Talk:List of important operas/Archive2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents

New Purges (2004)

Wonder if anyone else is feeling like we could stand to do another round of removals? Here are my suggestions, for your consideration:

  • Pearlfishers - true it's getting performed more lately, but not that substantially and do we really think this is going to stick around as a standard item?
  • Midsummer Night's Dream, Albert Herring - These don't strike me as standard, but I may be out of the loop on that.
  • Oedipus
  • Glinka - I thought we were excluding regional favorites, and I don't see these as standard outside russia
  • Makropulos Affair - It's at the Met this year, but it's definitely not on the scale of Jenufa or Kobanova for popularity.
  • Menotti - I dunno this stuff that well, but do all these really belong?
  • Bastien und Bastienne - This really ought to go, while Clemenza should perhaps be added?
  • Attila - I have my doubts
  • Mignon - The article says it's rarely performed...
  • Mahagonny - The music is popular, but is it performed much?

Okay, that turned a little too much into "Which operas have I seen/heard of", but that's why I need feedback. To me things like pearlfishers are likely enough to be transient that we can skip them. Otherwise maybe we should include betrothal in a monastery too. Similarly, if we include Makropulos affair I feel like we should include Bluebeard's Castle (not just because they're both creepy). Anyway, for your consideration. --Chinasaur 23:06, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

hmm, Chinasaur does have some dodos there... The closer this list reflects current realities of production (and of recording, too), the more interesting and useful it is. --Wetman 03:00, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)
These are tough calls. I think Oedipus is out; I've never seen or heard it. It might be popular in Romania. I think Pearl Fishers is in, but then I've been hearing it all my life; maybe it's falling out of favor. Menotti--Amahl should stay, but I dunno about the others. B&B, out, Clemenza in. Attila I never hear. Mignon in, I think. Mahagonny I have never seen except on TV, but it does get radio air-time, at least in the US. It is hard to make judgements on peripheral items in the canon, and it is always possible that something is regionally or nationally popular somewhere but not somewhere else. Interesting ... Antandrus 03:55, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)
If we're going recording too, then I'll say pearlfishers in. Amahl I agree and likewise I dunno about the others. I thought part of the description of the list was that we were leaving out some national favorites that aren't internationally popular. --Chinasaur 05:31, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Famous or standard?

I realize there is much discussion here, but I still don't understand how this list was compiled and what criteria were used. Three points:

1. Standard and famous are different. We can argue that all frequently performed operas are famous, but the reverse does not apply. For example Guillaume Tell and Les Huguenots are famous but seldom performed. An opera may be famous because of an overture or an aria rather than the whole work.

2. The standard rep varies from country to country and from house to house. Charpentier's Louise (on the list) may be performed from time to time in the USA and France but not in Britain and Germany.

3. Frequency of performance depends on the ability and interest of particular singers. Single-singer vehicles like Fedora and Andrea Chénier come in and out of the repertory on this basis.

I am wondering about placing a flag on this. What do other people think? Would it be better to change the name of the article?

Kleinzach 13:53, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

This article began as a list of the standard operatic repertory. Its title was objected to earlier for just such a quibble. If one consistently thinks of how useful one can make oneself to the Wikipedia reader, one will rarely find oneself simply striking poses. To discover that the world of opera is not equally dispersed to every corner of the world is not a genuine novel thought. Each of the numbered points made for our astonished illumination might make an interesting paragraph at Opera: that would take a little thinking and some work, however. To make an issue of it is a little stale for most of us. The more fastidious sort of Wikipedian scarcely ever applies those little flags: see if I'm not correct in this. --Wetman 01:55, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
I think that all of Kleinzach's points are well taken. But there are other considerations in that the list changes every year. La juive was all but forgotten before it's Vienna revival in 1999, now it is being given regularly, at least as long as there are singers interested. This may go on for years, or change aany time, in which case it dissappears again. Martha will probably appear and dissappear. Modern operas may be repertory for a few years, then fade away. Many Mozart operas, now extremely popular, dissappeared for years, only to stage a comeback. Some operas may be given regularly, except at the Met. Etc., etc.
My idea would be to have one list, with comments. Thus we could say for Les Huguenota something like "in the repertory until 1936 or so, now hardly given" For Les troyens "Very famous work now with a large cadre of fans, but rarely given complete, and hardly ever given fot the first 8o years after it was composed". Or for Saffo: "Pacini's most famous opera--in the repertory throughout the 19th century, now rarely revived".
It might be easier to agree on such comments, rather than what list to put an opera in.
Tom 13:08, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
The idea of an annotated list is an interesting one. It would be an improvement on the present article and we could retain the present title. What do other people think?
Kleinzach 13:10, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

