Talk:Opera/Archive 3

Sociology of opera
Can we get rid of this useless heading and the waffle that follows it? I'm also dubious about its subsections (despite what I said on the Project Talk page about the first section).

The Opera article as a whole is still somewhat unwieldy - more ought to be hived off into separate articles - but getting rid of this will start to remedy that. --GuillaumeTell 00:17, 30 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes, the first paragraph seems not to be saying much. But what about the concept that the opera repertory was not developed until later.  If it's true, it's an interesting fact.  I wonder if it is completely true, though.  Didn't Mozart re-discover a bunch of old Bach music and re-introduce it?  And did no one ever want to revive Don Giovanni until the late 19th Century?  Pity.  Ssilvers 02:04, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

There was certainly a standard repertoire in pre-Revolutionary France, with Lully's operas holding the stage for almost a century. In the 1760s, Mondonville attempted to write a new opera to the libretto of Lully's Thésée and was savaged by French audiences for his pains. The original was swiftly reinstated. --Folantin 12:10, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Where to link operas by lists?
I stumbled on the Science-fiction operas page (which is full of valid operatic works by the likes of Menotti and Glass), and was wondering whether lists like it would be validly linkable from the opera page. I am against linking to things solely for the link's sake, but if someone wanted a list of operas based on Greek mythology (or sci-fi for that matter), surely s/he would come to this page in hopes of finding it, no?

Any thoughts? Amber388 17:31, 5 October 2006 (UTC)


 * How about adding it as a "See also"? -- Ssilvers 17:39, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

notability of Armando Gabba, baritone singer?
A user has been edit-warring for deleting this entry:


 * Armando Gabba, a baritone opera singer who performed in 1984 with Renato Bruson, Edita Gruberová, Brigitte Fassbaender, and Neil Shicoff in Rigoletto, and is still active

from the disambiguation page Gabba, arguing that he's not notable enough to ever have a Wikipedia article, and thus to be listed as a redlink on a dab page. You can provide opinion and information (positive or negative) about it at the discussion page Talk:Gabba so as to help sort it out.

Thanks, -- 62.147.112.36 14:48, 13 July 2006 (UTC)


 * He appears to sing mostly small roles. Amazon.com lists 7 recordings on which he appears, at: http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=hy_ss_0/102-2907338-7482544?url=index%3Dblended&field-keywords=Armando+Gabba&x=9&y=13.  I don't see any substantial reviews for him on the web.  He's borderline at best, I think.  I think the Wikipedia policy is not to redlink someone unless you plan to write an article for them pretty soon.  -- Ssilvers 15:20, 13 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Sorry, but as far I'm aware disambig pages are for articles that already exist. Once the article has been written, then it can go on the disambig page. Re non-notability: seven amazon hits isn't very impressive, but maybe he mostly performs live. However, I haven't heard of him, so I really can't comment. Maybe someone else knows a bit more about him? Borderline for me. Moreschi 21:33, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Development of an audience
Someone removed this heading, but we were discussing what to write there. In the meantime, I added a paragraph to the trends section and a couple of "external links" about the greying of the audience. But if someone can figure out what else ought to be said about the development of an audience, we can move it or change it. -- Ssilvers 20:53, 14 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes, I know I said I'd have a go at it, and I had a couple of whacks at it on paper, but keeping the paragraph short proved to be well nigh impossible. I think this is really a subject for full discussion in a separate article. Cheers, Moreschi 13:09, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Illustration
Looking at the images used to illustrate the article one would get the impression that opera is not a dramatic art form but a large building. Image:Bayreuth-Rheingold-1876.jpg is more like what I would expect. Rl 11:32, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Unsourced tag
That has been addressed before, I see, yet not one phrase is properly sourced. The general references are not enough. Please add the sources or the unsourced material will be removed, per Wikipedia policy. Musikfabrik 22:09, 13 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I am removing the unsourced tag shortly, which is utterly unhelpful and wrong. It is quite common and acceptable on Wikipedia to state general references at the bottom of the article, without footnoting every clause in every sentence. By the criteria you have just stated, most of the encyclopedia would have to be thrown away.


