Talk:Pelléas et Mélisande (opera)

Very Poor Synopsis
Can someone please improve the synopsis? It's perfunctory and unclear in many details. It badly needs to be fleshed out.Junggai (talk) 23:20, 22 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Sure thing, I am currently getting ready to add a significant amount of content to this article. Check back in a few days.Nrswanson (talk) 23:24, 22 January 2009 (UTC)


 * You might see if you can find some of the Belgian texts examining the sub-music of the ideation. With Pelleas we are once again on a quasi-Arthurian scene, and Melisande and the lost ring is a direct invocation of the legend behind the naming of the Cistercian monastery of Orval: the spring is still there, a plain little basin in stone blocks about six feet wide and two deep. However, the legend goes further, suggesting that the looser of the ring, Mathilda of Tuscany, married into the House of Luxemburg, was a melisande, a two-tailed mermaid of the same type as the Lorelei, and so we are yet again on camouflaged Rheingold territory, not least when one realises that Orval was probably the birthplace of the Templars. It's worth examining that Mathilde meme in some depth to see the political objective of the legend, both in its original form and the implication when considered against Maeterlinck and Debussy's personal welt-anschau. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.96.143.179 (talk) 20:17, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Possible source
A recently published book which might have further information is:
 * Opstad, Gillian, Debussy's Mélisande: The Lives of Georgette Leblanc, Mary Garden and Maggie Teyte, Boydell Press, 2009. ISBN 9781843834595

"Only four fortissimos" = false
"there are only four fortissimos in the entire score" This is patently false; there are dozens of fortissimos (moments in time where every orchestral instrument is marked with an FF dynamic). Check the full orchestral score or vocal score. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.29.0.196 (talk) 04:33, 8 April 2014 (UTC)


 * You're right. I removed that phrase. NeoAdamite (talk) 16:45, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Good article status
Hi, this article seems to have reached good article status on 6 June 2010 (diff). However, the GA template was removed on 3 September 2014 by a bot saying it was linking to wikidata (diff). Should this still be considered a good article? Thanks, Icebob99 (talk) 13:59, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I think the removed template pointed out that "P & M" was a Good Article on the Catalan Wikipedia. This English article has never been submitted for GA status. --Folantin (talk) 14:54, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
 * That makes sense, thanks for clarifying! Icebob99 (talk) 01:02, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I think this article could be submitted for GA status, it covers the topic well and it's thoroughly cited. I'll look into it, even though I haven't made a significant contribution. Icebob99 (talk) 01:05, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm really not that keen about the whole GA process. Folantin (talk) 08:05, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

"Landmark"
Re this removal, I'm not sure that the appraisal "is considered a landmark in 20th-century music" is "probably meaningless". It can be found at Classic FM here. But that might suggest that it doesn't belong in the article? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:27, 3 April 2024 (UTC)


 * What does it mean in practical terms? Nikkimaria (talk) 04:01, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
 * In practical terms? I'm not sure. I'm not even sure that most musical criticism has any practical value. But it might mean that music critics and historians see it as an important work of the era? Or perhaps as a work that demonstrates some unique or new musical ideas? I don't see Classic FM as a very scholarly source, but I'm not sure the commentary they give is necessarily meaningless. Martinevans123 (talk) 08:25, 4 April 2024 (UTC)


 * What I'm suggesting is the term is meaningless unless we can identify what specifically it's intended to mean. If we have a critic that says it's a landmark because it's important, it's unique, whatever, great. But whether Classic FM is a scholarly source or not, it doesn't provide any sort of context for that statement. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:40, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Yes, I quite agree. There is no context or explanation. Perhaps it's hidden away somewhere else at that site. Martinevans123 (talk) 09:25, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

Featured picture scheduled for POTD
Hello! This is to let editors know that File:Georges Rochegrosse_-_Poster_for_the_prèmiere_of_Claude_Debussy_and_Maurice_Maeterlinck's_Pelléas_et_Mélisande.jpg, a featured picture used in this article, has been selected as the English Wikipedia's picture of the day (POTD) for April 23, 2024. A preview of the POTD is displayed below and can be edited at Template:POTD/2024-04-23. For the greater benefit of readers, any potential improvements or maintenance that could benefit the quality of this article should be done before its scheduled appearance on the Main Page. If you have any concerns, please place a message at Wikipedia talk:Picture of the day. Thank you! &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 09:13, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

Sibelius
why no mention of Sibelius? 2A02:A03F:683E:A501:BD59:6EB9:128F:4962 (talk) 06:52, 11 July 2024 (UTC)