I will reluctantly add my two cents to the above - reluctantly, because I think it's better to concentrate on adding/improving articles on composers and operas than engaging in arguments about lists such as this. No-one can agree on what is the standard repertory, if such a thing exists, nor on what constitutes fame (first TV opera?!). Actually, we probably could all agree on a much shorter list of really famous operas, consisting of the listed works by Wagner, Verdi, Mozart, Puccini and Tchaikovsky, plus quite a small number of others such as Carmen, Fidelio, Lucia, The Barber of Seville, Faust, Orfeo ed Euridice, Cav and Pag, Boris Godunov, Rosenkavalier, Fledermaus, and that's about it. And it still wouldn't be possible to stop people adding marginal cases or, of course, their own favourites.

The flag idea doesn't look sensible to me (click the Category at the bottom of this page to see its proposed bedfellows). An annotated list might have some merit, but it would probably have to be somewhat longer, rather than shorter, than the present one - and who is going to spend time on it? Cynically yours, --GuillaumeTell 21:45, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

This is a prominent page - more people are going to read this than the biography of Georg Benda or a synopsis of Il campiello - so it matters.
I am not in favour of a lowest common denominator list. (We could all submit lists of standard repertory (in our own cities) and only use the names on all the lists, but that would be difficult to organize (creating acres of comments) and would not be a list of ‘famous operas’ anyway).
So I support Tom’s proposal for an inclusive, annotated single list of ‘famous operas’. To answer GuillaumeTell’s question: “Who is going to spend time on it?” I am, and I believe Tom is as well.
(The flag I mentioned before seems to have created an unintended category tag so I have deleted it. It wasn’t a solution per se in any case.)
Kleinzach 12:43, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Famous operas vs. operas currently being staged

Recently an anon editor massively reduced number of operas on this list, based on their inclusion or lack thereof in an online database. I'd like to point out that this is a List of famous operas, not a List of operas currently being staged, though there certainly may be a justification for making such a (separate) list. Antandrus 05:29, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

