Talk:Gilbert and Sullivan

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
A summary of this article appears in W. S. Gilbert and Arthur Sullivan.
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.
Top This article has been rated as Top-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.
Other languages WikiProject Echo has identified Gilbert and Sullivan as a foreign language featured article. You may be able to improve this article with information from the Italian language Wikipedia.

Contents

[edit] Collaborations

There were a number of Sullivan Songs with Gilbert texts. I added the three that I know of. Are there other collaborations? If so, they should be added. --Ssilvers 17:52, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

As I wrote earlier (you deleted my comments), there were only two or three songs he wrote with Gilbert outside the Savoy Operas. You have all of them listed. This is confirmed by appendix 3 of Arthur Sullivan: A Victorian Musician, by Arthur Jacobs. Shsilver 21:13, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Effect of copyright expiration

The current edit says:

The expiration of copyright restrictions may have aided this continuing popularity.

I don't know of a citable source for this statement. My sense is that it is incorrect. The G&S copyrights expired in 1961. Are the G&S operas are more popular today than they were in 1961? Probably not; at best, they have held their own, but I'm not even sure of that. Since 1961, there are probably more G&S companies that have disbanded (or broadened their repertories) than new ones formed.

To be sure, there have been positive developments. Mainstream opera companies now include G&S in their repertory occasionally, but this development can be traced to the closure of the D'Oyly Carte Opera Company in 1982, not to the copyright expiration. Before 1982, non-D'Oyly Carte professional productions were rare.

The annual International Gilbert & Sullivan Festival is also a positive development, but as it has been in existence only since 1994, it can't be a consequence of the copyright expiration 33 years earlier. [Marc Shepherd]

The point I am trying to make is that the G&S works' being out of copyright gives them a slight advantage over Broadway musicals and other musical theatre works where royalties have to be paid. I just put in a clarification on this point. [Sam Silvers]
OK, it is too wordy, but I have tried to rework the "effect of copyright expiration" to clarify the points you two have been making. Perhaps one or both of you can make it flow more smoothly after a third party has mixed it up a bit. Pzavon 02:52, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, Peter. I simplified the copyright statements and took out some of the stuff that I thought was too technical for a general introduction. I don't think it needs a citation any more.Ssilvers 19:29, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Much better. Thanks, Sam. [And by the way, remember that four tildas (~) in a row will automatically produce a dated signature.] Pzavon 16:28, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
Hey, I think I finally got it to say what I really meant. OK, guys? -- Ssilvers 06:46, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
I have the same concerns with the statement that I did before. On the whole, the G&S operas are probably less popular and less well-known to the general public than they were in 1961. All things being equal, their non-copyright status is a point in their favour. But the statement that "This may have helped G&S survive fierce competition, especially at the amateur level," is entirely speculative. Although I'm not flagging it for {{cleanup}}, I think an improvement would be to cite Ian Bradley's book, which gives a balanced view of both what has gone wrong, and what has gone right, since 1961. Marc Shepherd 12:52, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
Unfortunately, I don't have that Bradley book. Could you please take a quick look and see if you can find a cite? Thanks --Ssilvers 13:05, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Carte vs D'Oyly Carte

It is a subtle point, but the impresario's last name was "Carte," not "D'Oyly Carte." Once his full name is introduced, further references to the man should be just "Carte." Gilbert's letters to him were "Dear Carte." The literature is overwhelmingly consistent in referring to him as "Carte," not "D'Oyly Carte." His granddaughter was "Miss Carte."

However, the performing company called itself the "D'Oyly Carte Opera Company," and therefore it is correct to use "D'Oyly Carte" when referring to the company. (There can be times where it is ambiguous whether the company or the man is meant, but where it is certain that the man is being referred to, it's just "Carte.") Marc Shepherd 15:21, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Potential duplication

There is quite a bit of duplication between this article and the individual articles on Gilbert and Sullivan. It would probably be appropriate if material related to the collaboration were here. The biographical articles could focus on the creators' backgrounds and accomplishments as individuals. Their collaboration would be described only briefly in the bio articles, making reference to this article where the details would reside. Marc Shepherd 19:45, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Beggar's Opera record

I've just done a pretty substantial rewrite of the historical section. There was a shocking number of outright errors. I've left in the claim that the run of Trial by Jury set a record previously held by The Beggar's Opera, but I have never heard this before, and would be curious about the source. Marc Shepherd 19:45, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Five days later, nobody can come up with a source, so I'm dropping it. Marc Shepherd 02:32, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Patter Song and the "Patter" Character

