Talk:Ruddigore

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
This article is part of WikiProject Gilbert and Sullivan, an attempt to complete and improve the Gilbert and Sullivan related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
High This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale for the G&S Project.

Article Grading:
The article has been rated for quality and/or importance but has no comments yet. If appropriate, please review the article and then leave comments here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article.

Contents

[edit] Deleted Passage

A recent editor deleted this passage:

As with most Gilbert and Sullivan works, Ruddigore is not as straightforward as it first appears. It uses the form of a comedy – melodrama – to question what the meaning of Good and Evil. The Good characters are all good in rather unpleasant ways or for bad reasons, whereas the Bad Baronet is evil for relatively noble reasons. For instance he uses the results of his evil deeds to support charitable institutions. The plot summary should be read with these thoughts in mind.

There are some sensible ideas in this paragraph, but awkwardly expressed. I assume the deleting editor was concerned that it wasn't backed up by any citable source. It was simply some prior contributor's personal view of what Ruddigore is about. Marc Shepherd 18:54, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes, in fact that was (and is) my view of the opera. I contributed it before the current No Original Research policy was in place. It is reasonable to remove it since I doubt that any citations can be found for it. Nevertheless I believe that there is some truth in it, however awkwardly expressed. -- Derek Ross | Talk 03:14, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Dear all: I added some stuff to the introduction that, I think, gives some of the flavor of what the contributor was getting at. See what you think. Sam Silvers (April 26)

Looks fine to me, Sam. -- Derek Ross | Talk 03:17, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Line assignments for the named ghosts

Thought I'd add a clarification to that odd list of ghosts. I'm not quite sure if it's quite right yet, or if it comes off a bit dismissive, which, as you can imagine, is not my intent since this is, after all, my favourite Gilbert and Sullivan opera. See what you think. Adam Cuerden 20:52, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

I did indeed find it a bit dismissive, and reworded it a bit. Marc Shepherd 03:11, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Hmm. One thing that's a bit odd: All eight named ghosts were originally assigned a cast member, as seen here: http://diamond.boisestate.edu/gas/ruddigore/html/rudd_cast.html , but it's difficult to see how the mass marrying off to ghosts would work with a mere 8 men to the standard chorus of 20, and only 5 ghosts are given business in the play, 6 if you count the bishop. Any idea what's going on?

The four ghosts each speak twice. Maybe originaly each of those eight little lines was given to a different cast member? --Ssilvers 02:24, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
I don't understand what the earlier commenter (who didn't sign his post) thought was so odd. The named ghosts weren't the full chorus; they were merely the ones who had individual spoken lines. Gilbert assigned the lines during rehearsal (just as directors do today), but in his libretto he didn't feel compelled to specify which ghost would say each line. Marc Shepherd 03:11, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
'Twas I. Just that the count only ever reaches four shosts, plus the bishop, and many of the numbered ghosts have catch phrases. My best guess would be that the original production only had eight ghosts, but that doesn't make very much sense, if you're going to marry the maidens off to the ghosts... Ah, well. Adam Cuerden 14:53, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
Aha! We have a canny researcher! Adam Cuerden 15:00, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for raising the issue. It is well documented how many choristers were at the Savoy. It was about 20 of each. I have no idea why Gilbert named only eight of them in the d.p., and then assigned the dialogue to "1st ghost" thru "4th ghost." But there are little inconsistencies like this scattered throughout Gilbert's libretti. Gilbert and Sullivan fans have had 125 years, more or less, to to puzzle over these things. Gilbert was just trying to put a show onstage.
I've revised the main article to reflect the fact that Gilbert did indeed assign each of the named ghosts at least one line of dialogue, thus contravening his own captions of "1st" thru "4th". I think it is safe to assume that when Gilbert wrote the libretto, he didn't particularly care who the speakers would be. In his own mind, "1st" thru "4th" meant, "I'll figure it out later." That was the luxury he had in his dual roles of both author and director. Marc Shepherd 15:03, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
Wait... just to check, doesn't the pre-revision libretto (Ruddygore, as opposed to Ruddigore) have additional lines for the ghosts? Adam Cuerden 14:47, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
It does. My comment referred to the final version of the text. I don't believe any citable source has identified how those other lines would have been allocated had they not been cut. Marc Shepherd 15:46, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
Hmm. Poking around on the G&S archive gives us Ian Bond's version, (with original ending complete with "Fallacy somewhere!" running gag applied to Rupert.) - How rigorous is Ian's work, or is it just a reconstruction? Adam Cuerden 03:26, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
The article already has a section describing the various versions of Ruddigore, which mentions that the ghost dialogue scene was originally longer. Feel free to add to it if you think something significant has been left out, but it seems to me to cover the subject adequately. I haven't read Ian Bond's archive libretto lately, but he is usually reliable. Marc Shepherd 13:37, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
Weel, I've revised it a bit: You can't say original production when referring to the Oxford press edition if you mean the revised act II. However, it's now perhaps a bit long. Perhaps we should shrink the text and demote it to footnote status? Adam Cuerden 19:38, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Edit-war on "Away, remorse!"