 * I am not suggesting that every statement in the article is properly sourced, and meets all of Wikipedia's requirements (WP:VER, WP:NPOV, WP:NOR). But I am suggesting that for an article of this length and depth, a single unsourced at the top gets us nowhere. You should identify the statements that you consider problematic, and put fact next to them. We will then be at a point where an intelligent discussion can begin. Marc Shepherd 01:00, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Given the discussions currently underway at List of major opera composers and List of important operas, I think that we're working for the same thing and I wanted to explain why I did indeed think that it was right to put an unsourced tag on this article.


 * My rational is at the Wikipedia policy page Verifiability which basically says that if any editor feels that a piece of information should remain, the specific phrase must be sourced.  According to the way this reads, general references do not replace specific references as "Burden of evidence".


 * To quote Jimbo Wales in this article, "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."
 * So, my statement that any unsourced materials could be immediately removed seems to be backed up by this statement by Jimbo. And the use of the word "aggressively" in terms of removing unsourced items would also tend to suggest that concensus is not the issue here.
 * I'm wondering that since this is the main article in this genre and that since it's been featured on the CD-rom version, if people have the idea that it's somehow okay as it is. And (logically) that if this article is "fine" without sources then other articles such as List of important operas are also "fine" without sources. I believe that, under the terms of the policy quoted above, that every major idea needs a source. While in the case of many articles, this kind of documentation could be a problem, but with an article that is obviously the result of a great deal of research, this can be put to rights quickly. But it cannot be allowed to remain as it is, and certainly not for as long as it has remained in this state.
 * I will refrain, in the interests of good faith, from re-adding the "sources needed" tag, but can we discuss how this article may be properly sourced and divide up the work? And can we agree on a timeframe in which the article should be sourced? I would suggest one month, given the amount of people who edit here.  I haven't worked on this article myself, so I'm perhaps not the one to lead this discussion. Musikfabrik 08:21, 14 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I have to agree with Marc Shepherd here. Look at the good article criteria and you will see that although inline citations are desirable, they are not mandatory. I also think that Jimbo's focus is slightly different from yours in that (mostly) he doesn't want to get sued or embarassed for libellous contents in wiki articles. The guidelines for WP:GA point out that general references are fine unless something particularly out-of-the-way is being put forward, in which case reviewers balk unless you have a specific cite. The article hasn't been featured on the CD-rom version, as WP:1.0 is still hypothetical. I would also like to point out the article suffers from gaping flaws in its content (I've written 7 new paragraphs over the past three months, and the "Russian Opera" section was added only yesterday, thanks to Meladina). I do have plans for this article, but they involve plugging holes in the content, so that the article will pass GA. References come later - IMO, but then for WP:FA. Moreschi 10:50, 14 September 2006 (UTC)


 * My view is actually a middle ground between Musikfabrik and Moreschi. I think that improving the sourcing of material that is already in the article is just as important as plugging holes in the content.


 * But because of the article's length, and because much of the material is undoubtedly valid (even if not properly sourced), I think we need to focus on specific problematic passages, rather than condemning the whole thing in blanket fashion. An example is the following quote from the article:


 * An outstanding example of this would be Maria Callas. Her voice was unarguably flawed, but she possessed enormous acting talent and a wide range of vocal coloration. Oddly, she was able to apply this quality to great effect in tragic operas from the bel canto period, such as Lucia di Lammermoor and Norma.


 * In my view, this is a fairly blatant POV, and should be removed unless it can be sourced. Flagging such passages is, I think, a more constructive way to go about it.


 * I would oppose setting an arbitrary deadline, especially given that it is still not clear how much material Musikfabrik would propose to remove at the end of that period. Marc Shepherd 11:58, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

I understood Jimbo's phrase "This is true of all information" to mean just that, but perhaps my thinking is too inclusive. Is there any place to ask this kind of policy question? I suppose we could ask Jimbo what he meant, but I would imagine that he's pretty busy...

