Talk:The Tales of Hoffmann discography

Layout of the table
Kleinzach, a couple of I hope constructive comments: for some reason the table omits Dr Miracle, who has as much to sing as a couple of the other list roles. Secondly with 8 (or 9) characters, I think a layout with roles and conductor on the left axis and recordings (year/label) across the top would look better, though I am not really able to make such a design and I know is not standard for these articles. Cg2p0B0u8m (talk) 23:16, 20 December 2009 (UTC)


 * The present table may not be ideal but I do think having the year on the left in the standard way makes sense. The standard Opera Project format is given here. I'm sure it could be updated but that would have to be discussed with the project. If you want to add Dr Miracle that's fine by me, but perhaps the column should be widened to accommodate two names per line. Also we need to fill in all those missing names. -- Klein zach  23:35, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

(H), (O), (G),
IMO this HOG etc. coding looks a bit ugly on the page and is also confusing for the reader. How about changing to this style?

e.g. 1996:
 * Roberto Alagna,
 * Natalie Dessay,
 * Sumi Jo,
 * Leontina Vaduva,
 * Jose van Dam (Coppelius, Dapertutto, Lindorf),
 * Catherine Dubose

Would this be simpler and easier for the reader? -- Klein zach  23:25, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Possible revision of the table
While agreeing with Kleinzach that the above would be simpler, retaining the table format does require moving away from the "standard" one in the interests of clarity.

Given the extraordinary number of roles and permutations of singers in them, I wonder how the following examples might work. There are 3 versions here: one uses abbreviations (which I'd prefer not to see); another only uses them where necessary; the third totally spells out the characters' names.....

Any thoughts....?? Viva-Verdi (talk) 17:34, 28 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks. The last looks the best — assuming my own suggestion (above) isn't favoured. (BTW I think it's over the top to add Andrès, Cochenille, Pitichinaccio, and Frantz, though I realize they are now in the article. ) -- Klein zach  15:50, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Of these, my preference I would rank 3, 1, 2. Cg2p0B0u8m (talk) 23:43, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

List
I can't see a successful design for a table if all those roles are to be incorporated. My suggestions is a structured list, e.g.:


 * 1948: André Cluytens, Theatre National de l'Opéra-Comique orchestra and chorus, EMI France
 * Hoffmann: Raoul Jobin
 * Olympia: Renée Doria
 * Giulietta: Vina Bovy
 * Antonia: Géori Boué
 * Coppélius: André Pernet
 * Dapertutto: Charles Soix
 * Lindorf: Louis Musy
 * Miracle: Roger Bourdin
 * Nicklausse: Fanély Revoil
 * Frantz: Bourvil
 * 1964–65: André Cluytens, Paris Conservatoire Orchestra, Rene Duclos Choir, EMI
 * Hoffmann: Nicolai Gedda
 * Olympia: Gianna D'Angelo
 * Giulietta: Elisabeth Schwarzkopf
 * Antonia: Victoria de los Ángeles
 * Coppélius, Miracle: George London
 * Dapertutto: Ernest Blanc
 * Lindorf: Nicola Ghiuselev
 * Nicklausse: Jean-Christophe Benoit

That list of characters/artists could of course be made into an indented table:


 * 1948: André Cluytens, Theatre National de l'Opéra-Comique orchestra and chorus, EMI France

Olympia: Renée Doria Giulietta: Vina Bovy Antonia: Géori Boué Dapertutto: Charles Soix Lindorf: Louis Musy Miracle: Roger Bourdin Nicklausse: Fanély Revoil Frantz: Bourvil
 * valign=top| Hoffmann: Raoul Jobin
 * valign=top| Coppélius: André Pernet
 * }


 * 1964–65: André Cluytens, Paris Conservatoire Orchestra, Rene Duclos Choir, EMI

Olympia: Gianna D'Angelo Giulietta: Elisabeth Schwarzkopf Antonia: Victoria de los Ángeles Dapertutto: Ernest Blanc Lindorf: Nicola Ghiuselev Nicklausse: Jean-Christophe Benoit
 * valign=top| Hoffmann: Nicolai Gedda
 * valign=top| Coppélius, Miracle: George London
 * }