A recent edit settled on this footnote:

This recitative was originally followed by the song, "For thirty-five years I've been sober and wary". Gilbert and Sullivan were dissatisfied with this and wrote a new patter song to follow the recit: "Henceforth all the crimes that I find in the Times". The latter is published in more of the extant scores, and is probably more often heard, although recent recordings and productions have tended to bring back the original version. Many productions cut the recit. and song completely. See Versions.

To a considerable extent, this just duplicates, or states in a different way, what is already stated in the Versions section. If the Versions section is inadequate, please update that. I have to agree with Adam that, on the whole, the recitative and song (either version of it) is seldom performed. Until the Oxford edition came out, the song was not even in the Chappell vocal score, and I don't believe it came with the standard D'Oyly Carte rental parts. So it's safe to say that, in the UK at least, the song was hardly ever performed until recent times. Marc Shepherd 15:42, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

I think it's worth clarifying that "Away, remorse!" is, in fact, two different songs. However, a better way of doing it occurs to me! Adam Cuerden 12:40, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

I totally disagree that it is rarely performed. That is a POV opinion. If you disagree, let's have an authoritative citation. I have reduced the comment to the facts. BTW, I know that the orchestra parts (with "Henceforth all the Crimes") was widely available for decades prior to the OUP edition. Adam, I found your edit summary to be offensive. I see and perform in a lot more G&S than you do, and not just in NY, so cut out the personal remarks. --Ssilvers 18:47, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

I apologise, Sam, I didn't mean to be personal, I just presumed that you were lucky enough to be able to hear it regularly, whereas in the four or five times I got to see Ruddigore, a couple of them in Buxton, I haven't gotten to yet, and have only ever heard of one that included it: the Edinburgh G&S one that was on a few months before I moved here, which used "For 35 years". As well, the G&S archive mentions it not being used a few times: http://diamond.boisestate.edu/gas/ruddigore/discussion/cuts.html - Arthur Robinson on the song's cutting. http://diamond.boisestate.edu/gas/ruddigore/libretto.pdf Footnote 28: not used in D'Oyly Carte after Toye revisions, and, in addition, a few years ago I had to buy a Schimer score to get a copy of the music, since it wasn't in the Chappell. This does not give the impression of a commonly used number Adam Cuerden 11:11, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
I've revised the article to state that "Henceforth all the crimes" is omitted on all four of the professional recordings of Ruddigore published to date. That is a verifiable fact. There is very little doubt in my mind that a majority of amateur productions do omit the song, and I am surprised that Sam believes otherwise. However, the article now rests on what can easily be verified as true. Marc Shepherd 13:16, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Thank you Adam. I am sure that I over-reacted. Marc, one should not point out that the recordings omitted the number without also pointing out that the Schirmer score, which was the commonly used score in the US, included the number. Also, didn't the famous NSW recording included "For Thirty-Five Years"? I would agree with the statement that the number was "often" omitted, or even "usually" omitted prior to the OUP publication. Now, I am not sure that it is even "usually" omitted, but I would still agree with a statement that it is "often" omitted. Can you guys live with that? Also, one more thing, Adam, would you kindly do me a personal favor by refraining from using the word "whilst" in articles? Even though we are using UK spellings in the G&S articles, we do not need to use "whilst", when the synonymous "while" is correct in all English-speaking countries. --Ssilvers 16:46, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

That footnote needed to go on a diet. I've shortened it, and tried to incorporate all of the relevant material in the main text. Marc Shepherd 18:28, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

OK, good. I removed the reference to "either side of the Atlantic", which I think would have made sense when it was just a Chappell vs. Schirmer issue, but now, with OUP available everywhere, as well as "first night" texts being used, all bets are off, and I think we should just say "there is no standard performing text" if there ever was one. Also, the Blue Hill Troupe did "For Thirty-Five Years" as early as its 1992 production, and I doubt it was alone.

