera News"....Musikfabrik 20:01, 6 September 2006 (UTC)


 * There's nothing POV about the phrase "lavish spectacle" when referring to Renaissance intermedi and Orfeo. I don't think the Medicis and the Gonzagas produced their shows on a shoestring. In the Oxford Illustrated History of Opera, Tim Carter refers to Orfeo's "spectacular stage effects". In the Viking Opera Guide, the phrase "lavish court spectacle" occurs in the entry on Cesti's Pomo d'oro. Likewise, it's hardly POV to refer to "tragédie en musique" as the most prestigious genre of French opera. There was a hierarchy of genres back then (e.g. epic poetry was more prestigious than pastoral). Lully's tragedies were a national cultural institution and a model for ambitious imitators. The phrase "beautiful simplicity" is, I believe, Gluck's own (which is why it was included in quotation marks). It's not that unexpected that major opera composers should produce masterpieces either. --Folantin 07:10, 7 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Addendum: you know, now I come to think of it, I'm not sure how seriously I should take your pedantic literalism when you alter my statement that tragédie en musique would be the most prestigious genre on the French operatic stage for almost a hundred years with the comment There wasn't a "stage", per say, since Opera was only done at private homes and palaces.during this period. For someone so picky, your English (and Latin) leaves something to be desired (opera does not need a capital letter here). Secondly, you might want to familiarise yourself with the concepts of metonymy and synecdoche with regard to the phrase "operatic stage". Finally, you aren't even factually accurate. As far as I'm aware, the great majority of tragédies en musique were premiered (or revived) at the Académie Royale de Musique. Even when they were given at "private homes and palaces" (presumably Versailles), a literal stage was generally set up. Have a look at some illustrations of performances of Lully's operas from the era. --Folantin 10:30, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

I fail to see what metonymy and synecdoche have to do with the subject at hand. I stand corrected about the Académie Royale de Musique, although at Versailles the "stage" was either one of the elements in the gardens or the platform in front of Chateau in front of the King's appartments at the center. The majority of operas done at Versailles, even after Louis XV built the Opéra Royale, were done in reduced, "salon" versions and were not "staged" per say. You will note that I do admit that I'm wrong when I am....

Sorry about my English. While I'm a native English speaker, I spent most of my time speaking and writing in French these days.

If the Gluck quote is his own, it still needs a reference.

Now, could you please use language which is more encyclopedia-like? I suppose we could also call the "lavish intermedi" "fabulous" while we're at it, but it wouldn't make the article sound more like an encyclopedia. Musikfabrik 20:00, 7 September 2006 (UTC)


 * "Lavish" means "rich and abundant". It was used in the noted reference work the Viking Opera Guide, as noted above. "Operatic stage" is metonymy/synecdoche because a part of the thing alluded to (i.e. the platform we call the stage) is used metaphorically to represent the whole (i.e. musical drama). As I said, your comment about the common English phrase "operatic stage" makes it hard for me to take your nitpicking seriously. While I'm a native English speaker, I spent most of my time speaking and writing in French these days. So edit French Wikipedia instead then. Why do you think you are qualified to comment on other people's use of the English language? ( By the way, it's per se, not per say, as any good dictionary will tell you). --Folantin 07:06, 8 September 2006 (UTC)


 * The Concise Oxford English Dictionary's entry for "stage", part 3: "platform on which plays etc. are performed before an audience; (figurative) the drama, dramatic art or literature, actor's profession". By using the adjective "operatic" we can modify "stage" to refer to a variety of musical drama. Maybe you can't handle the concept of figurative language. Do you scour Wikipedia for mentions of an "eye of a needle" in case anyone gets the idea that needles have optic nerves? Oh, brother. --Folantin 08:15, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

I do edit in French Wikipedia. I also edit in English wikipedia because I happen to have a great deal of information about French Music in my specializations. I count on people like you to correct my spelling and grammaire. Thank you for doing so.