Unlike a table, this design allows for casts lists of more or fewer characters. My 2¢. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 14:00, 9 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I personally prefer the second style. (I think the first has a bit too much white space.) Would it be possible to add lines? Perhaps in between each entry? How would that be? -- Klein zach  14:51, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I, too, prefer the second form. I'm pretty sure lines can be added, but an example for the kind of lines would be useful. Michael Bednarek (talk) 15:00, 9 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I don't remember seeing anything, but perhaps just an thin outline box around each individual entry? Is that easy to do? -- Klein zach  15:11, 9 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I agree that #2 here and dropping the table is a good idea. Am not sure how to have lines between except by placing the copy in a table of 1 column occupying the full width and x rows (where x = number of recordings on the list) deliniating each recording. Viva-Verdi (talk) 16:23, 9 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I misunderstood "lines" – I thought lines of text were meant, where you really meant graphic delineation lines. Following Viva-Verdi's idea, it looks like this:


 * Or as a single table:


 * I think the second of theses looks better. Michael Bednarek (talk) 13:38, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Just a note to say ...
... (as the perpetrator of the current version of the table) that I really don't care one way or the other about how it's arranged. I do have one suggestion, though: now that we're moving away from the standard WP:WPO format - for very good reasons, IMO - would someone be interested in knocking up the sort of table that Cg2p0B0u8m (talk) first suggested? If no-one volunteers, I can have a go myself.

A couple of other things:
 * I do feel that all four of the four servants ought to be included. Yes, I know that they don't have a lot to sing and only Frantz has an aria (but then Giulietta doesn't have an aria), but they are almost always played by the same singer, often quite distinguished ones, such as Hugues Cuénod, Michel Sénéchal, Robert Tear and Graham Clark.
 * It's worth looking at the .de article here, where the versions used in the recordings they list are shown.

Oh, and I have a plan to radically improve the article on the opera - there ought to be a lot more about what Offenbach wanted and what Guiraud, Oeser, Kaye and others have done. Anyone else interested, please contact me on my Talk page. --GuillaumeTell 19:07, 9 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I think that Michael Bednarek's second and single table (above) is the way to go.  If we have further info on the recordings (Cat. No. etc), should they wrap or be on a line below (smaller font/). Viva-Verdi (talk) 17:06, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Trying table with a third recording
The question here is what happens when one singer plays multiple roles: Viva-Verdi (talk) 23:45, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
 * All roles consecutively - then 1 singer name?
 * Role names, one per line - repeat of name?


 * Mmm. I've been thinking about this and I feel the central vertical line may mislead people into thinking that the opera is in two parts with different characters in each. I don't think there would be problem if we just had columns. (Having Hoffmann and the ladies (+Nicklausse?) on the left is fine.) What do other people think? -- Klein zach  23:58, 12 January 2010 (UTC)


 * So maybe just fill the left side and let anyting else wrap over onto the right side....?? (SEE CHANGED LAYOUT ABOVE) Viva-Verdi (talk) 05:15, 13 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Well, it's the line itself that bothers me, not really the names . . . Maybe it's difficult to take out the line? -- Klein zach  06:38, 13 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Here's a version without graphic dividing lines between the two columns showing the cast:


 * -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 06:59, 14 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes, I think that's the best! -- Klein zach  11:22, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Indeed, this looks great. I think it will serve us well, so I'll work on it a bit today.Viva-Verdi (talk) 15:21, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Template
The code above uses some unusual HTML constructs, so I'm thinking of creating a template, or rather a sequence of two templates for it. The first question is, how such a template should be named; I currently lean towards  and. They would be invoked as follows:

The first parameter is the header text, the second the left list, the third the right list. Such templates make it a bit easier to create tables in this format, if this is judged to be useful – i.e. if there's a chance such a table layout might be used for other works. It might take me two or three days to implement such templates. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 07:57, 15 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I assume we are only intending to use this once, is that right? Or do we have another candidate? If it's going to be a template, how about  and   so that it's clear it's a special use thing. -- Klein  zach  08:57, 15 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes, it should be used sparingly when cast lists as huge or as complicated (mulitiple roles with 1 singer, etc.) exist. So "special opera discography" makes sense. Viva-Verdi (talk) 23:41, 15 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Table now restructured. The creation of a template can wait until/if needed. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 13:38, 16 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Looks terrific. Thanks. -- Klein zach  15:28, 16 January 2010 (UTC)