Did G&S invent the patter song? This musical development was widely imitated elsewhere. --Robert Merkel

The patter song has a long history before G&S. Often in G&S, a patter song is used to introduce a comic character: "When I, good friends was called to the bar," or "My name is John Wellington Wells" or "If you give me your attention, I will tell you what I am." In Mozart's Die Zauberflöte, the comic lead, Papageno introduces himself with "Der Vogelfänger bin ich ja." The most famous of all operatic patter songs is, of course "Largo al factotum," in which Figaro introduces himself in Rossini's Barbiere di Siviglia. Both of these examples were old standards long before either Gilbert or Sullivan was born." --Larry Cantrell

Although there is quite a bit of patter used by in Mozart and others, as well as in musicals, I think it can fairly be said that no one else used the patter song quite as extensively as G&S. Also, most G&S shows have a comic lead that some refer to as the "patter baritone" who usually has at least one and often two or more patter songs, and who is usually the most central character in G&S operas (e.g., The Learned Judge, John Wellington Wells, Sir Joseph Porter, the Major General, Bunthorne, the Lord Chancellor, Ko-Ko, Robin Oakapple and Jack Point). There is a long tradition of the portrayers of these comic character roles singing with a light "character voice". If you listen the the recordings of the Doyly Carte Opera Company prior to 1982, you will hear mostly Martyn Green and John Reed singing these roles in a character voice, although Peter Pratt and George Baker, who also recorded these roles arguably sang more full-voice. In any case, I believe that these roles should be sung differently than, say Captain Corcoran, Gosvenor or Mountararat. There is now a 'pedia entry for patter song. --Ssilvers 03:12, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] H. H. Mencken Quote

Could someone create some link between the text The article by H.L. Mencken written in 1910 makes for interesting reading. and the URL at the bottom of the page? I'm not quite sure how to harmonise footnotes with the external links section. Is there some established procedure for this? --fvw 10:51, 2004 Sep 2 (UTC)

If the sentence needs a pointer to the external links section to make its meaning plain, then it's a failure as a sentence and ought to be amended or scrapped. I have attempted the former remedy. --Paul A 03:01, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)
(Incidentally, might the whole thing not be better situated in The Mikado anyway?)
Having finally read the damn article, it's not even all that interesting (not to mention 'interesting' not being very encyclopedia-like or NPOV). I've just removed the sentence entirely, the external link should be enough. Thanks for the advice. --fvw 12:01, 2004 Sep 13 (UTC)

[edit] Private Lives

This page is very good, but what of the men as people? Their backgrounds, youth, education, politics???

Wasn't one gay and the other jewish or somthing?

Cheers...

Neither of them was gay or Jewish, but they did have private lives. I wonder if thier personal lives might be better covered in separate articles on each of them. This article seems to do quite well as a piece on their artistic collaboration. Pzavon 02:59, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] To Sir or not to Sir, That is the Question

I see that Proteus removed the "Sir" from Gilbert's name in the first sentence, but not from Sullivan's. Realizing that Gilbert received his knighthood much later than Sullivan did, but that, nevertheless, Sullivan wrote some of their joint works before he received his knighthood, what is the most appropriate way to identify the two together when speaking of their entire joint output? Should both be "Sir", just Sullivan, or neither? Pzavon 03:04, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