OK, after another slash by the anon, I revised the page, rather than completely reverting it, in an attempt to make clear that this is a list of famous operas. If the anonymous user would like to create a list of operas in the current repertory as defined by what operas are currently in production, I would encourage him/her to do so: a historically significant opera, or an opera well-represented on recordings, is not necessarily one which is currently in production. Thanks. Antandrus 03:08, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I am frustrated by the fact that nearly every link here is a pipe to "standard operatic repertory". Either all of those links are wrong, or the title of this page is wrong, or some combination of both. I'll leave the page as it is, but that does not mean I think it is acceptable. 207.75.180.58 02:50, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Why don't you start an article on the current operatic repertory? That's a different topic from historically significant operas. You can change the piped links to whichever is more appropriate.
In general, the entire topic of opera is poorly covered on Wikipedia at the present time; the opera article itself is barely a skeleton, indeed a skeleton still missing many bones. Feel free to add missing parts. I think this list, however, is fairly well focused by its title. Antandrus 03:58, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Friends, I would suggest that there are two useful lists being mooted here and that one need not eclipse the other. This list is self-explanatory as it has evolved. A list of operas currently being performed, the other useful type of list, is already available online, however, and Wikipedia shouldn't crib their effort nor attempt to rival it. Why aren't there a good few paragraphs here about the absolutely most current repertory, using the phrase "as of 2005", so that it will be flagged as something that must be kept up-to-date? Then a strong link to the best worldwide repertory site (is it OperaBase?), or to the best few, if there are several. We're not running out of paper: there's room for everything!--Wetman 04:34, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
You suggest that the list is self-explanatory; I disagree. What makes an opera famous? One could argue that an opera is more likely to be well-known if it is currently being staged. Chances are, everyone who's familiar with opera has heard of Don Giovanni, because it's extremely popular and performed all the time. One could also argue that the famous operas are the ones which are mentioned in all the history books, like Orfeo. But if all you did was go to your local opera house, you probably wouldn't know how significant Orfeo was, indeed you might never hear it performed. Conversely, if all you did was read opera history, chances are you wouldn't know just how popular Don Giovanni still is.
I believe that Wikipedia should not have a "List of famous operas". As User:Wetman has suggested, there are two lists here. One I think should be entitled "List of operas in the standard repertory", and the other should be entitled "List of historically significant operas". This page should be renamed to one of those, and the other should be built from parts of this page and from the history of this page. The currently pipes to "standard operatic repertory" would become links to "List of operas in the standard repertory", and both lists could be linked from Opera.
Also, OperaBase indexes everything, but while that makes it a powerful tool, it will not, so far as I know, help you unless you already know what you're looking for. Someone with no opera knowledge looking to find out which operas are popular nowadays would probably not be able to do that using OperaBase—they would need someone to tell them, "Maybe this one. No, try this one. How about this one? etc." I found a link to [1] which sounded like a good bet, but as of right now they are down for maintenance. [2] has a believable top ten list, but there are more than ten operas in the standard repertory. I suspect Wikipedia would actually be performing a service if someone were to keep a "List of operas in the standard repertory" up to date. 207.75.178.86 17:57, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Nominations for new inclusions

I love the idea of a standard rep list. I would vote to remove the historically important operas from this list that are not in rep. I would also like to see added the following: Bluebeard's Castle, Ernani, The Golden Cockerel, Lakme, Louise, Martha, Mignon, and Merry Wives of Windsor. These are certainly performed more often, world-wide at least, than most of Britten. Comments? --DrG 04:22, 2005 May 20 (UTC)

I second all of your suggestions: I think they're all famous enough to go on the list. Antandrus (talk) 04:26, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

Surely Felix Mendelssohn's Elijah is worthy of inclusion? --Nicander 17:46, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Only if it's an opera. Isn't it an oratorio? --GuillaumeTell 18:01, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes, sorry. I don't know what came over me there! --Nicander 18:21, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Duplicate lists

I hope I'm not opening a big can of worms, but I took one of the suggestions on this page and created the List of operas in the standard repertoire. This list is not based on fame, available recordings, or significance, but on the total number of performances at major opera houses. (Because of this, most of these operas are also well-recorded and also on the famous opera list.) --DrG 14:09, 2005 May 20 (UTC)

Hi, I am not crazy about the idea of having two different lists which are largely overlapping. A better solution, IMO, would be to make this page more accurately reflect its title by removing the small number of historically significant operas from this list and make sure they are listed as such in the main opera article. Obviously space isn't a consideration; it is just seems uncessarily complicated. If we want to keep this information, the top 25 can be likewise listed on the main opera page. -- Viajero 14:30, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

DrG's list is highly specific, if the source of the information were given. If the two lists are collated, which operas on this list would be dropped out? Would that be a loss of valuable information? However appended or whether connected to DrG's list or this one, the historically significant operas from this list shouldn't be lost. I agree that the two articles are duplicative. --Wetman 18:25, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

