Talk:Walter Berry (bass-baritone)

Walter Bery
Is this a typo or was this his original name? Kostaki mou (talk) 03:34, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

never in London?
"Astonishingly, Berry never played on stage in London the role with which he perhaps became most closely linked, Papageno, despite a career on stage that spanned more than 40 years."

But wasn't the EMI Classics recording of the Magic Flute with Otto Klemperer from a performance in London? Maltodextrin (talk) 07:26, 22 June 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maltodextrin (talk • contribs) 07:22, 22 June 2012 (UTC)


 * I question the whole sentence. Who exactly is being astonished, and why?  He was Austrian; he sang with the Vienna State Opera his whole career, and he also made some appearances abroad, such as the Met in NY.  Why was there some expectation that he should have sung in London, and why shouldn't that be extended to La Scala, the Paris Opera, La Monnaie, or wherever?  We're here to tell people what did happen, not what didn't happen, unless the absence of something was completely abnormal and exceptional.  --  ♬  Jack of Oz  ♬  [your turn]  08:16, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Precursory research suggests the EMI Classics recording was a studio version??? That being said, some 12 years later, I agree wholeheartedly with the latter sentiments expressed by @JackofOz, and am not entirely sure why this line (even assuming it is true) is still here. There are plenty of opera singers with long careers that have not performed in a specific city or country at all, let alone a specific role. As noted, it lacks any context as to why it would be (or would not be) astonishing.
 * Did Berry perform almost exclusively in London? Nope. It is not evident from the article or this particular sentence how many times (or when) he *did* perform in London either. If he only performed in London five times over forty years, e.g., it might be considerably less astonishing than if he did so 100 times.
 * Did Berry only perform as Papageno? Nope. He performed plenty of other roles, and he actually did perform as Figaro with the Vienna State Opera in London (still Mozart, just not Magic Flute). Which, I'll point out, this very same article elsewhere notes was also considered one of his "signature roles".
 * It is also not evident here whether Papageno was the staple role during the entirety of his 40+ year career. If there were, for example, only five to ten years where people were like "We need someone for Papageno... I know, let's get Walter Berry", then that would also make this seem significantly less "astonishing". Singer's voices tend to change over time, as might their roles. In retrospect, one might then look back and say "I'll always associate singer X with role Y", but that doesn't mean it's the only thing they did or that certain *other* singers didn't become more desirable to fill role Y over the course of singer X's career. It's not like Walter Berry is, or was, the only person to sing Papageno.
 * I think at the very least this should not be described as "astonishing". Without additional context or actual attribution, this could simply be chalked up as a matter of the contributor's opinion MOS:OP-ED. A more appropriate sentence (assuming this is true) might be something like "Berry never performed as Papageno on stage in London, despite this being a role for which he was known."
 * However, were we to make this replacement accordingly, the above starts to look a lot more like an irrelevant piece of trivia. London is by no means a focus of the article. Walter Berry was not born in London, did not live in London nor did he train in London (in any notable sense anyway, albeit to my limited knowledge). He sang there, yes. But as noted, does this alone justify the inclusion of what he *didn't* sing "on stage" there, even if it were one of his "signature roles"? Imagine if we gave the page of every opera singer this same treatment.
 * Under different circumstances, I might have only *proposed* deletion on account of WP:INDISCRIMINATE. However given the passage of time since these concerns were first raised and the lack of dissent, I think it more prudent to simply delete the offending material and direct people here to the talk page. If people have reason why they think this sentence should remain, then they are welcomed to discuss it here and/or undo my edit. 68.132.39.131 (talk) 08:37, 1 February 2024 (UTC)


 * Very well said. I concur. -- Jack of Oz   [pleasantries]  10:37, 1 February 2024 (UTC)