I think "neither" is the most appropriate, and I have just removed the "Sir" from Sullivan's name. Even after Sullivan was knighted, he was always credited as just plain "Arthur Sullivan" when he was named as a composer. This is evident from any libretto or vocal score published after 1882. Likewise, even after Gilbert was knighted, as an author he continued to be credited as just plain "W. S. Gilbert."
After they were knighted, Gilbert and Sullivan would use "Sir William" or "Sir Arthur" in social situations, and when appearing as a conductor the composer would be credited as "Sir Arthur Sullivan." Marc Shepherd 12:32, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
What they were credited as is irrelevant — it's what they were known as that counts. (And Gilbert wasn't just knighted later, he was knighted after they stopped working together (and in fact after Sullivan had died).) Proteus (Talk) 12:44, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
It was by their own choice that they were credited the way I have described. As Peter Zavon noted above, some of their operas were written before either man was knighted; and, in the end, both were knighted. In their capacity as writers, they were "known as" W. S. Gilbert and Arthur Sullivan. It is simply incoherent to refer to one of them as "Sir...", and the other without "Sir...."
There is a further irony here. Sullivan was knighted for his services to serious music, and most definitely not for his works with Gilbert. To the contrary, his contemporaries viewed him as wasting his time on comic opera. Gilbert, on the other hand, was knighted for his stage works. To omit "Sir" for the collaborator who actually earned his knighthood writing for the stage, while using it for the collaborator who did not, is doubly peculiar. Marc Shepherd 13:58, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
I LOVE Wikipedia. This discussion is even more narrowly focused than discussions on Savoynet. I certainly don't know what's customary in referring to knighted people, but just to throw in my oar, I'd put the Sir in for both, because if I were reading this encyclopedia entry and had no familiarity with the two men, I would not know that they had been knighted at all. By putting in the "Sir" here and a cross reference to their Bio pages, you can put the full explanation of when and why they were knighted on their bio pages and people will be able to easily understand it. Anyhow, I leave it to you guy to decide whether to put the Sirs back in or not. --Ssilvers 15:42, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
Until a few days ago, it was "Sir W. S. Gilbert and Sir Arthur Sullivan," and I didn't really have any problem with that. It is also "Sir" W. S. Gilbert and "Sir" Arthur Sullivan on their respective biography pages. However, on the pages for each of the individual operas, they are just W. S. Gilbert and Arthur Sullivan. I don't have a problem with that either, because they themselves chose to be credited that way. Marc Shepherd 16:11, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The collaborators' names

The current edit gives the collaborators' names as W. S. Gilbert and Arthur Sullivan, which is how the two men chose to be credited for all of their works. (Very early in his career, Sullivan was sometimes credited as "Arthur S. Sullivan," but he quickly dropped the middle initial, probably because he didn't want to broadcast that his initials were ASS.)

The two men's biography pages give their full names – William Schwenck Gilbert and Arthur Seymour Sullivan – but on the page devoted to their collaboration, I think it is best to call them what they called themselves. And certainly, it is difficult to see the logic of the immediately preceding edit, which referred to them as W. S. Gilbert and Arthur Seymour Sullivan. Marc Shepherd 14:46, 5 June 2006 (UTC)


Hi, guys!I am not the last word on British titles, but I do know that you never use the title "Sir" in front of initials, as in "Sir W. S. etc"...it would be "Sir William" only. Since Gilbert didn't go by that name in his working life, it makes sense not to use it when referring to his work. Elise

[edit] Delete links to performing societies? Please vote!

I just added an "External link" to the G&S Archive's performing societies page, which is pretty comprehensive. Marc and I previously discussed deleting all the individual performing groups's links in this entry, since it is not nearly as comprehensive and just a random sample, not very representative of the scores of societies out there, and, IMO, it would be better for people to just go to the Archive link.

Although Marc and I have agreed that deleting these would be preferable for the entry, I am loathe to delete all this material unless there is a clear consensus on the issue. Please weigh in.

I am in favor of deleting them, in favor of the link to the Archive – which provides a more comprehensive list than we have here.
I would also favor deleting the list of "Well-known Gilbert & Sullivan actors." There are a lot of people with Wikipedia articles who sang some Gilbert & Sullivan at some point in their careers. The list is getting unwieldy, and people will keep adding additional examples. (Beverly Sills sang a bunch of G&S early in her career; she is not yet listed, but surely someone will think of it eventually. Lillian Russell sang G&S too. There, that's two additions without even breaking a sweat.) And I question just how "well known" some of these people really are. For mere "lists," a Wikipedia category would handle it a lot better, and would prevent this article from being so long. Marc Shepherd 16:20, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
I think all those people are pretty well-know, or at least well-known to G&S fans. Olson and Ross are probably the least known among the living ones, I would guess, but Ross, at least, is legitimately "notable". By all means, transfer the list of people to a Wiki-list, with a link, but I wouldn't just delete it. By the way, I would add Sills and Russell to such a list. Ssilvers 16:41, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
I agree with the idea of deleting the list of performing groups in favor of the link to the performing groups list in the G&S Archive. Perhaps a separate article about non-professional performing groups would be appropriate, too. There is, after all, at least one book on the subject.
Converting the list of Well-known G&S Actors to a Wikipedia subCategory under G&S also seems a good idea to me. The G&S Category itself seems to me to be rather full. A good many of the actors already have articles included in the G&S category and it would merely be a matter of changing the category entries in those articles. Then, of course, there is question of whether to leave non-actor personallities in the G&S Category or move them ot another subcategory of "G&S People" or some such. The several D'Oyly Cartes, DCOC conductors and such come to mind in this regard. Pzavon 17:00, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
Since there are no objections, I have gone ahead and done it. Ssilvers 04:10, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Removed from Project Musicals