I sense that you're feeling a bit possessive about this article and I would like to suggest that you reread WP:OWN for some clarification. Neutrality is a goal of this project and I do see obvious POV issues with the language used. Terms like "Masterpiece", "the greatest", "the most significant", as well as poetic language are things which should be avoided and should be changed when they are found, according to Wikipedia policy. Editors are also obliged to provide sources to statements such as quotations and the like. The Gluck quote needs to have a reference listed, as do many other statements. I'm adding this as an article which needs sources. I would suggest that those of you who have worked on this article to ask for "peer review" to neutralize some of the language here and to give you ideas of how this could be made better. Cordially Musikfabrik 11:16, 8 September 2006 (UTC)


 * So you expect others to clean up your spelling and grimoire? Then perhaps you'd like to avoid wasting my time deleting common English expressions such as "lavish spectacle" and "operatic stage", which - ironically - are far less "poetic" than the phrase "peacock terms" itself. If you look at the talk page for "peacock terms", you'll find that this guideline is hardly unanimously accepted by Wikipedians. I try to use similar language to that found in standard reference works such as Grove and Viking. This article is a list of major opera composers (as it states at the bottom, it is selective, not exhaustive). By definition, major opera composers are such because they are more historically significant/critically acclaimed/influential/popular than others. The annotations attempt to give a brief definition of their "major" status. Clicking on the linked names should lead to more fully annotated articles. As for your unsourced claim I happen to have a great deal of information about French Music in my specializations, forgive me for expressing a little scepticism given your initial statement about the French Baroque, that Opera was only done at private homes and palaces.during this period. --Folantin 12:36, 8 September 2006 (UTC)


 * No, I OWN this article, by virtue of those ten entries I added last night. So there.


 * Joking around apart, I don't see as there's much wrong with the phrase "lavish spectacle". It's not really POV as lavish is merely (undisputed) description and not really any kind of opinion. And I often think with so-called "weasel words" that if they are demonstratably true, then they should be left in. However, I do agree that "peacock terms" should really be avoided and we do need to reference things more at the Opera Project. I'm just off to provide a cite for the Gluck. And here's a note to Musikfabrik; perhaps you would like to join us at the Opera Project? Composer for the month is Lully, and I'm sure that our other French-baroque specialists, Makemi et al, would welcome your input. Here's wishing the best to all concerned, Moreschi 20:15, 8 September 2006 (UTC) (but I'm not sure PR is appropriate as we're not going for featured list status or anything like that.)

My my, you are certainly a welcoming crowd, aren't you? I'm sorry to break up your little coffee Klatch (did I spell that right??), but you might want to remember that this project is about writing an encylopedia using the criteria set up by the people who started the project. The notion of a "selective list" is already stretching that pretty far, but since I've got enough on my plate these days, I'll let you continue your cozy little page to your heart's content, since it is clearly outside of any sort of notion of scholarship...Thank you for sourcing the Gluck quote, by the way....You only have the rest of the page to source now....

Mr. (Ms?) Moreschi, thank you for your kind invitation. Unfortunately, my interest in opera is only confined to 20th century French opera, especially those of Germaine Tailleferre, who wrote eight of them. I'm currently reconstructing one of the most important of those eight and don't have time to work outside of that, since I'm spending most of my time these days in the Paris Opera Library. I wouldn't have butted in here if the language hadn't been so completely out the context of an encylopedia. I'm sorry, but I shall have to refuse your kind invitation. Good luck to you. Musikfabrik 20:43, 8 September 2006 (UTC)


 * MR. Thanks for laying down the challenge so clearly. We'll get their in the end, of that I have no doubt. Come back in 3 months and I'll have every darn subordinate clause provided with an inline citation. Getting Grove circa November should make my task a little easier. If you lack faith in what we can do, try out The Fairy-Queen, or even the pre-operatic Concerto delle donne. I'm sorry you're to busy to join us and help out, but if you ever change your mind you shall be welcomed with open arms. See you round. I'll soon have this page up to your idea of scholarship. Blood boils! Cheers, Moreschi 20:58, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, don't let that blood boil too much, as consumption seems to be going around in the Opera World. If you ever decide to do some serious research about Concerto delle donne, let me know. I know someone who has some of the primary source material on that subject. In any case, if you're capable of getting sources for that kind of article, there's no excuse for this article which has only one serious source, which was only added after I pointed out that no sources were present. Regardless of what you think of the term "peacock terms", this article is not neutral nor is it sourced. I trust that you will, indeed, bring it up to...not my idea of scholarship, but at least up to the standards of the project....Musikfabrik 21:05, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Personally, I tend to strive for better than Britannica - not that that's very hard for music content, but in terms of references, depth and prose standards. Remember to, that WP is just one big work-in-progress...just like this list...Anyway, we'll see about your idea of scholarship. I like a challenge. Best, Moreschi 21:12, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, you can start by adding the first name, last name (Orrey is which?), publisher, date of publication, page numbers and ISBN numbers to your source for the Gluck quote. I'm very happy that you like challenges. Rendez-vous dans trois mois....Musikfabrik 21:20, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

