Talk:The Sorcerer

Earlier comments
Constance is not really a mezzo. She has many high A's and optional high C's. There are not really any low notes. Most mezzos would find this role uncomfortably high (as Jessie Bond apparently did).

I am going through these also to change the characterization of the patter roles from "baritone" to "comic baritone", although if someone wants to clean up the html or whatever this stuff is, be my guest. I think it is important for people who are not intimately familiar with G&S to understand that there is some kind of vocal difference between, say, Wells and Daly. -- Ssilvers (talk)

FYI, neither Gilbert nor Sullivan ever used the word "operatta" to refer to their works. They called them "operas" or "comic operas." Also, the phrase "Savoy Opera" is pretty much universally applied to all of their works, not just those that literally premiered at the Savoy. (See talk page for Savoy Opera.) Marc Shepherd 04:34, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

The Sorcerer exists in two wildly different forms. Really must get in here andd give the earlier form, and note the cut songs. Also give the history -ö well, I'll do it later, when I'm more awake. Adam Cuerden 04:21, 7 April 2006 (UTC)


 * The two really aren't that wildly different. The introduction mentions the revisions for the 1884 revival. The only song cut for that revival was the opening of Act II, and the article already mentions that. Marc Shepherd 09:24, 7 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, depending on what you believe as to when Thou hast the power appeared during the first run. But we should probably make mention of In Days gone by, even if lost, and the Ahrimanes scene, even if they never made it to the public stage. Adam Cuerden 10:54, 7 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't have a problem with that, but you're really talking not about "two wildly different versions," but about a series of multiple, incremental revisions over a long period of time. Nearly all of the Savoy Operas had such revisions, so there is nothing unique about The Sorcerer.


 * Depending on how "encyclopedic" one wants to get, each opera could have a lengthy section on textual history, covering the development of the text up to the premiere, the first-night text, revisions after the first night, and revisions for revivals.


 * If you're setting priorities, I think it would be more important to itemize alternatives that are realistically available for performance &mdash; "Fold your flapping wings" in Iolanthe, "When jealous torments" and "A laughing boy" in Yeomen, the multiple versions of Ruddy/igore, and so forth.


 * There's another very long list of numbers that were unset, or for which the setting doesn't survive, and of course they are interesting from a certain perspective, but they can't be performed without writing one's own score. From the point of view of what the average Encyclopedia reader might reasonably want to know, the surviving material is probably more interesting. Marc Shepherd 14:48, 7 April 2006 (UTC)


 * You do have a good point. Though the Recit for Lady Sangazure is a bit of an odd piece on its own - Doesn't resolve to the Tonic. It might be worth pointing up why. I dunno. Not a high priority, no. Still, though, we really MUST include information about the change to Act II's opening, and possibly the rather major cut to the end of the Act I finale (in which it works back around to the Brindisi after Marvellous illusion) Adam Cuerden 13:03, 8 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, no use talking about how it should be done. Did a first draft now, and will revise it after it has some time to foment. Adam Cuerden 13:37, 8 April 2006 (UTC)


 * A good first draft. I have revised it for accuracy. You said that "Various songs were cut during the original reheasals, including a song for Lady Sangazure," but Lady Sangazure's ballad was performed on opening night. You also said that Alexis's Act I ballad "may not have appeared in very early performances," but in fact it was in the earliest ones. Besides that, I made various minor copy-edits. Marc Shepherd 15:00, 8 April 2006 (UTC)


 * ...Are you SURE you don't mean Act II Ballad? Because that's the one missing from the early scores. Adam Cuerden 17:53, 8 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes, just a misfire on my part. Of course, it's Act II. Marc Shepherd 18:21, 8 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Hmm. Should we say "a new ending to Act I"? Because it's substantially similar musically, if the revision is abridged, and though the end tableau is different, it's not on the scale of the Act II opening's revision.  Or am I being pedantic again? It's certainly accurate in the small... aha! "A new ending to the Act I finale" - accurate and doesn't imply anything more than it should =) Adam Cuerden