In any case, if all of this is obviously true and such common knowledge, how difficult can it be to find references for each paragraph and to add them? I think that if this was divided up, this could be handled in a matter of days. And it would improve the article immensely. Although it's a bit of work, I don't think that it's THAT much work....Musikfabrik 14:50, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough. Thanks for the responses. Leaving a message on Jimbo's talk page probably isn't a bad idea; we can ask him for clarification as to what he meant, particularly with resonance as to the current situation. And re the Callas statement; it wasn't me, and I suspect it's been there for years (literally) and the person who added it may not be around anymore; so unless someone has got a biography for her that says just that (I don't), I wouldn't exactly be breaking into floods of tears if that footnote was deleted, to say the least. Best to all, Moreschi 18:42, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

As I read it now, anything that is not sourced can and should be axed. The burden of proof is with the editors who want the statements to stay. As far as I'm concerned, this means that every major idea should be sourced. And if it's so evident, then why can't it be sourced? Nobody wants to spend ten seconds finding a page number??? Sheez...Musikfabrik 23:31, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Size of Article
"This page is 41 kilobytes long. This may be longer than is preferable; see article size.". How should go about splitting this article up? I propose that Origins be moved to Origins of Opera. Kc4 22:36, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

I have done this and the article is now 37 kilobytes long. Although this means that there is no rush in splitting, further splitting could be recomended espisially if the article continues to grow. One option would be to split off French Opera into its own article. Kc4 22:44, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

I have split French Opera off and now the Opera article is 33 kb. This should be fine for now, espesially considering that there are no other sections that would be easily broken off. Kc4 22:40, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Archive 2
This discussion page seems to be growing fast. Perhaps some of the closed threads could be moved to a secound discussion page. Kc4 23:04, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

I have moved both Sourced/Unsourced? and Sourced/Unsourced? to Archive 2 however, the main discussion page is still over 42 kilobytes. I am unsure what threads are closed and which ones are open. Any help would be apprechiated. Kc4 23:10, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

I have just moved all threads that havn't had a response sine last June to Archive 2. This has brought the size of the main discussion page down to 36 kilobytes. Kc4 23:16, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Vocal history section
At Moreschi's request, I took a look at this new section and made some copy edits. I agree that it seems logical to include a section on this topic. However, I think the section reads too casually and needs to hew more closely to some reference works' discussion of this issue. It also ignores the place of mezzos and baritones in the history of opera role writing (I don't think it's true that Wagner "spread the idea of a new voice, the bass-baritone", so I deleted that phrase). Also, the individual articles on the voice parts (e.g., soprano) do not agree with the rather badly written article on vocal range, which also does not agree with the incredibly POV article on Fach, so this whole area is a minefield. *sigh* -- Ssilvers 23:57, 26 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks for helping out. I could rabbit on about 15th, 16th, and 17th century countertenor history for about 5 hours, but the rest isn't really my speciality. I'll check out my references and add some stuff for mezzos and baritones and see what I can do about citing the rest, + maybe formalizing the vocab a bit.


 * This next is an appeal to the world: IMO the next things to write are a "Criticism" section and a "Current worldwide operatic scenes" section, or at any rate something along those lines. I don't suppose anyone could help out? Thanks again to Ssilvers. Best, Moreschi 08:55, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Patter Songs
Dear Opera fans: There are many famous patter songs in opera, but many of them are not yet listed at the article patter song. If any of you have the names and relevant information about famous opera patter songs, would you please add them? Thanks! -- Ssilvers 04:14, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Copyright state of linked excerpts
I am suspicious about some of the media linked from here, specifically the two pieces from Traviata and Nessun Dorma. I havn't identified the date of the recordings from Traviata, but the Nessun Dorma is almost certainly from the famous Three Tenors performance in Rome, and is released under Decca. What justification do we have to use this recording? --Alexs letterbox 23:40, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Recitative
"All types of singing in opera are accompanied by musical instruments, though until the late 17th century generally, and persisting until even later in some regions, recitative was accompanied by only the continuo group (harpsichord and 'cello or bassoon). During the period 1680 to roughly 1750, when composers often used both methods of recitative accompaniment in the same opera, the continuo-only practice was referred to as "secco" (dry) recitative, while orchestral-accompanied recitative was called "accompagnato" or "stromentato.""