A prior edit added Gilbert and Sullivan to Wikipedia:WikiProject Musical Theatre, which I have "un-done". Gilbert and Sullivan is already part of the opera project. The description of the Musical Theatre project says that it excludes operettas. I assume it excludes operas too. And it is pretty much widely agreed that the G&S works are either operas or operettas, but that they are certainly not musicals. Marc Shepherd 03:21, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Recategorization

Last night (July 7, 2006) user Paul A launched a massive recategorization of the Gilbert & Sullivan-related pages. Where there is a subject with multiple active contributors, it is generally considered poor form to undertake such a fundamental revision without gaining consensus from the community. I have reverted the majority of these edits and launched this topic, where the decision to recategorize (or not) may be considered.

Paul A's proposed hierarchy went something like this

Gilbert and Sullivan
People Associated with Gilbert and Sullivan
Gilbert and Sullivan Performers
Works by W. S. Gilbert
Gilbert and Sullivan Operettas
Songs with lyrics by W. S. Gilbert
Songs from Gilbert and Sullivan Operettas
Works by Arthur Sullivan
Operas by Arthur Sullivan
Gilbert and Sullivan Operettas
Songs with music by Arthur Sullivan
Songs from Gilbert and Sullivan Operettas
Works inspired by Gilbert and Sullivan

In general, it is not considered helpful to have categories with only a small number of entrants. The reader has to go digging through multiple levels of a hierarchy, only to find that there's not much content there.

In that vein, Songs from Gilbert and Sullivan operettas seems like a bad idea. The only G&S song with its own article today is the Major-General's Song, and I doubt there will be many others.

The categories Songs with lyrics by W. S. Gilbert and Songs with music by Arthur Sullivan seem to me similarly misguided. I doubt that there will be very many songs by either man that will justify their own articles. Those that do can be categorized under Works by W. S. Gilbert or Works by Arthur Sullivan.

(If we're going to be that granular, then eventually we'd need Oratorios by Arthur Sullivan, Hymns by Arthur Sullivan, Incidental Music by Arthur Sullivan, Plays by W. S. Gilbert, and so forth. It gets to be ridiculous.)

The category People associated with Gilbert and Sullivan is a mouthful, and I am not sure that it is necessary—there aren't that many of them. Paul A made some changes that struck me as highly peculiar, such as putting Arthur Sullivan and W. S. Gilbert into that category, as if they were "associated" with themselves. I reverted that.

The category Works inspired by Gilbert and Sullivan is another creation not likely to have very many entrants, although I didn't revert the assignment of works to it.

Lastly, I think there might be some value to having a category for the fourteen joint works. Over the years, there has been much debate about what to call their productions — operettas, comic operas, or just plain operas. If there is to be such a category, I suggest using the neutral name "Works by Gilbert and Sullivan," which avoids taking a position on whether they are operas or operettas. (It is worth noting that Gilbert and Sullivan themselves never used the latter term, and neither did most of their contemporaries.)

An alternative would be to create a category "Savoy Operas" for the fourteen G&S operas. Although there are a few "Works by Gilbert and Sullivan" that are not operas (e.g., the songs "Sweethearts" and "The Distant Shore"), these are not likely to generate their own articles. The "Savoy Operas" category might be better, because "Savoy Opera" is also one of the Opera genres.

A simplified hierarchy that is more than adequate for the purpose, and will avoid categories with tiny numbers of entrants, might look like this:

Gilbert and Sullivan
Gilbert and Sullivan performers
Works by W. S. Gilbert
Works by Arthur Sullivan
Operas by Arthur Sullivan
Works by Gilbert and Sullivan or Savoy Operas
Works inspired by Gilbert and Sullivan

I think that's about all we need, and it's much simpler for both editors and readers to follow. Marc Shepherd 14:02, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Addendum: I've browsed a little more, and I see that the category naming convention for composers' works is "Compositions by [composer]". See Compositions by composer. I would therefore rename "Works by Arthur Sullivan" to "Compositions by Arthur Sullivan". I would thus propose as follows:
Gilbert and Sullivan
Gilbert and Sullivan performers
Works by W. S. Gilbert
Compositions by Arthur Sullivan
Operas by Arthur Sullivan
Gilbert and Sullivan Operas or Savoy Operas
Works inspired by Gilbert and Sullivan

