Talk:Ondine (ballet)/Archive 3

merge Henze into Ashton
I would suggest merging Ondine (Henze) into Ondine (Sir Frederick Ashton ballet) (and renaming the latter Ondine (Ashton) as "Sir Frederick Ashton ballet" is multiply redundant) on the grounds (1) that the Ashton article is the longer of the two and that Ashton is a bigger cheese in the world of ballet than Henze in music (this is not to disparage Henze, but Ashton is a real big shot.) — Robert Greer 01:35, 2 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I suggest merging Ondine (Sir Frederick Ashton ballet) into Ondine (Henze) because Henze is one of the key figures in modern music who can only become more prominent with time. Ashton was just a choreographer and his influence (though notable in his lifetime) is now fading into obscurity. --Kleinzach (talk) 02:41, 2 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't agree (1) that Ashton "is now fading into obscurity" and would suggest that (2) while Henze is a key figure it is strictly speculation to say that he "can only become more prominent with time." It is also biased to say that "Ashton was just a choreographer" (emphasis added); what would you think if someone wrote, "Henze was just a composer"? Which is — most emphatically — not my opinion. I doubt that we can agree on this and suggest that two seperate articles be retained, though the Ashton ballet article should be renamed more simply Ondine (Ashton). — Robert Greer 20:42, 2 May 2008 (UTC)


 * The merged article should defiantly be called Ondine (Henze) since ballets are written by composer not choreographers. I don’t know of any other ballet on Wikipedia which is suffixed by the name of the choreographer. If Ondine is a very notable work in Sir Frederick Ashton’s career than a short section could be added to his own page as well. --S.dedalus (talk) 05:24, 3 May 2008 (UTC)


 * There are MANY ballets on WikiPedia which are suffixed with the choreographers' name; these can be found on disambiguation pages. Dance is in this sense viewed by some a secondary art form, and oddly it is the choreographers, George Balanchine for example, who have shown the greatest respect for composers who do not get the respect they deserve from those who love music but not ballet. I love both, but that said, there are many composers whose music is performed more often at the ballet than in the concert hall, so I have to ask which is the tail and which the dog? What I do not understand is the outright hostility ("defiantly", "a short section" [emphasis added]) some people express to the ballet and why they cannot tolerate independent articles for dance works when they are only too happy to have as many articles as there are compositions for every composer who ever put ink on staff paper. — Robert Greer


 * P.S. I did not write the Ondine ballet article but am standing to its defense (1) on principle and (2) on the grounds that the person who did seems to've put in more effort than the person who wrote the Ondine (Henze) article. — Robert Greer (talk) 17:51, 5 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Okay, so Ondine (Ashton) can be a disambiguation page. The music is still the more permanent art form here. The same music could be rechoreographed an infinite amount of time. I’m not sure what you mean by hostility towards dance. I simply think Ondine (Henze) is the proper title for this page on Wikipedia. --S.dedalus (talk) 04:42, 7 May 2008 (UTC)


 * As S.dedalus implies the original work here is the music. The choreography comes second and can be, and will be, redone if the music remains popular. If the choreography is of special interest, then I don't really see why there shouldn't be a separate article about it, providing the two articles are linked and there's no duplication with the main one. Does that seem reasonable? --Kleinzach (talk) 09:27, 7 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Which came first? The music? Or was the music composed for the ballet? Even composer like Tchaikovsky composed music under the express request of a choreographer, if I recall correctly.

