Talk:The Contrabandista

Nursery Rigs
Does anyone know what 'nursery rigs' mentioned in 'From Rock to Rock' were? Presumably the same rigs as mentioned in Princess Ida for making silk purses from the ears of Lady Circe's piggy wigs, but I can't find any dictionary definition that explains what they were. -- Tim riley 19:23, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Remember this is a Burnand libretto. Have you seen the dialogue? It all seems well enough when you're listening to it, but the godawful dialogue's the deal-breaker. And you don't want to know what idiotic business is going on during that beautiful "A guard by night" scene. One of the most beautiful things Sullivan wrote, and Burnand has to spoil it with an idiotic plot about Vasquez hiding in a nearby prison while throwing off his shepherd disguise so he can talk with her, then re-dressing to leave. Thank GOD he at least showed a little sense in Chieftain and changed it to him merely revealing himself to her as being in disguise after her heartfelt cry. One wonders what went through Sullivan's minds after he found out what those lyrics were actually being used for on the stage. But, anyway, Burnand was never very precise in his language - I think it's just "rig" as in "a contraption or device for some purpose" - e.g. the contraptions and devices used in a nursery: cradles, perambulators, etc. Not the same as the contraptions to make silk purses out of sow's ears. Adam Cuerden talk 19:55, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree. Also, his name is Riggs (sounds the same as rigs), and it is almost a baby-talk song or nursery rhyme about his little Riggs (children), little pigs, sows and cows. -- Ssilvers 04:34, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
 * It's Griggs, actually. Adam Cuerden talk 08:10, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Oops! Yup. But the point is, it's a bunch of childish rhymes with his name. -- Ssilvers 20:46, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

The American production
I have some details of the American production, and how some unknown author improved the plot. Do you think this would be notable and worthy of inclusion? Slfarrell (talk) 20:59, 21 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Information about major professional productions, such as the 1880 American premiere, is certainly worthy of inclusion. It seems also notable to discuss textual changes.  To characterize changes as "improvements" would require a WP:RS that says that they were improvements.  Otherwise, I would just describe what the changes were.  -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:19, 21 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm looking at my source just now, and it is a pirated version of the opera that was made in 1879. It creates a new second act by W. H. Paddock and Theo Mosher, and includes music by Offenbach, and additional characters, then making the actual second act into a third act. Most of what I have is a rather long-winded synopsis, so I'm really not sure if this should be included, and if it *should*, how much of it should be included. I can make a scan of the article and submit it for approval if you like. Slfarrell (talk) 15:58, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

I'd guess that someone wanted to piggyback on Pinafore's popularity by presenting another Sullivan piece. Probably others did that also. Here's how I'd analyze it: If it was a prof. production that ran for multiple nights, I think you should mention it, but I'd keep the description short, unless the piece had a substantial run. You could describe what happened in the new Act two in just a sentence or two. Best regards, -- Ssilvers (talk) 19:16, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Was it a professional production? A full prod. or a concert?
 * At a major/large venue?
 * How many nights did it run?
 * What sort of press did it attract?
 * Are either Paddock or Mosher notable? It looks like they don't have articles.


 * I don't know the answer to any of the questions. The article doesn't even say where it was performed, and that Paddock and Mosher may be pseudonyms. It was probably a full production, considering the inclusion of new characters. We know for certain it was printed by the Aldus Company and that the libretto includes a synopsis, in an attempt to provide a degree of motivation and coherence lacking in the original. I guess without these major details it's not notable. Slfarrell (talk) 14:42, 23 August 2009 (UTC)