 * Okay, it now says a different ending to Act I. I also deleted the word "Finale" from that sentence, because once you've established that you're talking about the end of the act, the word "Finale" is redundant. Marc Shepherd 21:11, 8 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Is it? I mean, the end of the Finale implies that the beginning of the Finale is unchanged, which is true. The end of the Act could well include all of the Finale being changed.  It's explained in full a sentence or two later, so it doesn't matter much, but, well, I get pedantic over shades of meaning sometimes =) Adam Cuerden 07:17, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

The firm in the opera - J. W. Wells & Co - is a major component in the four most recent books by Tom Holt, but I'm not sure whereabouts in the article this should be noted (if at all). Anyone? Tyrhinis 20:09, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I think the best place for this info is under the "cultural influence" section in the Gilbert and Sullivan entry. Ssilvers 22:50, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Happy are we
How is this song best listed? Certainly, it was performed, which means it's not exactly a cut song. I know that in several of the more scholarly productions it's used either elsewhere in Act II or as curtain call music, so it is still heard sometimes, but that said, it's not quite on the same line as, say, "For thirty-five years" which is done, if the poll is accurate, about as often as the number which replaced it. Is it best kept as it is, moved to a footnote but still given some prominance in the footnote, demoted to versions, or what? Adam Cuerden 15:30, 10 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I think "Happy are We" is very, very rare -- it's just a curiosity for now. I would demote it to versions.  --Ssilvers 16:40, 10 August 2006 (UTC)


 * "Happy are we" is a cut song. As I noted on Talk:Patience (opera), I've never seen a production that restored the 1877 version in its entirety. Any attempt to restore it into an 1884 text is simply the decision of an isolated production, and there's no consensus about this. (Savoynet, for instance, used it as curtain-call music.) Marc Shepherd 16:49, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Restored it to footnote status, with a brief mention that it's still occassionally used. Adam Cuerden 18:37, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Nice use of "while"! :-)  --Ssilvers 19:12, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Aye. Had to have a special edit to remove it, though. Adam Cuerden 19:24, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Spoiler tags
Editors, please note that we do not use spoiler tags for the G&S articles. See WP:G&S. -- Ssilvers 23:36, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Alternate ending
Asimov suggests a different plot ending to this; namely that all the mismatched couples should simply get married. That would make them fall out of love with one-another, thereby undoing all the mess, without requiring the death of the sorcerer. This ending has the merit of being more amusing, and more dramatically satisfying, but would probably have offended Victorian sensibilities. Added by User:RichardNeill on 19 June 2007.


 * Please sign your talk page comments with four tildes, like this ~ ~ ~ ~ but without the spaces. That will automatically add your username and date.  Thanks!  -- Ssilvers 18:47, 19 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, I remember that. "The cure for love is marriage", indeed! A very clever idea on Asimov's part. Not sure that Gilbert would have approved though. -- Derek Ross | Talk'' 08:39, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Hmm.
I think this article is going to need a lot of work to get up to GA. Too many unattributed opinions, like the "Constance can safely be played by a light mezzo or a soprano" line. Adam Cuerden talk 04:04, 9 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Oh, I totally agree. I was never happy with that particular statement (but I wasn't unhappy enough to remove it either). I suggest that we try to arrive at a "project view" on which articles ought to be brought up for GA. Thespis represented a significant effort. It is better to put articles up when they're ready, as opposed to putting them up and failing. Marc Shepherd 04:06, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, I was planning on going through the operas in order, so I guess Trial by Jury would be next. But if we're going in order, this one isn't too far off, so we may be in for some nastiness. Adam Cuerden talk 04:09, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree that Trial is the obvious next choice. Let's take things one step at a time. I don't think we have to go in order. If we survive Trial, we can evaluate our priorities then. -- Ssilvers 04:23, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
 * True, though Trial, unreferenced as it is, isn't going to be fun. Oh, well. I'll break out Stedman and Crowther and make a start. Adam Cuerden talk 04:40, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Non-notable Jessie Bond fact
The fact that Constance is required to sing an A, even if it is the highest note among the "Bond" roles (I haven't checked), seems to me exceedingly unimportant. Some note or another is the highest or lowest for every voice category. So what? All we have is the unremarkable fact that Sullivan, like most composers, wrote for the capabilities of the singers who created the roles. The Sergeant goes lower than the other "Barrington" roles, though Barrington later played it. Etc., etc., etc. Is it notable? I don't think so. Someone casting the show, or considering an audition, will look at the score and figure out the range requirements. Marc Shepherd 16:22, 9 November 2007 (UTC)