From my SavoyNet poll so far, it appears that in the decades prior to the OUP edition, many university productions and many "well-financed" amateur groups (at least in the US), as well as NYGASP, did "Henceforth all the crimes", while smaller amateur groups and most professional groups generally cut the number altogether. In Australia, so far it appears that "Henceforth all the crimes" was fairly often done. So the orchestra parts must have been readily available. Why does the article say it was "not available"? --Ssilvers 19:20, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm fine with "often". As for whilst... Well... I'll try, but there is a very good reason why I use whilst: because I was when younger for some reason, never able to pronounce while. But whilst, if pronunced with short i, I can easily. Hence, once I moved to Britain, I gleefully dropped while. So "while" isn't really in my vocabulary, even if I'm fully capable of pronuncing it now. Adam Cuerden 20:08, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Marc's latest edit has solved my problem, and I think the "Away remorse" discussion is OK now. --Ssilvers 14:16, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. Ah, well, debating these shades of meaning makes for better articles. And makes me really jealous of you, I might add. Adam Cuerden 14:22, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Song list

Have added in significant parts of the Act I finale, in line with procedure hit upon for H.M.S. Pinafore (people were having trouble finding some of the more famous songs from it in the list of songs, so it was agreed to list all significant parts. Not quite so important with Ruddigore, which only has the one big ensemble piece not broken into smaller numbers, but I'm trying to do it for consistancy over all 14 operas. Adam Cuerden 12:55, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Shouldn't it start off with the words, "Finale Act I..."? --Ssilvers 18:45, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
Good point! Fixed! By the way, I don't have my scores to hand - what's the time signatures of the Act I finale "Oh, happy the lily" and the Act II finale one? I know they're different, but can't think off hand how. (It'd be useful when discussing the Toye revision to the Act II finale Adam Cuerden 10:58, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
I'll try to remember to check this when I get home. --Ssilvers 16:52, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Revisions

The revisions section is, in my opinion, somewhat clunky and inefficient, since instead of, for instance, dealing with the changes from Ruddygore to Ruddigore, it instead lists everything that would be changed from the first night, then GOES BACK AND LISTS IT ALL AGAIN, saying what changed. It alright if I poke about with it to make it flow better? The Toye version probably needs its own section, but we only need two sections, not three bulleted lists. Adam Cuerden 13:02, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree that it would be better to combine the first two lists. --Ssilvers 00:11, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
Just be careful. There are three distinct versions. In combining them, you could very well end up confusing all but those who are already familiar with the background. If anything, a fourth list is needed (to describe pre-production variants). Marc Shepherd 19:57, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
I think I've managed it. I've left the Toye variants in their own section, but since the First night list and revisions during the initial run were essentially the same material divided into two, I combined them. Adam Cuerden 18:23, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
I made some copy edits and said that the Margaret, Desp., Robin scene before No. 23 was also shortened. Or was that done at another time? Marc, take a look and see if you agree with what we did. --Ssilvers 20:04, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
I think there are some mistakes, but rather than guess at it, I'll wait till I have my references at hand. Marc Shepherd 20:15, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
I hope that any mistakes were there, but are just more noticable now. I was trying to be very careful about it. Oh, well! It needed to be done sooner or later, and at least we're all here to catch any errors I may have introduced. Adam Cuerden 20:20, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Commas

There were rather a number of incorrect commas in this article, which I have removed. Here's why I think they're wrong:

The recitative, "Away, remorse!" (No. 21a), led into the patter song "For thirty-five years I've been sober and wary."