All that info is already in the "General references" section, bar the page number, which I've added. Best, Moreschi 21:24, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

"My ideal of scholarship"? Heh heh. "Rendez-vous dans trois mois". Great, maybe before then you might try to find a second-hand copy of English in Three Months (Dorling Kindersley Publications, 1996, ISBN: 0852852916). If you hadn't made pedantic, semi-literate and factually inaccurate edits to my entries, I might have taken you more seriously, but as it is, you came across as a borderline troll. For all your talk of "encyclopedia-like language", you seem to forget that the primary requisite of an English encyclopaedia is that it should be in English. NB: The kind of language I used is also to be found in standard reference works like the Viking Opera Guide. Salut. --Folantin 09:27, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Regardless of what you may or may not think of my English and regardless of how you may or may not think of your idea of "scholarship", the fact remains that this article uses unappropriate language for an encyclopedia and is unsourced. Now, you have the choice of sending me more of your unfunny "billets doux" or changing the article and adding sources to make the article conform to the objectives of the project. Salut, indeed. Musikfabrik 21:28, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

No, I have a third option: handing the baton over to you and watching you turn this project into Ralph Wiggumpedia. Tchao, mon petit paon --Folantin 08:47, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

So you've decided to choice the "unfunny billet doux" option, have you? Be my guest. The next option would be the following quoting the official policy Verifiability

The burden of evidence lies with the editors who have made an edit or wish an edit to remain. Editors should therefore provide references. If an article topic has no reputable, reliable, third-party sources, Wikipedia should not have an article on that topic.

Any edit lacking a source may be removed, but some editors may object if you remove material without giving people a chance to provide references. If you want to request a source for an unsourced statement, a good idea is to move it to the talk page. Alternatively, you may tag the sentence by adding the template, or tag the article by adding  or. Also in that case it may be helpful for your co-editors to leave a clarifying note on the talk page, for instance indicating which sources you already checked. You can also make the unsourced sentences invisible in the article by adding after it, until reliable sources have been provided. When using this "commenting out" technique it is usually best to leave a clarifying note on the talk page.[1]

Be careful not to err too far on the side of not upsetting other editors by leaving unsourced information in articles for too long, or at all in the case of information about living people. Jimmy Wales has said of this: "I can NOT emphasize this enough. There seems to be a terrible bias among some editors that some sort of random speculative 'I heard it somewhere' pseudo information is to be tagged with a 'needs a cite' tag. Wrong. It should be removed, aggressively, unless it can be sourced. This is true of all information, but it is particularly true of negative information about living persons." [2][3]

In other words, if it doesn't have a source and you can't justify its presence here with a source, it may be removed immediately. You will note that I haven't yet removed any unsourced citations, other than your "lavish splendor" which is almost certainly a POV problem. Please consider this as a friendly reminder, for the time being. Since some of you are obviously finding this terribly amusing, I would like to suggest that you perhaps review these official policies before adding these little "terms of endearment". Je vous prie, Monsieur, de bien vouloir accepter l'expression de mes salutations distinguées. Musikfabrik 20:38, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Do what you like, trollboy. There are general references at the bottom of the page. Nowhere did I use the phrase "lavish splendor". If editors have to waste time giving references for common phrases like "operatic stage", then I expect this project won't even survive three months. Some of us believe it's the job of encyclopaedias to be informative rather than a battleground for futile (and ill-informed) pedantry. But then again, there are apparently some French music specialists who've never heard of the Académie Royale de Musique. It's a funny old world and it gets stranger every day. Ta ra a bit --Folantin 21:22, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, and there are people who think that Wozzeck is serial too...You were speaking of futile and ill informed pedantry? Are you sure that you spelled that last word correctly?