 * OK, OK. Sheesh.  -- Ssilvers 17:10, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Overture
Elsewhere in WP, Ssilvers asks if we are sure the 1884 Overture by Hamilton Clarke survives. On checking my shelves I find that though the 1884 published score includes the overture that is familiar today (Hughes, p. 131) I can find no evidence that Clarke assembled it. There is an unsupported assertion to that effect on the D'Oyly Carte Who's Who site "Hamilton Clarke" but you mustn't tell us what she told you; it's not evidence. Has anyone got a citable authority that Clarke wrote the 1884 overture? Tim riley (talk) 18:03, 16 January 2009 (UTC)


 * The Hulme dissertation says that, but I don't have time (and don't expect to have time) to give you a page cite. Who's Who seems to me a reliable source, but in any event, is anyone arguing for any other authorship? Marc Shepherd (talk) 18:34, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

No, I agree that Stone is quite reliable, but he generally relies on the usual secondary sources. I'm just checking, because, unlike the cases of Ruddigore and The Mikado, where there is much discussion of Clarke's overtures, there is very little about his Sorcerer overture. It seems a little strange. So, I am just wondering whether the modern scores use Clarke's overture or an older Sullivan overture or something else. We don't want to assert that it has survived, citing Stone, and then find out that we're wrong. Someone must know the answer to this with certainty: any idea who? -- Ssilvers (talk) 22:44, 16 January 2009 (UTC)


 * As far as I know, Sorcerer only ever had two overtures. The 1877 overture was a bit of "Oh, marvellous illusion" tacked onto the Graceful Dance from Sullivan's Henry VIII. That was never published. The 1877 vocal score didn't print any overture at all. Every score in print since 1884 has included the Clarke overture. Marc Shepherd (talk) 13:28, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

OK, thanks. -- Ssilvers (talk) 16:36, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

External link
I have removed a link from this and other G&S pages for reasons given at Talk:The_Mikado - Tim riley (talk) 11:28, 28 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I agree that the link can't be used here. See also WP:EL.  Best regards, -- Ssilvers (talk) 18:24, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

In popular culture
I believe that it can be merged with either reception or analysis. It does not really contain much information for a section. vvvt 01:26, 23 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I don't mind either way. I had originally put it in Reception, but I am happy for it to be separate.  Perhaps we will find more items.  -- Ssilvers (talk) 01:52, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

GA?
This looks like satisfying good article criteria to me:
 * 1) Prose seems clear (though need some cleanup, ture) and it seem to comply to all listed guidelines to me.
 * 2) Almost every sentence is covered by a citation.
 * 3) It really covers all main aspects. Background section seems to be very strong, even of FA-quality, so do Recordings, Historical casting, and Revisions. Reception, Analysis and Productions could have more info, but contain all really major facts.
 * 4) We have really good images (if we don't, I can get more).