It is perfectly correct to list several terms to describe the same thing divided by commas, or to add a clarification set off by commas. For instance, "I, Adam Cuerden, am adding a clarification of my name to this sentence." However, the parentheses are themselves substituting for commas here:

The recitative, "Away, remorse!", No. 21a, led into the patter song "For thirty-five years I've been sober and wary."

E.g "I, Adam Cuerden, the creator of this talk section, am adding further clarifications to this sentence."

However, it looks better with the parentheses as this is a fairly minor clarification. But the fact that we have a parenthetical minor addition changes the rhythm of the phrase - when reading it aloud, one would pause as such:

The recitative "Away, remorse" (pause) No. 21a (pause) led into the patter song "For thirty-five years I've been sober and wary.

Hence, it's better to consider things like "The recitative" and "The patter song" as adjectival phrases, hence not needing commas, when adding the numbers in parentheses, in my opinion. (There were also a few commas that were just wrong, I fear, but this is the more controversial revision)

Adam Cuerden 14:14, 8 August 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Act II Finale

Am I right in thinking that many sources - including the OUP version - suggest a mix of Sullivan ("When a man has been") and Toye (6/8 "Oh happy the lily") in the Act II Finale? If so, this is worth mentioning, but if it's only an occassional thing, it's not. Adam Cuerden 10:43, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

No, I don't think you have this right. OUP PV score does not discuss the Toye version at all. It restores all Toye cuts and shows the material cut during the original run. I think you are wrong when you write: The original Act II finale, "When a man has been a naughty baronet", was replaced with a shortened reprise of the version of "Oh, happy the lily" from the Act I finale (in 9/8, instead of "When a man has been"'s 4/4 vesion). I'm not sure what Toye did to the Act II finale (if anything). What you are describing, but not correctly, is what happened during the original run, I think. I don't think we should be editing this Version stuff without a good source handy to check, because it is very specific. --Ssilvers 13:14, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
...Yes. I think you're right, and shall defer to editing by others on this subject, as it's easy to get confused. Adam Cuerden 13:59, 11 August 2006 (UTC)


[edit] However...

The original finale was unusual, in that it was one of the few times Gilbert and Sullivan included material in a finale that had not been heard earlier in the opera. Sullivan must have liked "When a man has been a naughty baronet," as it was quoted in the overture. Since this passage was dropped from the finale in the 1920s revision, it was also eliminated in the revised overture.

...Actually, this is reasonably common in G&S: Thespis, Trial by Jury, Sorcerer, Pirates of Penzance, Yeomen, Gondoliers, and Utopia all contain material not heard earlier before a repeat (Utopia, of course, lacks a repeat). Half the operas is not a "very few times". It is unusual for containing such a short repeat, and for a significant change to it, but that's not quite what's being said. Also, the transition to "Sullivan must have liked" is awkward. Ah, well.Adam Cuerden 14:38, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I suggest deleting the quoted sentences. --Ssilvers 16:05, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
I thought the meaning was obvious, but I've revised the "offending" passage to make it clearer. Marc Shepherd 16:13, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Clearer, yes, but is it right?. There is lots of new music in the Yeomen Act II finale, and I think Adam is right that there is a significant amount of new music at the very end of the Pirates Act II finale and the Gondoliers Act II finale. I can't speak to Thespis! --Ssilvers 16:34, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

To go through them all:

  • Thespis: Begins at "We can't stand this" or so, none of it seems to fit the rhythm of anything heard previously until we hit the Railway song reprise. Additional content: "We can't stand this", "Jupiter, Mars and Apollo have quitted the dwellings of man", "Let us remain we beg of you pleadingly, and various interjections by Jupiter, etc.
  • Trial by Jury: New: "Oh joy unbounded". Quoted section: end of "When I, good friends"
  • Sorcerer: New: "Or I or he must die", ending chords Quoted: Recit and "Now to the banquet we press"
  • Pirates: New: "Sighing softly to the river", "Now what is this and what is that", "With base deceit", AND "We triumph now". Quotes: a little of the Maj-Gen's song, and Poor wand'ring one. It may be possible to argue the first one or two new sections don't count as part of the Finale, but I'd find it hard to accept ALL of them don't count.
  • Ruddigore: New: "When a man has been a naughty baronet". Quoted, possibly with changes, "Oh happy the lily"
  • Yeomen: New: "Comes the pretty young bride", "They say that joy in true perfection", "Hold pretty one" , "oh day of terror", "Leonard my loved one", and the last "Heighdy"s after the repeat. Quoted: "I have a song to sing-O!"
  • Gondoliers: Even presuming "Here is a case unprecedented doesn't count, we still have "Now let the loyal lieges gather round", Inez's recit., "This statement we receive", and "When others claimed your dainty hand", before the repeated secion: "We're called Gondoleiri" and "Dance a cachucha" (I'm afraid I'm weak on Gondoliers, and so can't recall idf 2Hail, O King of the Golden Land" is a repeat or new"
  • Utopia: New: "There's a little group of isles" Quoted: None.