"The same music could be rechoreographed an infinite amount of time"; the statement is true based on the fact that choreographies are not usually performed without music (with the exception of some avant-garde pieces), but if one wants to accept a general principle, I'd like to think that choreographies have merits on their own - that is, they are independent of the ballet they have been created for. But I am not going to try my luck on this topic... Anyways, how does it fare the idea that a ballet is made by two parts: music and choreography? So the page "ondine (ballet)" would include both aspects, and redirects to pages like "ondine (score)" and "ondine (choreography)" which in turn would deal with each separate piece? This would also solve the case where more than one music score (say: ondine by Henze and ondine by Pugni) or choreography exist for a "ballet". This way we could exploit the hyperlink feature of wikipedia over a traditional encyclopedia. A negative side is that it entails a lot more work for the editor, especially in avoiding duplication of information and excessive fragmentation. Gioland71 (talk) 23:04, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Renaming
I think the article should be merged under the title Ondine (Ashton ballet). The ballet is predominantly attributed to Ashton, in the same way that nearly all ballets are identified by choreographer, not composer. The only other article that is particularly relevant to Ondine would be the one about the original Russian production. Despite the personal opinion of Jmabel, Ashton's ballets are still amongs the most performed in the world and are either in production or licensed by the Royal Opera House to almost every major ballet company in the world, including the Bolshoi. His influence is still very strong outside of the UK, and he is viewed by the ballet community as one of the greatest choreographers of the 20th Century so if his work is now a little outdated, it doesn't mean he deserves any less recognition. Crazy-dancing (talk) 20:18, 5 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I am no balletomane, but it does not seem to me that "nearly all" ballets are identified by choreographer. Certainly this is true for some, such as Don Quixote, which I had seen danced by two different companies before I could discover that the music had actually been composed by anyone at all (Ludwig Minkus—who?), or Les Sylphides, the music for which was selected from pieces by Chopin not originally intended for dance. But checking around Wikipedia, I find Sleeping Beauty listed neutrally, simply as "Sleeping Beauty (ballet)", but Swan Lake and The Nutcracker under Tchaikovsky, not Marius Petipa, William Christensen, or George Balanchine. Jeux is identified as a composition by Debussy, not as a ballet by Nijinsky, Baiser de la fée and Cinderella do not seem to exist apart from the Stravinsky and Prokofiev scores, and so on. I can see some sense in having one article for the musical composition and another for the choreography or choreographies (this is done for Agon, for example) but insisting on the primacy of one over the other will inevitably lead to the question: how many choreographies have there been that are of such strength that a completely new score can have been written to accompany them?—Jerome Kohl (talk) 04:26, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Undine
I disagree with both schools of thought that are either pro-Henze or pro-Ashton. I think that both these articles should be merged with that of Undine (novella) which describes the original story. Both ballets are just interpretations of this novella. All three articles are relatively short and by joining them together a really good article could be written on the evolution of the story and its subsequent interpretations with sections on the ballets and opera - similarly to that of articles on Cinderella etc. More information is already give in the Ashton article than in the article on the novella already! Does anyone agree with me? --Cazo3788 (talk) 09:40, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
 * When you cite the article on Cinderella, do you mean this one: Cinderella, or this one: Cinderella? (I think you are safe in assuming I do not agree with you.)—Jerome Kohl (talk) 19:12, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
 * See Cinderella which has a list of adaptations.--Cazo3788 (talk) 21:04, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Absolutely as it should be: a general Cinderella article, including a list of adaptations, with links to the articles on specific adaptations. How is this supposed to support an argument for merging the Henze and Ashton articles into Undine (novella)?—Jerome Kohl (talk) 22:54, 6 May 2008 (UTC)


 * see my more detailed comment at the Ashton ballet. If there is enough material for an article on each, and someone to write them, precedent is that we do just that. (And, of course, general articles on the group of works also.)00:56, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