Anything preventing us from nominating it to GAC? vvvt


 * Although you have done some excellent work in this article, I do not think it is ready for GA. It could use a lot more on the patterns that it set up for later operas, for example.  Probably Gervase Hughes has more musical analysis, as does (ack) Williamson.  I suggest that you get a peer review first - that will give us a better chance of understanding whether it is ready and may get you some very helpful comments.  I hate to get a FAILURE notation in the milestone history.  -- Ssilvers (talk) 22:16, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Pattern for later Savoy operas
I experience a strong déjà lu when reading that section. Why parts of it were copied from Trial by Jury? vvvt 17:42, 25 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Because the information is also relevant here. Do you disagree?  With what exactly?  These are the first two surviving Gilbert and Sullivan operas, and they both were important in establishing patterns for the later operas.  Even Pinafore was important in confirming these patterns.  So each of these operas need to discuss that.  We cannot assume that the reader will have read the information presented in another article - we need to give it here also.  -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:51, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Trial, Sorcerer and Pinafore all had important role in establishing patterns for Savoy operas; however, I believe in articles about operas we should focus on the patterns developed in that specific opera. The general discussion of other patterns should really be in the main article (which completely misses any analysis of that kind). vvvt 00:31, 26 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Can you tell us what text, exactly, you do not think belongs in this article? I tried to add only text that I thought was relevant to this article.   -- Ssilvers (talk) 15:35, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm afraid reader can get strong impression that Gilbertian use of chorus appeared in The Socerer, while it was already presented in Trial. Also, if we are going to discuss the costumes and the setting in the article about The Sorcerer, we should discuss them in Sorcerer, not Pinafore (like now) or anything else. Didn't Rollins and Witts had an appendix about dress? I recall it was cited in some article. By the way, can the tradition of opening chorus be traced to earlier genres? Apparently not Offenbach, maybe something else. vvvt 21:23, 27 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I have clarified that The Sorcerer was not the first use of the chorus.  However, it was important in confirming that this is how they would use the chorus in the future.  Remember that in Trial, the women were seated the whole time, except for a small group of "bridesmaids".  Also, Sorcerer was the first time that G&S and Carte had full control over the theatre, so anything they did here really established or "confirmed" the pattern, even if they had tried it out earlier.  As to the sets, I removed the reference to Pinafore, although I think it is a good example, and the FA reviewers thought that it was relevant in the Trial discussion.  But there is probably something specific about it in either Stedman (I can check this) or Crowther (you will have to check that).  Opening chorus:  Many of the Offenbach operettas have no chorus at all.  Earlier operas have an opening chorus.  Carmen starts with the soldiers' chorus.  But I don't know if any other composer or team used it habitually as G&S do.  -- Ssilvers (talk) 23:29, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Popularity of Sorcerer
I think we are overstating the unpopularity of the opera. It is performed in dozens of productions around the world every year. Bradley was wrong about the lack of professional productions. In New York alone, the American Savoyards, (1950s and 1960s), the Light Opera of Manhattan (1960s to 1980s) and the New York Gilbert and Sullivan Players (1970s to present) all produced numerous professional productions of The Sorcerer. I doubt that Bradley is even correct about British productions. In any event, since his annotated libretti came out in 1996, there have been several professional productions of The Sorcerer in Britain. The Gilbert and Sullivan Opera Company did it in Buxton at least twice at the International G&S Festival, and Opera della Luna produced it in 2009 and 2010. -- Ssilvers (talk) 16:14, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree that reader can get an impression that it's more unpopular than it really is (will try to fix it). I do not have any sources about any production of The Sorcerer other than original one; that's why I believed Bradley on that (though it seemed weird to me). Could you please point me to sources about productions so I can expand the corresponding section? vvvt 17:53, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't think it needs much expansion - we'll never find all the examples; it just shouldn't give wrong information. Note that the Brent Walker Video described in the Recordings section was a professional TV production. There may have been dozens of professional productions around the world that I don't know about. Of course Ohio Light Opera has done it, as well as Light Opera Works and Light Opera Oklahoma, and most of the other professional light opera companies in the US. Regarding just the three companies that I mentioned at the beginning of this thread: For American Savoyards, see the References section for American Savoyards and this 1954 production. For Light Opera of Manhattan, see Allen, Raymond. The Best of Gilbert & Sullivan: 42 Favorite Songs from the G&S Repertoire. Chappell Music Company. Also see this by John Kendrick and this and this. this mentions LOOM's Sorcerer. New York Times review of LOOM's Sorcerer. another. Re: New York Gilbert and Sullivan Players, here is a review of their Sorcerer. 1987 notice. 2001 notice