I'm relatively new to opera, but I must say that I am a little puzzled by this paragraph. It implies that secco was dominant until 1680, then both secco and accompagnato were used until 1750, and then - what? The passage would seem to suggest that people started using only accompagnato, but this is clearly wrong -Don Giovanni (1787, a century after our supposed terminus ante quem) has only or almost only secco, and I think the same holds true even for The Barber of Seville (1816). --194.145.161.227 15:31, 3 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes, the paragraph is misleading and should be changed. The beginning of the paragraph is incorrect as well because it suggests that a capella singing never takes place in opera. To the contrary, there are unaccompanied and sporadically-accompanied pieces and sections to be heard in prominent works from every century.--Pheidias 23:47, 3 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes, I agree. It needs expansion (I didn't write it). I'll try to get round to it as soon as I can (i.e once ArbCom have decided). Moreschi 12:42, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Weasel sentence
After a new anonymous editor made yet another change to the lame sentence in the intro that has attempted to distingush opera from musicals (making the sentence even more meaningless), I realized that the article is better without it. Let's say what opera is, rather than (inaccurately) what it is not in the intro. -- Ssilvers 01:34, 8 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Maybe we should just be bold. The introduction is mostly waffle in my opinion. If you look at the foreign language equivalents, they get to the point a lot sooner. BTW I think opera is basically (Western) Classical musical theatre. That's what differentiates it from Broadway musicals, rock opera and so on.--Folantin 08:57, 8 October 2006 (UTC)


 * How about something like this?: "Opera is a form of theatre in which the drama is conveyed wholly or partly through music and singing. Opera emerged in Italy around the year 1600 and is generally associated with the Western Classical music tradition. Comparable musical theatre traditions developed independently in other cultures and are often called "opera" by analogy (see Chinese opera or kabuki for example). These are beyond the scope of this article. European opera has also spread to other continents. For example, the first opera to be performed in the Americas was Tomás Torrejón y Velasco's La púrpura de la rosa, premiered at Lima, Peru in 1701." Then mention there are other forms of non-operatic musical theatre (Broadway musicals, rock opera). I've cut all the stuff about costumes and scenery - it's really pointless. Perhaps we need an introductory section on "Some basic terms used in opera" though (libretto, aria, recitative etc.). --Folantin 09:15, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Recent rewrite of the article
I've been bold (perhaps overbold) and created a provisional version of "Some basic terms in opera". I mostly adapted it from the first bit of the "History of operatic styles". I deleted the "History of operatic styles" heading and fused it with the larger "History" section (which is where all the historical stuff should be, I think). --Folantin 14:17, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Nice work! I put back the last little paragraph in the intro, however, because if you don't know anything about opera, I think you need this info to give a rounder picture of the art form.


 * You also cut this paragraph, but doesn't something like this need to be said somewhere?:
 * During the lifetimes of composers up to Meyerbeer there was no "repertory" of operas. Composers like Bellini and Donizetti were expected to come up with fresh material, season after season, even if they had to cannibalize their own works for material that had not been offered to that city's audience (compare pastiche). One common strategy was to imitate the work of other composers, especially when such work had achieved considerable success. The idea of an opera repertory originated with Richard Wagner, in his Bayreuth Festspielhaus.
 * Best regards, -- Ssilvers 17:02, 8 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I think you're right about re-adding that intro paragraph. I just made a few modifications (how often does sculpture appear in opera- outside Don Giovanni, I mean?).


 * I slashed the "history of operatic repertory" section because it seemed pretty contentious to me. Is it really true? Earlier on this talk page I mention that there was definitely a repertoire in France before the Revolution. It might be possible to produce a new version but on the other hand it might end up as a lot of waffle and qualifications. I think that section was a survivor of the late, unlamented "Sociology of opera" section anyway. --Folantin 17:36, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

What if we add something like this: During earlier periods, there was no "repertory" of operas. Composers like Bellini and Donizetti were expected by their patrons to come up with fresh material, season after season, even if they had to cannibalize their own previous works, or imitate the works of others, for material. By the 19th century, opera houses were presenting a repertory of works that had proved popular, adding the most popular new ones.