Marc Shepherd 15:19, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Marc about all of the above. As to what to call the 14 G&S operas, I would prefer "Gilbert and Sullivan Operas", because I think that it is more recognizable to more people. Ssilvers 15:03, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
The following categories have been officially proposed for deletion:
  • Songs from Gilbert and Sullivan operettas
  • Songs with music by Arthur Sullivan
  • Songs with lyrics by W. S. Gilbert
  • Gilbert and Sullivan operettas
Please vote at Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 July 7#Unnecessary Gilbert and Sullivan categories.
The category Category:Works by Arthur Sullivan has been proposed for renaming to Category:Compositions by Arthur Sullivan. Please vote at the same site, just the categories for deletion. Marc Shepherd 16:11, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

I would suggest Cat:Gilbert and Sullivan operettas, as what most people call them. (And I am willing to construct it, if people agree; it would greatly simplify the other cats) Septentrionalis 17:39, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Cat:Operas by Arthur Sullivan would be just this cat, and Ivanhoe, wouldn't it? Seems a little small. Septentrionalis 17:41, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
Cat:Operas by Arthur Sullivan already exists. It contains 23 works, of which 14 were written with Gilbert, and 9 with other librettists. As noted above, if there is to be a category holding just the G&S works, it should have a NPOV name as to how they are described. I would dispute that "Gilbert and Sullivan operettas" is what "most people" call them. The dominant terms in the literature are "Savoy Operas," "Comic Operas," or "Gilbert and Sullivan Operas." Marc Shepherd 17:55, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
Plus, G&S called their works "operas". They never called them operettas, so all of these G&S-related articles refer to them as Gilbert and Sullivan operas. Ssilvers 18:07, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
Including Patience (operetta)? ;-> Septentrionalis 18:10, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
The disambiguation names have tended to be assigned by whoever created the article, and no one bothered to move them. Thus, we have Patience (operetta) and Thespis (operetta), but Haddon Hall (opera). No one has bothered to move them, but "operetta" is not consistent with the terminology in the body of each article. Marc Shepherd 18:22, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Marc beat me to it, but I was about to note that the name of the Patience article was created over a year ago by someone called Greekmythfan, who wrote: "Regardless of what people may tell you...I'm a person. A Homo sapien." Personally, I think that W. S. Gilbert and Arthur Sullivan are better sources than Mr. Greekmythfan as to what we should call these works.  ;-) Ssilvers 18:28, 7 July 2006 (UTC)


I'm sorry about all this. If it's any consolation, I didn't mean to be a nuisance; everything I did seemed while I was doing it to be entirely straightforward.

(Looking back, I see part of the problem is that we have different philosophies of categorisation. I look at Category:Gilbert and Sullivan and see a mix of people, places, organisations, and works crying out to be sorted into separate boxes - had I not called it a day where I did, you would have had "Gilbert and Sullivan-related theatres" and "Gilbert and Sullivan performing society" categories to deal with as well.)

I will admit that Category:Songs from Gilbert and Sullivan operettas was overzealous.

But if Category:Operas by Arthur Sullivan - which was not my doing - why not Category:Songs with music by Arthur Sullivan? I did not create anything new there - Category:Songs by musicwriter is well-established (if badly-named). Likewise, Category:Songs with lyrics by W. S. Gilbert is a trivial extension of Category:Songs by lyricist.

Category:People associated with Gilbert and Sullivan is admittedly a mouthful, but it seemed a sensible level of abstraction to have between Category:Gilbert and Sullivan and Category:Gilbert and Sullivan performers. It was meant more as "people associated with the subject 'Gilbert and Sullivan'" than "people associated with the man Gilbert and/or the man Sullivan", hence the inclusion of the men themselves.

On the question of the naming of Category:Gilbert and Sullivan operettas, I must point out that every one of the relevant articles is in Category:Operettas, and that they were like that before I started. (I did consider "Savoy Operas" as an alternative, but not all Gilbert and Sullivan operas are Savoy operas, and there are (I gather, although I could not name one) Savoy operas by other hands.)