New solution
I've been giving this a great deal of thought and have been working on the Undine (novella) article. Perhaps if the Ondine (ballet) article was renamed Ondine, au la Naiad (its full name) then the Ondine (Henze) and Ondine (Sir Frederick Ashton ballet) could be incorporated into one article named Ondine (ballet). Or something along those lines... It does seem to be ridiculous to have two articles about the same productions - if someone else does new choreography for Ondine with Henze's score then separate articles would be necessary, and vice versa. But at the moment they equal the same thing. --Cazo3788 (talk) 13:32, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
 * My apologies - its full name is Ondine, au la Naïade.--Cazo3788 (talk) 13:34, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
 * This looks like a mistake to me. Isn't it Ondine, ou La naïade ? (A naiad is a kind of nymph). --Kleinzach (talk) 14:11, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
 * You're correct and I've amended the Ondine (ballet) article accordingly. --Cazo3788 (talk) 14:28, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Hmm. Well it's not just one letter . . . though I don't know which French capitalization system the ballet project uses. --Kleinzach (talk) 14:34, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
 * My source is the ballet journal Dance Chronicle referenced in Ondine (ballet). --Cazo3788 (talk) 14:39, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
 * But is it correct? WP doesn't (I hope!) capitalize at random. --Kleinzach (talk) 23:43, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Ondine vs. Undine
Thank you for the improvements to the Undine (novella) article; I did a little on Ondine (Sir Frederick Ashton ballet). Wiki. administrator DGG made a determination in this matter to the effect that these should remain seperate articles, some of which still need to be expanded (thank you again for the work on Undine!) I might add some seealso and for tags to the various pages. — Robert Greer (talk) 14:01, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with File:Fonteyn-Ondine.jpg
The image File:Fonteyn-Ondine.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check


 * That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
 * That this article is linked to from the image description page.

The following images also have this problem:


 * File:Ondine - Margot Fonteyn.JPG
 * File:Ondine - April 2005.jpg

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Media copyright questions. --15:42, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Merger
I recommend Ondine (Ashton) be merged into this article — for the reason that the two articles are about the same work. The title qualified by (ballet) is the norm for article titles concerning ballet. Using the choreographer's name is not usual. Thank you. -- Klein zach  02:48, 18 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Why is there any doubt, we don't need two articles on same subject. --IdreamofJeanie (talk) 08:52, 1 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Please read the talk page discussions. It's all there. Of course the whole thing should be in one article under a proper NPOV title giving full credit to the composer and the choreographers (not just Ashton) etc. -- Klein zach  10:40, 1 June 2009 (UTC) P.S. Also note this article is almost twice the length of the other one. -- Klein  zach  04:53, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Copyright infringement/Copy and paste
I've removed one section copied and pasted from Ballet.contexts. There are probably others that have been taken from the group of articles at that site. -- Klein zach  01:59, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Merger
Undine (ballet) is now considerably longer and more comprehensive than Ondine (Ashton). The consensus at the WikiProject Classical music is that the latter should be merged into the former, see the discussion: Undine (ballet) and Ondine (Ashton): Two articles on the same work. Thank you. -- Klein zach  06:45, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Reversion of change of name from Undine (ballet) to Undine (Henze)
I've reverted the change of name of this page. This needs to be discussed first. -- Klein zach  13:01, 30 October 2009 (UTC)


 * As have I. I originally marked it as vandalism, mainly because I didn't know about the situation, but now I'm questioning that decision.  Regardless, this dispute needs to be settled. Legoland12342 (talk) 13:33, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

My reason
I am trying to boldly edit the articles about the Ondine music and the ballet, to try and create a workable solution that can hopefully end the stalemate, over what to do. I have moved the article from Undine (ballet) to Undine (Henze), to put the emphasis on the composer, as the music its self is not a ballet but a musical work. The music does not necesarily have to be used for the ballet, and I will likewise be editing the Ashton article to discuss only the ballet. Crazy-dancing (talk) 13:46, 30 October 2009 (UTC)


 * It looks like you did a copy-and-paste move. Please don't do that. If you want to rename the article and then edit it, please do so with a WP:Requested move. older ≠ wiser 14:18, 30 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I am trying to make a pro-active move to help solve a merging dispute that has been going on for over a year. Unless Wikipedia are happy for this dispute to go on for another year, perhaps I can be permitted to have a go at resolving the situation, without having to ask everyone's opinion on every point, considering that they have now failed to reach consensus in over a year. Crazy-dancing (talk) 14:20, 30 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I've no opinion about whether the article should be retitled. But don't do so by copying and pasting. older ≠ wiser 14:23, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