Concerning edit
Three edits made to this article concern me. First, it was stated that Bradley said something that he did not say. Therefore, I am now worried that Crowther is not being presented accurately. What exactly did Crowther write? Second, the names of the Holt books were deleted (these are reliable published sources that prove the fact of their own existence) and then a Cite Needed tag was added. Please do not delete sources and then ask for them! Also, please explain why the reference to Charlotte MacLeod's book was deleted. I note that in both cases, the edit summary did not mention that material was deleted. Thanks. -- Ssilvers (talk) 16:19, 26 August 2010 (UTC)


 * May you clarify what was wrongly attributed to Bradley? Crowther is available in Google Books (at least in California); there seems to be a not quite correct citation to p. 98 (Crowther says that "this hardly appears to be the case from a modem perspective: we find it difficult to see why it is axiomatically absurd that a baronet should marry a pew opener"; nothing about operatic conventions) . Also, I tried to summarize his lengthy discussion on why Pinafore was more successful than Sorcerer in one sentence (that's Crowther, pp. 97–105, passim). I could have not succeed in it, so I believe it's worth reviewing. vvvt 00:41, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes. Bradley does not say that Sorcerer is the least popular G&S opera, so I removed that statement from the article. I agree that we need to do research to better establish the connection between The Sorcerer and the conventions of "pastoral opera", but I do not have time to do the research on that right now. That is one reason why I do not think we are ready for GA. I will try to review the Crowther material when I can. -- Ssilvers (talk) 01:19, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Conventions of "pastoral opera"? I do not really get it. Either I misinterpreter the term "pastoral", or I miss the pastoral component in Sorcerer. WP:GACR says about addressing main aspects of the topic (unlike FA, for which we are not ready). Isn't peer review usually done between GA and FA? vvvt 01:45, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Material for reception section
This 1886 review of an authorised Australian production has a good description of what the reviewer thought of the show as compared to other G&S operas: http://crash.ihug.co.nz/~melbear/homepage.htm -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:57, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Cultural impact
There was extensive discussion about this in the run up to the Pinafore FAC. Many editors had varying opinions about this section, and the compromise reached was to put it as far down in the article as possible. -- Ssilvers (talk) 23:47, 27 August 2010 (UTC)


 * May you point me to that discussion, please? I basically modelled the analysis section on Trial by Jury article, which unlike Pinafore and like Sorcerer has few cultural references. By the way, maybe we should do like in Trial article? Rename "Cultural impact" to "Impact" and add a few sentence about historic significance of the operas? I may find some citations about that. vvvt 00:27, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

No, sorry, I do not have time to look for it now. If you look through the milestones links on the Pinafore talk page (or possibly even/also in the talk page discussions, you will find it. -- Ssilvers (talk) 01:19, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Charles Santley
Williamson (p. 47) claims that "Time was when Love and I were well acquainted" was a favourite of Charles Santley when singing at private parties. I'm not sure where it should be placed. vvvt 06:46, 28 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure if we should believe her.  See if you can find this anywhere else.  I suppose it could go in cultural impact if true.  -- Ssilvers (talk) 07:14, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Revival
The article says that "The opera was not revived professionally in the UK until March 29, 1970." Other sources, however, say it was first revived in 1971 (Bradley 2005, p. 40; Marc Shepherd on G&S discography). Which is correct? vvvt 21:05, 30 August 2010 (UTC)