I realize that Wetman wants to keep those historical operas listed here, so I have another proposal: what about creating a second section in this article for historically significant operas which aren't performed much. The main list will then be, for all intents and purposes, the standard operatic repertoire and we can merge in whatever additional operas have been added to that newer page. One page, covering all bases. -- Viajero | Talk 11:25, 21 May 2005 (UTC)
Comaring the lists
In the standard list, but NOT in the famous list: Bluebeard's Castle, Ernani, The Golden Cockerel, Lakme, Louise, Martha, Mignon, and Merry Wives of Windsor. (which is why I nominated these operas. See above.)
In the famous list, but NOT on the standard list. Composers not on standard: Handel, Glinka, Cherubini, Cilea, Dvorak, Glass, Menotii, Monteverdi, Peri, Poulenc, Prokofiev, Purcell, Ravel, Shostakovich, Stravinsky, and Weill. Additional operas: Puritani,Lulu, Pearlfishers, Albert Herring, Billy Budd, Midsummernight's Dream, Alceste, Iphigenie, Vixen, Thais, Idomeneo, Seraglio, Clemenza, Khovanshchina, Cenerentola, Frau ohne Schatten, Nabucco.
I am still not sure how to proceed. Famous list seems to include famous operas to music historians, not so good operas by very famous composers, almost everything by famous opera composers, and operas in English we think deserve to be more famous. :)
I created the stanard list because this seems to be a sensitive topic, and I didn't what to delete anything famous. I also wanted to include the list that reflected what was actually being performed. If you want to delete, merge, or separate the list, that's fine with me. --DrG 05:24, 2005 May 22 (UTC)

I think that Viajero's idea is a good one, and that we can have a separate section for "historically significant operas not often performed" on this page. I've taken the liberty of adding a couple from the first decades of the 17th century. I also think that the items on this sublist should be annotated with at least a single line explaining the historical significance of the item. Antandrus (talk) 22:50, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

I'm not sentimental about inclusions and exclusions, but at any point an alphabetical current repertory will be skewed in reference to a historian's view. The difference is telling (no Handel etc), and should be analyzed a bit for the reader. The repertory list is self-explanatory, once one knows which opera companies (roughly) it represents. But the "historically important" list (by date?) needs a brief introduction, referring and linking to an unwritten History of Opera and the brief "disambig" Antandrus mentions. The two lists may quite sensibly overlap a bit. That's my thought... --Wetman 23:47, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

Operas removed

These are the operas that were removed from the page by DrG. I agree with this, just thought it would be useful to have it recorded on the Talk page. Perhaps someday someone might return one or more to the list of historically significant operas. -- Viajero | Talk 11:43, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

This is a good idea. Everyone can review. --DrG 13:34, 2005 May 24 (UTC)
  • I'm not sure about removing Prokofiev's "War and Peace." In Europe at least, it is played fairly often and the music is especially well known. --67.161.115.23 07:35, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

New idea about standard operas

This idea just crossed my mind. What if we eliminated this page altogether. Instead we create a new sub-category of operas, something like Standard international repertory. Then we just include the standard operas in that category. We could also create Historically significant repertory and others, like Standard American repertory. Does that make things easier or harder? What do you experienced wikis think?? --DrG 07:33, 2005 May 26 (UTC)

The two main problems with switching from lists to categories, IMO, are 1) that you lose the ability to annotate (i.e. the nice explanatory line or two after the historically significant opera, telling a visitor just what the heck it is), and 2) you lose the ability to put in a redlink for an as-yet-unwritten article. Redlinks are how we grow. I think that items like operas need to be both on lists and in categories. (I have no objection to starting the categories you mention, by the way, I think they're a good idea--I just don't want to lose the lists.) Best, Antandrus (talk) 14:52, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
Personally, I find lists more useful than categories and would be reluctant to see this one disappear. -- Viajero | Talk 15:29, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

Is this statement necessary?

"please do not add an opera to this list unless it has had a significant performance history" It makes the article sound more like a talk page and I have removed it. --Negative3 21:55, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

"Canon"

The canon link links to a page that does not contain the definition this article is referring to!

English operas

I have added Purcell's Dido and Aeneas to the "standard operatice repertoire" list, since for the last thirty years or so it has been performed more and more, and on Operabase it lists 15 separate professional productions in numerous countries, including Italy, Germany, France, and the US. This compares with 22 for Fidelio and only one for Les Troyens. I also replaced it on the list of historic operas with John Blow's Venus and Adonis, since according to Grove dictionary of Opera this is a true opera and was first performed a good bit earlier. Makemi 17:00, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Mozart

We could do with some more early Mozart operas ; Il re pastore and La finta giardiniera. His list seems rather short. Both are currently either being performed or are about to be performed at London's royal opera house. Keep the Britten(Albert Herring+ midsummer night's dream, both very popular in Britain) and where s Handel's Orlando? Moreschi