GA review
See Talk:Ondine (ballet)/GA1 -- Klein zach  00:59, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Removal of information from this article
The recent merge was done on the understanding that no information would be removed from the article. Unfortunately this appears to be happening with the deletion of the character names used by Henze/Schott, see this edit by Crazy-dancing here. Maybe other information has also been removed? I think we need an explanation. Information can of course be moved - it should not be taken out completely. -- Klein zach  06:37, 11 November 2009 (UTC)


 * The reason I changed it to just the one set of character names, is because regardless of discrepancies between the creative team, the records kept by the Royal Opera House of the Ashton/Henze production, use only the character names I have given. If necessary, I can link to the ROH Collections page for Ondine as the source for the character names if that would help?  I am working on the assumption that this article relates specifically to the original Ashton/Henze production of the ballet (as the ballet the music was created for), so any changes made for later productions should be highlighted as such, hence I have now addressed this within the 'Revivals' section of the article.  Members of the audience seeing the Ashton/Henze ballet performed would only have found one spelling of these names in the programme, so surely those must be accepted as 'the correct' spellings?  The only reason I see that as logical, is because the music was written specifically for this production, and the use of the score for any other purpose, does not necessarily require the use of the composer's choice of title or character names.  For example, a choreographer could use this music, but call the ballet The Water Dances, with a lead character called Tigerlily.  Am I making any sense, because now we have a merged article, these are things that are top of the agenda really aren't they?  Crazy-dancing (talk) 00:35, 12 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Crazy-dancing "I am working on the assumption that this article relates specifically to the original Ashton/Henze production of the ballet". No it doesn't (period). It relates to all the productions of the ballet as in the last Undine (ballet) article, which was to be merged with the last version of Ondine (Ashton) (Both of 30 October 09.). That was agreed in the discussion here that you were/are active in.


 * You understood the discussion perfectly well. No factual information was to be removed, especially that relating to Schott's official published version of the work. You now have an extensive track record for disruption so I am not going to assume good faith. Please revert your edits now.-- Klein zach  02:54, 12 November 2009 (UTC)


 * No factual information has been removed, I have, as I indicated in my last message, restored the information, just elsewhere in the article. I do not think I am being unreasonable in insisting that the article focusses primarily on the original Ashton/Henze production of the ballet, considering that the music was specifically commissioned and created for that production.  That the music has been used for other dance productions and has been published as a standalone work, can still be dealt with, but in an appropriately titled part of the article that does not relate to the original staging.  And with all due respect, I am happy to let bygones be bygones and focus on creating a good article, so perhaps you can do the same, instead of instantly trying to cast a negative impression on me for the benefit of anyone else who might get involved in this discussion.  And with that in mind, I hope you don't have too many objections to my reworking of the lead paragraph to the article.  I was concious of stating that the ballet and the musical score do not have the same title, despite being developed for the same production, but perhaps you have some other suggestions? Crazy-dancing (talk) 03:08, 12 November 2009 (UTC)


 * You write (here): "I have no knowledge of Schott or any official publication". The reference and link to Schott is in the article's 'External links' section. -- Klein zach  03:20, 12 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, I did look, hence why I edited that out of my message. Please see my latest edits of the article, which I hope present a reasonable compromise (for now), until the article develops further.  Should I also be adding that the alternative character names are from the score also, or were the alternative names from the other dance productions? Crazy-dancing (talk) 03:24, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

The new lead
Here is the new lead by Crazy-dancing which only relates to Ashton/ROH:

"Ondine is a ballet in three acts, produced for The Royal Ballet in 1958 by the choreographer Sir Frederick Ashton, with a musical score titled Undine, written by the German composer Hans Werner Henze. The ballet was adapted from a novella by Friedrich de la Motte Fouqué and it tells the tale of Ondine, a water nymph who is the object of desire of a young prince named Palemon. The premiere of the ballet took place at the Royal Opera House, London, on 27 October 1958, with the composer as guest conductor. There have been three major revivals of the ballet, the first in 1988, staged by Christopher Newton, and also in 2005 and 2008, staged by Christopher Carr and Grant Coyle."