 * It is a typo.  The Sorcerer was revived during the 1970-71 season, but it should say "March 1971":  I think Bradley (2005) is good enough evidence (although Rollins and Witts, supplement 2 should have the info - but I don't have that).  Of course, there were various recordings earlier, as listed in the Discography.  Fixed.  But, checking the online edition, it appears to be p. 44, not p. 40, right?  Best regards!  -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:45, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I meant that Bradley (2005). I have no idea why Google lists his annotated libretti as 2005. My copy says it is 1996, reprinted in 2001. vvvt 22:08, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it is 1996. Google fooled me for a minute there! Good eye! OK, either reference will do, as they both have the info. I changed it to p. 40, as you suggested. Thanks! -- Ssilvers (talk) 00:36, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Ahrimanes scene
Once again, VV, I disagree with your use of the sources, and I wonder what, exactly, Williamson said (I used to have Williamson, but I guess I threw it away as crap). Stedman says, in fact, that the scene was "sensibly" deleted, though it leaves the opera with a "hurried" ending. But almost all of the G&S operas have a "hurried" ending, and I would argue that they are part of Gilbert's pacing preference, and also funny in themselves, as they are so abrupt. In "Ruddigore", Robin nods to this joke by saying "I can't stop to apologize...." Anyhow, clearly very few people would agree that removing the scene harms the opera, or else they would put it back in. The opera has been out of copyright for 50 years, and a few directors have experimented with the scene, but it is terrible. I have seen it in three or four different productions and hated it every time. I turned your sentence into a footnote, but, like our new friend's contributions, I find it of dubious value, at best. Sorry! -- Ssilvers (talk) 17:37, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
 * OK, I'll try to reformulate it. vvvt 17:44, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Threw it away. I'm again was bad at formulating things. I will recheck the whole article at some point. Is Williamson as bad as Wren? (I read the latter book carefully enough, and noticed more nonsense than in Williamson) vvvt 17:51, 12 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Excellent question: No! Nothing is as bad as Wren.  Wren is not just crap, it is smelly crap.  However, Wren does have a bibliography at the end that is sometimes useful.  As I said, Williamson is useful because she gives her impressions of the text and music of the shows in more detail than other sources (although Gervase Hughes is helpful for music analysis).  The problem with Williamson is that it is all her own impressions: she has not done good research, and many of her assumptions grow out of her ignorance.  Wren, on the other hand, is both arrogant and a horrible researcher.  -- Ssilvers (talk) 18:07, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Ahrimanes
Williamson (unlike Stedman) is not actually aware of Ahrimanes scene, she just notes that it is unclear why did J. W. Wells or Alexis had to be sacrificed. Regardless of whether Ahrimanes scene is bad or not, I cannot disagree with Williamson's/Stedman's point, Ahrimanes indeed appears very suddenly in the modern script without any apparent reason. Perhaps I formulated it wrong again. By the way, was that scene actually scored and did the score survive? vvvt 17:40, 12 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I guess you could say, using the Williamson ref, that the reference to Ahrimanes, after the removal of the scene, is anomalous (if you want to - I don't think it adds much), but I don't think it does jar audiences - it's just a naming of the agent of Wells' damnation. I still don't see why you think Stedman says this?  Yes, it was a musical scene.  I have seen it performed with music and believe it was the original music, but I'm not sure.  -- Ssilvers (talk) 18:10, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Sullivan probably did set the Ahrimanes scene. The text is in the license copy, which by law had to be filed with the Lord Chamberlain's office seven days before opening night. Any passage that, as of 7 days ahead of time, the authors still believed would be performed, was probably put into rehearsal.

However, Sullivan's setting has not survived. In any production you've seen that included the Ahrimanes scene, you did not hear Sullivan's music. That, more than anything, is probably the reason why most productions do not include it. Most directors, I think, are justifiably hesitant to insert music that Sullivan didn't write. If Sullivan's setting were available, I think you would see it performed a lot more often.