I hope I've conveyed some idea of where I was coming from. I apologise once more for my enthusiastic mess, and I will endeavour in future to be more of a team player. --Paul A 10:01, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks to Paul A for his comments. I do agree that, as of two days ago, Category:Gilbert and Sullivan was a mish-mash of people, places, works, and organisations, somewhat crying out for further sub-categorisation. I think the only real question, aside from naming issues, is which divisions have enough entrants to justify their own categories. Arthur Sullivan wrote about 80 songs apart from his work in the operas; I just doubt that very many of them will ever have their own Wikipedia articles. In fairness to Paul, I see that some of the "Songs by..." categories have very small numbers of songs in them. Should we resurrect them at some point, I would suggest the shorter names "Songs by W. S. Gilbert" and "Songs by Arthur Sullivan."
The category Operas by Arthur Sullivan, on the other hand, does have a hefty number of works in it: 23. It also rolls up to Wikipedia's Opera project.
We are approaching the point where "Theatres associated with Gilbert and Sullivan" and "Gilbert and Sullivan performing organisations" might make sense (i.e., where there are more than just a few of them). I wouldn't call them performing societies, by the way, as several of the likely entrants in that category aren't "societies."
Wikipedia's "operetta" category is somewhat orphaned; there isn't anybody thinking about the category holistically, as there is for opera. Someone long ago had put all of the Gilbert & Sullivan pieces into the "operetta" category, but they are also in the "opera" category. The Wikipedia template {{opera genres}} lists "Savoy Opera" and "operetta" as distinct categories. This is itself controversial, but it goes to show the lack of a consistent approach.
Since there are 14 "operas" (or whatever you call them) by Gilbert and Sullivan, I definitely think a category is warranted, and the only question is what to call it. Having read all the comments above, I would revert to my earlier suggestion, "Works by Gilbert and Sullivan," as it is consistent with Wikipedia's category naming conventions, and does not favor (or disfavor) anyone's preferred terminology. Marc Shepherd 15:56, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

One more comment: "Songs by W. S. Gilbert" and "Songs by Arthur Sullivan", though shorter, have a potential for confusion - existing "Songs by X" categories tend to be for songs where X is responsible for both music and lyrics. --Paul A 04:47, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Compare the (several different) styles in Cat:Songs by lyricist.Septentrionalis 20:43, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
I agree—not much of a standard. Marc Shepherd 21:19, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Please note: This dialog is continuing at Wikipedia:WikiProject Gilbert and Sullivan/Categories.

In particular: Please weigh in here on the question of: A) Should there be a category specifically for the joint works of Gilbert and Sullivan; and B) if so, what should it be called? Marc Shepherd 14:37, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] See also cleanup

The article's see also section currently has the following entrants:

Typically, See also is used for topics not otherwise referenced in the article. D'Oyly Carte Opera Company and International Gilbert and Sullivan Festival are already prominently mentioned within the article's first few paragraphs.

Category:Gilbert and Sullivan is linked at the bottom of the page, and anyone who goes there will quickly find other related topics, such as Light Opera of Manhattan, American Savoyards (both long-defunct performing companies), Category:People associated with Gilbert and Sullivan and Gilbert and Sullivan performers. (Edward German is already part of the former.) Wikipedia readers are used to following category links to find related articles.

Staveley, Cumbria has only a tenuous relationship to the topic (lots of cities and villages have had a Gilbert & Sullivan tradition for fifty years or much longer), and Comedy on screen is unencyclopedic (just look at it).

In short, I think this article's See also section should be trimmed to the essentials or eliminated. Marc Shepherd 16:51, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

I am going ahead to take LOOM, American Savoyards and Edward German (since he is included in the next item) off the list, but I think that, as long as the list is short, the other items are OK, even if they can be found another way. This is our "main" article, and I think we should make it easy for newbies to find things. As to Stavely, it's just a fun link, and if the list gets too long, we can take it off. I have no idea what the comedy on screen link is, so I leave that to you. Ssilvers 17:08, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
I'm fine with that strategy. I removed Staveley, Cumbria and Comedy on screen (both unencyclopedic) and re-ordered the remaining list to put D'Oyly Carte Opera Company on top. Marc Shepherd 17:49, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "each of"

I put these words back in. We need to say that after "each of" these shows Sullivan asked to leave the partnership to be clear. If you just say "after 1 and 2 he asked to leave, it sounds like he only tried to leave once, or at least it is ambiguous. I think this is an important part of illustrating Sullivan's basic unhappiness with continuing in the Partnership at this point in his career. It was only his contract that really kept him in it. -- Ssilvers 01:35, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