And here is the original lead (Undine (ballet), 30 October) which refers to Ashton/ROH but also to Fonteyn, and Dowell and choreographers in Germany:

"Undine (also called Ondine) is a three-act ballet with music by the German composer Hans Werner Henze. It was adapted from a novella by Friedrich de la Motte Fouqué and it tells the tale of a water nymph who is the object of desire of a young prince named Palemon. The score of Undine is a rarity as it is a '20th century full-length ballet score that has the depth of a masterwork'."

"It was commissioned and choreographed by Sir Frederick Ashton in 1958 for the Royal Ballet. Ashton made the title rôle of Ondine (Ashton anglicized the heroine's name) for Dame Margot Fonteyn. The ballet has been described as 'a concerto for Fonteyn', and certainly at its first performances most of the attention was concentrated on her. Other ballerinas danced it a few times, but it is really only since Sir Anthony Dowell as Artistic Director of the Royal Ballet persuaded Ashton to allow him to stage a revival, thirty years later, that audiences have been able to appreciate the overall ballet, rather than just the performance of Fonteyn. Other choreographers in Germany have also made versions of the work."

I suggest the original (lower version) is preferable and should be restored. -- Klein zach  03:52, 12 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I've nowikied the refs to avoid the the unsightly error that appeared at the bottom of the talk page: hope you don't mind. --Jubilee♫ clipman  20:14, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Correction

 * "Ondine is a ballet in three acts, originally produced for The Royal Ballet in 1958 by the choreographer Sir Frederick Ashton, with a musical score titled Undine, specially written for the ballet by the German composer Hans Werner Henze. The ballet was adapted from a novella by Friedrich de la Motte Fouqué and it tells the tale of Ondine, a water nymph who is the object of desire of a young prince named Palemon. The premiere of the ballet took place at the Royal Opera House, London, on 27 October 1958,[1] with the composer as guest conductor.[2] The first major revival of this production took place in 1988,[3] however other choreographers have also staged ballets using the same score, which has been published as a standalone work."


 * This is a more up to date revision of the lead, which refers to BOTH Ashton and Henze, and also includes reference to other choreographers. I have purposely worded it to refer primarily to the original Ashton/Henze production, as both the music and ballet content were developed for that production.  In other edits to the rest of the article, I have made it very clear that there are other productions dance using the same music etc.  Also, I though some of the content of the earlier lead was more suited to the body of the article, to ensure that the lead is simply as overview of 'what' the article is about. [Unsigned]

50+ changes made today
You have made over 50 changes to the text today. This is hysterical editing. There is no reason to work in this way. You are an experienced editor. Why aren't you drafting your work in userspace? -- Klein zach  04:17, 12 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm not hysterical, how VERY dare you ;-) - Much as I've been using Wikipedia a long time, I have to confess I wouldn't really consider myself an experienced editor. I react to what I see, which I accept is a fault, but any problems can still be resolved surely?  Either way, I will make a concious effort to try and do my editing 'in one go' in future rather than in dribs and drabs. Crazy-dancing (talk) 04:21, 12 November 2009 (UTC)