I am not weighing in on the artistic merits of the scene (my opinion here would be irrelevant anyway), just pointing out the facts. I do agree that, as it now stands, the reference to Ahrimanes at the end of the opera is odd; without the earlier scene, most people would have no idea what Mr. Wells is talking about. Marc Shepherd (talk) 19:12, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Two changes
Sorry, but I disagree with both changes that you made here. First, I think that 'British duo' is an elegant way to note that they were British without adding a sentence or making people click on them to find out. Second, while it is true that Sorcerer was one of the less popular G&S operas, it was much more popular than Savoy Operas like Jane Annie and, in fact, the vast majority of the non G&S Savoy operas. Also, I do not think it is better to break this sentence in two with a semicolon. Semicolons should be used sparingly, and the sentence was well-written without it. I'm sorry to disagree with you, because you have done so much excellent work on the article. All the best, -- Ssilvers (talk) 22:07, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
 * The current versions says "The modest success ... remains". As far as I am aware this is grammatically incorrect. I changed G&S to Savoy to avoid duplication of "Gilbert and Sullivan" within same sentence. I am actually happy that you disagree with me because you are apparently better at copyediting than I and may suggest proper solutions of those problems. vvvt 22:40, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Good point. I made a change - see if you like it. -- Ssilvers (talk) 03:46, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Brindisi reprise
The article currently says "Tea-Cup Brindisi reprise – 1884 version only". However I'm pretty sure that this should be 1877 version only. I took part in a production of the 1884 version earlier this year but we had both scores and the reprise only appeared in the 1877 score. Hence we collapsed senseless at the end of the "Marvellous Illusion" -- there was no reprise. So I think this needs to be changed. -- Derek Ross &#124; Talk'' 02:54, 9 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Right you are! Thanks.  -- Ssilvers (talk) 04:34, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

"Carte"
Isn't "Carte" a solipsism for the usual "D'Oyly Carte"?--Wetman (talk) 01:32, 17 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Richard D'Oyly Carte's surname was "Carte". D'Oyly was a given name. -- Ssilvers (talk) 05:13, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

Variorum, errors in Bradley
I have revised some information about the cuts and revisions based on the 2015 scholarly book, The Variorum Gilbert & Sullivan. This contradicts Bradley in several respects. Here is a bit of background explained in the Variorum: Early in his career, Sullivan used music paper that was taller than it was wide (portrait orientation). All of the operas up to Iolanthe (1882) used this type of paper. Starting with Princess Ida (1884), Sullivan switched to landscape orientation. The 1884 material in The Sorcerer manuscript is written on the 'landscape' paper. See Variorum, p. 24. In the Sorcerer manuscript, the overture and the new opening of Act II are entered on the landscape paper, dating them to the 1884 production. However, the revised ending of the Act I finale and the lower-key versions of Constance's arias are entered on the portrait paper, so those changes must have been made during the original production (but after the original publication of the score), contrary to what Bradley said. See Variorum, p. 415. However, the published score was not revised to reflect these changes until 1884. I have removed the statement that the second verse of Constance's first aria was deleted in the 1920s, about which Bradley was in error. The second verse was deleted starting with the third issue of the libretto, dating from late 1877. See Variorum, p. 424. -- Ssilvers (talk) 19:15, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on The Sorcerer. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100610053040/https://www.gsarchive.net/sorcerer/so_vs_rev.pdf to https://www.gsarchive.net/sorcerer/so_vs_rev.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 23:14, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Please clarify
". . . the first rehearsals took place on 27 October, and the part of J. W. Wells was filled only by that time." So only that one part had been filled? or was it filled at the last moment? Doug butler (talk) 22:09, 9 August 2022 (UTC)


 * It was filled at the last moment. -- Ssilvers (talk) 22:27, 9 August 2022 (UTC)