I changed "each of" to "both" (I thought that read better), but I do agree that something is needed there for clarity. Marc Shepherd 03:44, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
The phrase "each of" is grammatically incorrect in this usage. Pzavon 16:55, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
Hello, Peter. Please join the WP:G&S Project and contribute to the G&S articles. -- Ssilvers 17:48, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
Sorry, I have not got the available time, at present, to get that deepling involved. Pzavon 16:44, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Opening Paragraph

I have rewritten the opening paragraph slightly to better define the phrase "Gilbert and Sullivan," which is a genre of musical theater (should it be theatre?) rather than two people. Feel free to throw whatever brickbats seem appropriate. –Shoaler (talk) 15:28, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Such a fundamental shift should be discussed first. I have never heard Gilbert and Sullivan described as "a genre of musical theatre." For one thing, there is a consensus on the WP:G&S project (as well as the Opera project) that Gilbert and Sullivan wrote operas, not musicals. I realize this is debatable, but all of the G&S-related articles describe their works as operas, and it would be a rather significant change to modify them.
Indeed, although the editor who proposed this change altered the topic sentence, references to their works as "operas" remained unaltered throughout the rest of the article.
I also think it's dubious to attach the genre to the authors, rather than to a particular style. I don't think there's any defensible claim that The Mountebanks is in a different genre than The Grand Duke, but it is by Gilbert and Cellier, rather than Gilbert and Sullivan.
I think it's more accurate to describe both as comic operas. "Comic opera" (or arguably "Savoy opera") is the genre, not "Gilbert and Sullivan". Marc Shepherd 16:06, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
I agree. All this has been discussed before, since this is our flagship article. The way the opening paragraph reads now is the subject of considerable discussion and consensus. --Ssilvers 16:25, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image size

Can we reduce the Trial-Pin-Sorc image, please? Just a little. (how do you do it, BTW? Thanks. -- Ssilvers 02:42, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

It has to do with the "px" arguement. px stands for "pixels" (in width), so increase that number, and it gets bigger, decrease it and it gets smaller. Watch the images: I like to play with shrinking text a bit, changing the size of the window and so on, because it's very easy, if you're trying to put them right next to a relevant bit of text, to make them be bumping up against the next image down. Adam Cuerden talk 22:13, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Proposal

What do you think of the idea of keeping the lead (which is very strong), but using the article itself to instead provide 14 1-page or so sections on the creation of each opera? Adam Cuerden talk 22:13, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Each opera's page already has (or should have) that "Background" section. This article should be a historical and artistic discussion and analysis of the most notable information regarding the development of the partnership. More detailed info should go in each opera's article. -- Ssilvers 22:20, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Intro

Thanks for adding the cites, although I don't think the Connecticut newspaper preview is a very authoritative source for such important statements. I have gone through the intro and reorganized it a little to emphasize the most general, macro issues up front. I think it is pretty logically organized now. IMO, you should strive not to get bogged down in specifics in an intro, like mentioning particular songs. Examples and specifics should go later in an article. -- Ssilvers 13:46, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] MP3 files, etc.

Whoever's removing the link to the MUGSS mp3 database really should reconsider. The worst thing frankly about this article is the links section, as it lacks even a single link to a high quality collection of G&S music. (No, MIDI files and a list of tracks you can't even listen to aren't high quality.) The MUGSS page linked to can by contrast access mp3 files for every song from their plays performed by MUGSS, including some "lost" songs like Pirates' "To Queen Victoria's Name We Bow." IMO a database of G&S music actually being performed contributes a *lot* more to the article than linking to MIDIs, G&S parodies and a New York society page without one recording. 68.195.209.53 19:00, 4 December 2006 (UTC) AJP 13:57 EST, 4 Dec. 2006

I'm inclined to agree here. Adam Cuerden talk 19:15, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Adam, did you click on this link? This is a link to the MUGSS Pirates website and contains, among other things, like MUGSS' cast list, only MP3 files of an amateur production of Pirates, and not of any other shows. At best it should go in the Pirates article.

I have no problem with adding links to MP3 files here, but they should be of selections from several G&S shows. What we have agreed NOT to add, is links to particular amateur performing groups' websites, because it is not fair to list one or a few of these, without listing the hundreds of other ones, and we already have a link to amateur performing societies. Adam, can we please have a consistent policy? Why are these amateur "Pirates" files (toghther with the MUGSS peformance info) to be kept here and not all other amateur groups/shows?