Neither of these early works by Mozart is currently famous, even though they are being performed in the 250th year after Mozart's birth, so neither should be in a List of Famous Operas. Also, please sign your posts by clicking the third button from the right (the one containing a squiggle) above this edit box, and that will save you having to type "Moreschi", and will tell us when you added your comment. Plus, if you put a few words about yourself on your Moreschi user page, your username will start appearing in blue rather than red. Use the "Show preview" button below this edit box to check what you've done, and you can, if necessary, check links and do further editing before pressing the "Save page" button. --GuillaumeTell 17:29, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Rienzi

Earlier today I removed this opera from the standard repertoire list, and got a note about it on my talk page. The guideline for the page seems to be that the opera is either in the "standard operatic repertoire" or is an historically important opera. According to Operabase there is currently only one production of this opera going on, I have never heard of it, despite considering myself familiar with the standard operatic repertoire, and simply being the first opera by Wagner, without it in itself having shown a great revolution in the genre or being any other sort of "first", in my opinion does not make it notable enough for the "historically important operas" list. I suspect the only people who care much about it are Wagner buffs, and I think this page has enough of his operas as it is, and rightfully so. I propose that the opera Rienzi be removed from this page. Mak (talk) 03:12, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree. Rienzi, Wagner's attempt at a grand opera, is rarely performed. Nevertheless my view remains that the idea behind this article is flawed and the whole thing needs to be rethought. - Kleinzach 10:22, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
The most famous part of Rienzi (by far) is the overture. I did hear a recorded performance of the opera recently on our local "classical" radio station, but staged performances are quite rare. On a side note, I have come to agree with Kleinzach that the idea of this page is flawed, but I'm not sure how to fix it. Antandrus (talk) 14:43, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
Adding my belated agreement with all of the above. --GuillaumeTell 16:36, 9 May 2006 (UTC) And furthermore...

Il Guarany

I am proposing to delete this opera by Gomes, which is about as famous as Pacini's Saffo or Mercadante's Il Giuramento, i.e. not very famous to the vast majority of people. I have my doubts about some of the others on the list (and would include some others not there at present), but I've said my piece up above somewhere. --GuillaumeTell 16:36, 9 May 2006 (UTC) On the other hand, ...

By delete do you mean remove the article from the list, or delete the article? I'm all for removing from the list, but opposed to outright deletion (if they can have articles on the mountain in their fanfiction we can have articles on less famous operas). Mak (talk) 16:50, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
Yes, sorry, I meant remove from the list. If Il Guarany is part of the Standard Repertoire, I'm a Brazilian, but it was popular in its day and has (I think) been recorded fairly recently, so it is well worth a Wikipedia entry. --GuillaumeTell 17:40, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
Another vote for removal from the list. - Kleinzach 18:26, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Operas performed currently

I've been a subscriber to "Opera" magazine for some years. It publishes annually a collection of indexes to its reviews and articles, and one of these is an Index of [operatic] Works. I thought it might be amusing to take the index for 2005 and a) list the works which were most frequently performed and b) see how often each of the "Standard Operatic Repertory" operas in this article was performed last year.

"Opera" is published in Britain, and some caveats need to be made:

  • it has good coverage of opera in Britain, but this is too good, in a sense, in that it reviews fringe and student productions as well as those of the main British companies.
  • while it covers major houses in other parts of the world, coverage of minor houses (e.g. in Germany, Italy, Russia) is patchy.
  • I have not scrutinised the entries for each opera closely except to ignore CD and DVD reviews and general articles. So it's possible that multiple reviews of the same production in different locations have been counted - this may well be true of Tippett's "Knot Garden", although 1995 was his centenary year.
  • I haven't checked whether the list for Wagner's Ring duplicates the lists for each constituent opera

Don't take this too seriously, folks! Better figures would be obtained from a trawl through the indexes for several years, rather than just one.