 * Ah well, sources are arriving....no thanks to you. Just have another cup of tea and you can get back to talking about how "lavish" everything is...Ta, yourself Musikfabrik 21:29, 10 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I didn't write the Berg entry, but whoever did made more of a contribution here than you've ever done. I'll continue using "lavish spectacle" just like Professor William C. Holmes did in "Viking". Don't choke on your Earl Grey now. --Folantin 21:51, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Delete Prokofiev?
I'm not staggeringly pleased to see Prokofiev on this list. I wouldn't call him a major opera composer. His stuff isn't so regularly performed and I don't see as his operas made a major contribution to opera history. Moreschi 22:01, 8 September 2006 (UTC) (I'm also not so pleased at Tchaikovsky's inclusion, and, for that matter, that of Beethoven, but those can wait till later)


 * No strong opinion either way on Prokofiev, but Tchaikovsky and, above all, Beethoven should definitely stay. --Folantin 09:31, 9 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep. In the Russian Opera tradition, I regard him as highly significant. Marc Shepherd 12:46, 9 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep. A great composer, and one who is still being performed. DrGeoduck 15:11, 9 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep. Mr. Moreschi has obviously never seen "the Fiery Angel"....Musikfabrik 21:31, 9 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep. Prokofiev is one of the great Russian opera composers.... Doublea 22:41, 9 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep. All of the above. --GuillaumeTell 07:50, 10 September 2006 (UTC) (currently on holiday in Crete)

No, I haven't seen The Fiery Angel. My loss, clearly. I'm not saying Prokofiev isn't a great composer, but I don't see his works as particularly significant to opera's development. Ditto Tchaikovsky (2 out of 10 is hardly a fantastic strike rate, and again I don't see as Tchaikovsky revolutionised operatic history and music, as he did for ballet), whose works I am more familiar with. Keep, then - but I'm not doing the annontation. And no POV without a cite, please. There are enough problems with this list already without introducing new ones. Best, Moreschi 08:08, 10 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep. As I understand it, Prokofiev's War and Peace is central to the repertoire in Russia. We should try to guard against significance meaning "Significant in Anglophone areas." Dybryd 20:01, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Puccini and Verismo?
The verismo article clearly states that Puccini's link with Verismo is not a definite one; is it not incorrect to say that Puccini "worked within the genre of Verismo"? Sure, he wrote some Verismo pieces (Ex. Il Tabarro), but I'm not sure he worked entirely within verismo. His works almost never follow the structure entirely. Doublea 22:55, 9 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I can assure you that there isn't any serious musicologist who still considers Puccini a Verist. The only way to gather together Puccini and the verismo composers is talking about Italian's "Giovane scuola" ("Young School"): the way Amintore Galli (a contemporary critic, man of Sonzogno pubblisher) called these young composers.
 * I agree that "Il tabarro" is a verist opera, but since Puccini wrote it when the verismo season was almost finished, it can be considered a kind of "revisiting" of a past genre. --Al Pereira(talk) 23:11, 9 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I only brought that up because in this article, it basically says Puccini is a verist. Shouldn't that be removed?Doublea 03:23, 10 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes, absolutely. --Al Pereira(talk) 04:14, 10 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I have replaced the line with: "The only true successor to Giuseppe Verdi in Italian opera..." Doublea 03:59, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Arthur Sullivan
Add Arthur Sullivan. He wrote one of the most commonly performed operas - indeed, theatrical works in general, The Mikado, and is easily the most important English composer of opera - only real rival for that title is possibly Benjamin Britten.