Also, are there no high quality public domain G&S music excerpts that may be posted, without pulling along with them particular amateur groups websites? -- Ssilvers 20:36, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm afraid I didn't poke around: My computer is a bit slow with mp3s, so... But I rather suspect there won't be any non-amateur public domain stuff of any use - it'd have to be pre-1927, and, frankly, given recording technology at that time you'd only get good singing - the orchestra would almost certainly be blurred. (it involved a cone that the singers clustered near, the orchestra a ways behind 'em. Adam Cuerden talk 21:05, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Did you even bother to try clicking "previous show/next show" at the top? And putting one or two files to listen to on this page is frankly not the same as putting a link to an entire database. Frankly this page is probably the only one with mp3 files of entire plays and if a page of MIDI files is worth including, this certainly is. As for amateur, well, that's your opinion, and frankly I'd say your opinion isn't enough to claim a page of mp3 files isn't worth including while a New York society page that contributes nothing to the article is. 68.195.209.53 00:37, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

I think I'll enter the fray here, as MUGSS' music is actually something I've been familiar with for 3 years now, as I listened to it before I bought any actual CDs. Perhaps the link should be included but changed to [1] rather than a particular Pirates production? While it is an amateur university G&S company, it /is/ the most thorough free collection of actual recordings, some of which are excellent. By the way, they frequently have cut songs such as the aforementioned "To Queen Victoria's Name" and "A Laughing Boy." A few of their recordings have full dialogue. --Anivron 06:59, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Only the MUGSS shows from 1998 to 2002 have MP3s, so I suggest that, instead, we move this Pirates link to the Pirates article and add links to the pages with MP3s of the other four shows to the relevant pages. If you agree, feel free to go ahead and do it. -- Ssilvers 16:40, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Then what happens to this article? It remains without decent audio samples? As for the above link, it's only a list of the plays they've done and unfortunately doesn't have any clickable links to the specific shows. Otherwise, I would have used it instead. Anyway, consider the plays between 1998 and 2002: their four most recognizable plays (Pinafore, Pirates, Sorcerer and Mikado), by a significant margin, are among those recorded.

As an aside, I for one wouldn't necessarily be opposed to a G&S in popular culture section under influence. For starters I happen to know that Seth McFarlane, creator of Family Guy, is quite a fan, as he's included songs from Pirates, Pinafore, and the Sorcerer (by my last count) in episodes. Just a suggestion.68.195.209.53 00:34, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Political references

Are these political references really notable? Lots of people quote G&S. Why is it a big deal that a politician quoted it occasionally? -- Ssilvers 18:17, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Read what irt says again,. Sam. They didn't quote it, they rewrote it and sang it. Mindm the reference lacks historicality: It's been used in Briytish politicks for years, e.g. The Ratepayers' Iolanthe. Adam Cuerden talk 18:24, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

OK, but why stick random, disorganized references into the article? Why not say something like, "G&S has been parodied and quoted in politics for over a century, for example in The Ratepayers' Iolanthe"? -- Ssilvers 18:36, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

That works, though, frankly, it's a lot more relevant than some of the cultural references, isn't it? Adam Cuerden talk 20:40, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I think that only the most important references should eventually be in the article. Some of them could be moved to the articles on the particular operas that they reference. Regards, -- Ssilvers 21:41, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. I'll try to work out a short paragraph on the most notable political references, which should be fairly relevant. Adam Cuerden talk 11:19, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] To be worked on

Their songs were also briefly popular at annual Conservative Party conferences.[citation needed] Secretary of State for National Heritage Virginia Bottomley reworked "...now I Am The Ruler Of The Queen's Navy" as "Now I Am The Leader of the Labour Party" in 1996, mocking Tony Blair.[2] Secretary of State for Social Security Peter Lilley sang a version "As Someday it may Happen", condemming those who claimed benefits, in 1992.[citation needed]

Also, adding Sam Hartley as a lyricist influenced by Gilbert and Sullivan (it was attempted to be added, but the addition broke the article, and wasn't referenced properly) Adam Cuerden talk 20:40, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Nearly every lyricist of the early 20th Century was strongly influenced by Gilbert. I ran a Google search and don't see anything linking Gilbert and Hartley. On the other hand, Oscar Hammerstein II, Gershwin, Wodehouse and many others cited Gilbert. -- Ssilvers 14:29, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
Right. Skip it then. Adam Cuerden talk 16:29, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../g/i/l/Talk%7EGilbert_and_Sullivan_da2c.html"