5 or more reviews in 2005

  • 17: Magic Flute
  • 14: Cosi fan tutte, Rigoletto
  • 13: La Traviata
  • 12: La Boheme, Carmen
  • 10: The Barber of Seville, Don Giovanni, Falstaff, The Marriage of Figaro
  • 9: Tristan und Isolde, Turandot
  • 8: La Clemenza di Tito, Faust, Fidelio, L'Incoronazione di Poppea, Nabucco, Die Walküre
  • 7: Ariadne auf Naxos, La Cenerentola, Les Contes d'Hoffmann, Eugene Onegin, Madame Butterfly, Parsifal, Der Rosenkavalier, Salome, Il Trovatore
  • 6: The Knot Garden, Norma, The Queen of Spades, Das Rheingold, Roméo et Juliette, Tosca
  • 5: Aida, Don Carlos, Don Pasquale, L'Elisir d'amore, Die Fledermaus, The Flying Dutchman, Giulio Cesare, Lohengrin, Macbeth, Otello, Pelléas et Mélisande, Rinaldo, Siegfried

Operas listed above which aren't in the "Standard Operatic Repertory" list

L'Incoronazione di Poppea, The Knot Garden, Rinaldo (also Rodelinda and Der Kaiser von Atlantis, each with 4 reviews, and a lot more with 3 or fewer)

Operas in the "Standard Operatic Repertory" with no reviews in 2005 (in order of composer)

I Puritani, Prince Igor, Louise, La Fille du Régiment, Martha, Fedora, Il Guarany, Les Huguenots, L'Africaine, The Fiery Angel, Il Tabarro, Suor Angelica, The Golden Cockerel.

--GuillaumeTell 16:36, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

I have never been a fan of this page's inclusion criteria - or even understood what they are supposed to be. Using OperaBase, I ran GuillaumeTell's list of no reviews (added his several reviews but not on our list) and a number of others (a few really popular ones as a baseline, all works which were the only listing for a composer, all the American regional examples specifically excluded, other ones I hadn't heard of, etc.) By number of productions since Aug 2005:
Magic Flute 106
Il barbiere di Siviglia 57
Rigoletto 49
Die Fledermaus 35
Hansel und Gretel 33
Orfeo 29 -- not on main list at all, pushed into historical category
Fidelio 22
Les contes d'Hoffmann 21
L'Incoronazione di Poppea 19 - not on our list
Dido and Aeneas 17
The Queen of Spades 14
The Bartered Bride 14
Rodelinda 12 - not on our list
Suor Angelica 11
Boris Godunov 11
Der Freischütz 11
Orfeo ed Euridice 10
Alcina 10
Andrea Chénier 9
Pelléas et Mélisande 9
The Rake's Progress 8
Dialogues des Carmelites 8
La Gioconda 8
Bluebeard's Castle 7
Giulio Cesare 7
Serse 7
Die lustigen Weiber von Windsor 7
Il Tabarro 7
Louise 7
La Fille du Régiment 6
Samson et Dalila 6
The Cunning Little Vixen 6
The Golden Cockerel 5
La sonnambula 5
Porgy and Bess 5 - not on list at all, called too regional, productions in two countries
Rinaldo 5 - not on our list
Susannah 4 - not on list at all, called too regional, productions in two countries
Lakmé 4
Adriana Lecouvreur 4
Martha 4
Vanessa 3 - not on list at all, called too regional, productions in three countries
The Knot Garden 3 - not on our list
Nixon in China 3
Khovanshchina 3
Ariodante 3
Der Kaiser von Atlantis 2 - not on our list
Fedora 2
I Puritani, 2
Prince Igor 2 - on main list but only 2 productions, both in Russia
Agrippina 2
Thaïs 2
Mignon 2
L'Africaine 1
Mefistofele 1
Ballad of Baby Doe 1
The Lady Macbeth of the Mtsensk District 0
Il Guarany, 0
Les Huguenots 0
The Fiery Angel 0

I don't know how thorough Operabase is and wouldn't like to suggest a hard cutoff based on its numbers but would say that for a number of the operas at the bottom of this list, it would be difficult to make an argument that these are standard repertoire. It might be best to shorten this list some and also add Rodelinda, L'Incoronazione di Poppea and Orfeo, for example. Rmhermen 01:17, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../l/i/s/Talk%7EList_of_important_operas_Archive2_7bcd.html"