I imagine you can improve that, but I think we need just a sentence or two somewhere to indicate that operas weren't always played in repertory? -- Ssilvers 17:52, 8 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Ah yes, but my point is I'm not sure it's really true. There was a repertoire in France in the Baroque period. Lully's tragedies were played for over a hundred years since the 1670s and 80s and audiences got very upset if people started messing with their old favourites. They knew the choruses to Lully's works off by heart and would actually sing along with them in the opera house. I think there has been a repertoire in Germany and Austria since the time of Gluck or Mozart too. I don't know if "Don Giovanni" or "The Magic Flute" have ever been off the stage for very long since they were first performed. So maybe the comment really only applies to Italy.--Folantin 18:12, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I see what you mean. You're right.  Leave it out, unless someone has reliable sources that lead to a clearer, verifiable discussion.  -- Ssilvers 18:15, 8 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Still plenty to be done. I've got to finish rewriting the German opera subsection, rewriting Wagner and bringing Richard Strauss back into the game. I think we should say something about famous singers. It wouldn't be an Opera page without a mention of Callas or Caruso, for instance. Maybe add them to the voices section ("Famous tenors include Caruso, Pavarotti..."). Enough for now though--Folantin 18:55, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Recent rewrite of the article (continued)

 * Right, let's sum up what IMO still needs to be done after round 1 of the Folantin/Ssilvers attack. The article sure looks a lot better than it did before, but leaving out bits that are still missing here is what I think the problems are.
 * The lead is too short. Per, WP:LEAD, an article this size needs a minimum of three paras.
 * I remain to be convinced that a discussion of what opera is NOT should be in the lead. It's kind of a negative impression. The lead needs to say first what opera is, and then why opera is important, the cultural impact the genre has had, etc. A discussion of what opera isn't surely can go somewhere else. Currently, the article doesn't assert notability - i.e a Martian wouldn't know why opera is so important. This is a very stupid concern, obviously - which is why everybody's missed it.
 * Famous singers - yeah, definitely.
 * This is going to be rather hard to do much about, but we need more variety of sound clips. I'm not Verdi's/Puccini's biggest fan anyway, but they are definitely over-represented. Ideal, in my opinion, would be one sound clip for every section of the national opera genres.
 * "The basic terms in opera section" I'm not entirely happy with. It's good, but I'd relabel it "Operatic terminology" and move it down a bit.
 * Of course, then there's all the new stuff that needs to be written. Opera stages, a "Criticism" section(give me a few more days for this one), an "Opera worldwide" section (crap wording, but you know what I mean)...I could go on.


 * Right, after all that, fullest congrats to Folantin. The article is vastly improved - and yes, I won't be shedding bitter tears of the opera repertory rubbish. Kudos to whoever cut that POV waffle about Callas, + the superflous bel canto material. One thing that I really like now is the focus on national genres, rather than some mixture of that and chronology. Bravo! Moreschi 19:22, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks (and thanks to you for your weeks of work on this article already). A few brief replies for now: Cheers for now. --Folantin 19:52, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Be my guest and change that section heading to "Operatic terminology" (I was never very happy with the original title). I still think it should come towards the beginning of the piece so we can go right ahead in the rest and start talking about recitatives and libretti without having to define our terms. But I might be wrong.
 * More music samples? Sure, just don't look at a technical incompetent like me to provide them! If you can find some French and German stuff (say), please do.
 * Longer intro. No problem. Let's try to fill it with sharp, cogent stuff.
 * The modernism section is fine, but I get a sense it's maybe a little too long, too "top heavy" for the article. Again, we'll see.
 * I have some thoughts on referencing, but they can wait.
 * A lot of this Talk Page needs archiving!


 * Replies: I've cut half of the Verdi/Puccini clips (which didn't seem to work anyway and one of them had questionable copyright, see above), and added one each for English, French, and German opera, all copied-and-pasted from other wiki articles (now that's easy). I'll work on the intro when I get some more time. You could well be right about the modernism stuff: I think we wait for a bit, but child articles are easy to create. I now think that the opera terminology section is fine where it is (i.e before all the history), but something further needs to go before that IMO. I'll give it a think. Moreschi 20:05, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
 * So, you're going to write a new paragraph for the intro and move the current second paragraph down into the next section? -- Ssilvers 16:09, 9 October 2006 (UTC)