On which subject, saying "Benjamin Britten (1913-1976). The first British opera composer to win international acclaim since Henry Purcell," is... really  inaccurate, given Sullivan. Vanished user 15:19, 10 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I voted for Sullivan before and I think I'll do so again, per my reason given in the archive and Vanished user. Moreschi 15:50, 10 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, but how much international acclaim did Sullivan win? G&S are very much a British institution. If we included them and not, say, Johann Strauss, Lehár or some zarzuela composers, we might be laying ourselves open to accusations of "anglocentric bias" or whatever. We've got Offenbach to represent the lighter stuff (and he has several operas in the international repertory). I'd suggest a compromise solution: how about doing a list of major operetta composers and putting Sullivan there? --Folantin 16:28, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
 * He is performed widely in all English-speaking nations, was recently performed in Japan, has translations into Yiddish, German, Japanese, and many others, there's a performing group in Brazil that has managed to do him for several years now... I rather think having the most frequently performed opera in the world (Mikado) rather indicates some form of international acclaim.
 * And why should including Offenbach exclude him? Indeed, the inclusion of Offenbach here rather indicates that trying to enforce an operetta/opera division wouldn't work.
 * Finally, you mention Lehar and Strauss. Both of them have one work in the standard repitory. Sullivan has at least 11 commonly-performed works, three or four of those at around Mikado-level of performance.  ::How is this anglocentric bias?  Vanished user 16:45, 10 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, to be brief, we had a discussion about who to include here (all archived) and decided on a "minimal" list (more or less 30 composers). You'll see that several substantial composers were cut. Should we include Sullivan, the list would have to be expanded extensively. I have no real objections to moving Offenbach to a list of major operetta composers.--Folantin 17:07, 10 September 2006 (UTC)


 * You are giving no evidence for why adding Sullivan would "require" other composers to be added. As far as I can tell, all the "Substantial composers" cut were cut for rarity of performances nowadays and/or only having one notable work. Neither applies to Sullivan. Vanished user 17:14, 10 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, I really can't agree (to put it mildly) that "Sullivan was easily the most important English composer of opera" and I doubt if many critics or Sullivan himself would agree with you either. Likeable as his works are, they are neither particularly original or influential. Some of the composers we cut produced works which certainly were. If you apply your criterion for "international repertory", then Lehár and J.Strauss would have plenty of works within it, most of them only regularly performed in Austria, Germany and Switzerland with a few (mostly amateur) performances abroad. So we would have to include them too, plus a load of zarzuela composers performed all over the very international Spanish-speaking world and almost nowhere else. Anyhow, let's see how other people vote. --Folantin 17:47, 10 September 2006 (UTC)


 * So, having several professional companies devoted solely to him, and amateur or better performances in almost every city in America, Canada, Australia, New Zealand and Britain every single year, being used regularly on television, and having entered the popular culture doesn't count as important? What, then, is your definition of important? Vanished user 18:00, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

He is important, he just isn't important to opera. Yes, the distinction between operetta and opera is arbitrary, but in practice it exists. G&S are about as frequently performed by major opera houses as Sondheim or Rodgers - that is, very rarely, and as a self-conscious venture into "popular" territory.

As you say, Sullivan has companies devoted solely to him. G&S operetta is its own special little sub-genre, adjacent to but distinct from the mainstream operatic repertoire. You might think the separation is unfair, but wikipedia is not the place to make a stand for change. Dybryd 19:57, 10 September 2006 (UTC)


 * So, in other words, we're to exclude him from the list of opera composers for being too popular? In any case, he is done by opera companies, and, certainly, in opera houses. For example, the Carl Rosa Opera Company does him as a regular part of their repitoire. Vanished user 20:10, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Don't add. Given the apparent criteria of the article, Sullivan doesn't belong. Marc Shepherd 23:23, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Cut Offenbach?
What do people think about cutting Offenbach? He wrote prmarily for operetta, but his operettas are more often performed by opera companies than those of other composers (Sullivan, for example), and Tales of Hoffmann is frequently performed...does he squeak in? I'm just creating this topic as a place for discussion, I don't have a strong opinion myself. Dybryd 20:07, 10 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I have no really strong opinion either but I'd be inclined to keep him as a representative example of lighter opera to stand in for all the other such composers we've left out. He has a claim to originality and influence, being generally regarded as the inventor of operetta and, as you say, he has quite a few pieces in the mainstream international repertory, including one indisputably bona fide opera, Tales Of Hoffmann. On the other hand, as I've suggested above, a list of major operetta composers might be a good idea and Offenbach would probably be the biggest name on that rather than (arguably) the smallest name here. --Folantin 20:26, 10 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm very leery of the idea of using one composer to represent a major genre, and using him to block every other composer in that genre that may come along. There may be reasons to block the other composers in that genre, but "We condescended to include one. We need no others" is bad. Vanished user 20:47, 10 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete Offenbach. He wrote only one work regularly performed by major opera companies, and that work (excellent though it is) was not particularly influential on other composers. Marc Shepherd 22:26, 10 September 2006 (UTC)