That's either 7 out of 14, or 6 out of 13 if we remove Thespis. If I'm wrong, please explain how. Adam Cuerden 18:13, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Patience, my friend. I don't think you gave Marc enough time to respond to your review of the finales above. I think that maybe Marc can make some kind of case that "after the denoument" (which is sometimes embedded right in the finales), there is "usually" a reprise and not much new music. Anyhow, I also don't like the remaining sentence about cutting "When a man" from the overture: I think that it goes without saying that, if he cut it from the Act II finale, Toye would not have put it into his new overture. I'm going to wait and let Marc look at this again. In the meantime, may I suggest that the details of the "version" discussions in the operas is perhaps less of a priority than, say, creating a new article on Princess Toto or one of the other tasks on the "to do" list? Regards, --Ssilvers 22:56, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
Aye, I didn't quite mean to preempt Marc from the statement forever, but the second half of that section wasn't fitting comfortably with the first, so I moved it up above (agreed that it needs more rephrasing than I could do), and my logic was "Well, it needs rewritten anyway, I kind of see what Marc's getting at, but the revisions aren't working, so maybe if it starts from scratch it'll come out." ... Maybe I should just make a rule for myself: No edits when exhausted.
Mainly concentrating on the operas because I can do a bit of work on them between studying. Making new articles, or working on my adopted W.S.Gilbert article is a wee bit less appropriate as a respite. And needs more mental powers than anyone has after working out things like "On white skins a classic macropapular rash appeared between days 5 and 7. Beginning on the face and trunk, it soon spread centrifugally to the arms and legs. It was often apparent against a pronounced erythema on the back, face and arms. The rash was not itchy ans was fallowed after 3-4 dats by a fine desquamation" Adam Cuerden 23:34, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
Adam, the key words are "Once the plot was resolved." Leaving aside Thespis, all of your counter-examples occur while the story is still in progress. For Thespis, of course, since we do not have the music, we cannot know what was a reprise, although we know it ends with a reprise of the railroad song. Marc Shepherd 13:01, 13 August 2006 (UTC)


That makes sense, though I think you'd still have to count Trial by Jury the playout of Sorcerer (unless it's from earlier, and I'm mistaken), Ruddigore, last few "Heighdy"s of Yeomen, "This statement we receive" from Gondoliers, and "There's a little group of Isles" from Utopia. Yes, the Sorcerer and Yeomen are much shorter than the others and tacked on to the end of a previous piece, but...
I see your distinction, but must admit that I don't think the language that you'd have to use to describe it can be simplified enough to be worth mentioning in a general article. Adam Cuerden 21:14, 13 August 2006 (UTC)


"Sullivan liked the tune enough to include it in the original overture, but as it was deleted in the 1920s revision, it also was omitted in Geoffrey Toye's revised overture." I agree with the sentence, but do think it's oddly placed where it keeps getting returned to. It's a thought that just doesn't flow out of what came before: We get a description of the changes to the finale, then a digression to talk about how unusual the finale is, then leap back to a description of the original version and changes to it. Can't it be rearranged better than that? Adam Cuerden 10:47, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

The point isn't that important, and as you're uncomfortable with it, I've deleted it entirely. Marc Shepherd 13:09, 14 August 2006 (UTC)


More uncomfortable with the way it's phrased and the interruption of the flow of the section. Point is valid enough. Adam Cuerden 17:20, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../r/u/d/Talk%7ERuddigore_11cf.html"