 * The full extent of your edits today are shown here. Please stop now. -- Klein zach  04:54, 12 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I have now. I realise I've made a lot of changes, but I just have lots of ideas about how we can maintain an emphasis on the importance of the music in the development of the ballet, whilst equally addressing the fact that 'it is a ballet'. To that end, I've added text relating to how the music has been used in other forms since the original Royal Ballet production, and also that the music is now available as a published standalone work.  Much as I know you don't like the idea of the article being primarily focussed on the Ashton/Henze production, the reality is that this music was created for that particular production of the ballet, so any subsequent productions, unless particularly notable, are secondary, but can still be included in the article nonetheless.  Crazy-dancing (talk) 05:02, 12 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Oh, and I forgot to mention, as I stated in my earlier message, you have my assurance that I will do my best to consolidate my future editing, rather than doing lots of small edits. I may have made 50+ edits today, but with the exception of some more substantial ones, they are mostly small ones, so if I take a bit more care and attention and plan ahead, I should be able to work a bit more effectively.  I hope we can create a really great article, so look forward to more input from you Kleinzach.  Cheers Crazy-dancing (talk) 05:09, 12 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia is collaborative. You must respect the views of other editors and not bulldozer-edit their work out of the way. -- Klein zach  05:11, 12 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I do think I have taken your views into account, and with the exception of the lead paragraph rewrite, which I think is more than adequate, I have tried to implement changes that acknowledge some of the concerns you have noted. I might have shuffled things around, but I think everything that I removed is back in place, albeit in a different place perhaps.  Don't get me wrong, I don't think what I've done is perfect by any means, but my edits are just the beginning, there's a lot of work to be done. Crazy-dancing (talk) 05:16, 12 November 2009 (UTC)


 * But I've only mentioned a couple of egregious deletions! There's no way I can produce a running commentary on changes that are made every 5 minutes. -- Klein zach  06:20, 12 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Of course not, I completely see your point. I do have a tendency to get carried away, but as I said before, I will make more of an effort to consolidate my efforts into as few edits as possible, so that changes can be followed more easily and discussed. Just put it down to misplaced enthusiasm, it's just that I feel like we're able to make progress now that the merge is done. Crazy-dancing (talk) 06:38, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

"we're able to make progress now that the merge is done": I agree 100% --Jubilee♫ clipman 20:07, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Thoughts
On looking again at my edits, numerous though they may be, I do think I am heading in the right direction. I know we had an agreement to merge IN to the Undine (ballet) article, but where I think my brain is going is this...

First of all, as agreed, I do want to maintain all the pre-existing information, which, despite my editing I have tried to do. Then I would like to develop the article further into three key sections. The first two sections would focus on the development of the original 1958 ballet, from the music perspective, then from the ballet perspective. The third section could then exclusively be focussed on 'other productions', including details of other stagings of the Ashton/Henze production, or other ballets that have used the same music, and so on. This of course would then become the ideal place to talk about how Ashton and Henze titled things differently, with subsequent productions using the title and character names as they appear in the score, rather than the English variations used in the original 1958 production. Crazy-dancing (talk) 15:25, 12 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Actually, the article looks good. I've changed the lead a little to balance it out between Ashton and Henze.  The way it stood, it looked as if Ashton was the prime mover with Henze in brackets as an addendum... Both are of prime importance, hence the "depending on context".  --Jubilee♫ clipman  01:30, 17 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I did try to write a balanced lead, as the previous lead was, in my opinion, very imbalanced the other way. I think it's quite easy to read something you've written and think that it's neutral, so an 'impartial' eye is very welcome, so thank you. Crazy-dancing (talk) 15:49, 17 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Agreed: neither previous version was impartial one way or the other. My new version might need work too, but I think we're getting there.  --Jubilee♫ clipman  20:06, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

How about...
Ondine is a ballet in three acts, first staged by the Royal Ballet in 1958, as a collaboration between the choreographer Sir Frederick Ashton, and the composer Hans Werner Henze. Produced by Ashton, the ballet featured his own choreography and an original score created for the ballet by Henze. Titled Undine, the music was later published as a standalone work and has subsequently been used by other choreographers. The ballet was adapted from a novella called Undine by Friedrich de la Motte Fouqué and it tells the tale of Ondine, a water nymph who is the object of desire of a young prince named Palemon. The premiere of the ballet took place at the Royal Opera House, London, on 27 October 1958,[1] with the composer as guest conductor.[2] The first major revival of this Ashton/Henze production took place in 1988.[3] Both the music and the original choreography are held in very high esteem by critics. Crazy-dancing (talk) 20:46, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
 * No, I don't think this is as clearly expressed as the present lead, or indeed the one of 30 October. -- Klein zach  23:37, 18 November 2009 (UTC)