Talk:Opera

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
This article is a part of the Opera WikiProject, a collaboration to develop Wikipedia articles on operas and opera terminology, opera composers, librettists and singers, directors and managers, companies and houses, and recordings. The project talk page is a place to discuss issues, identify areas of neglect and exchange ideas. New members are very welcome!


This article has been selected for Version 0.5 and the next release version of Wikipedia. This Arts article has been rated B-Class on the assessment scale.
Other languages WikiProject Echo has identified Opera as a foreign language featured article. You may be able to improve this article with information from the Swedish language Wikipedia.
Archive
Archives

Contents

[edit] Vocal history section

At Moreschi's request, I took a look at this new section and made some copy edits. I agree that it seems logical to include a section on this topic. However, I think the section reads too casually and needs to hew more closely to some reference works' discussion of this issue. It also ignores the place of mezzos and baritones in the history of opera role writing (I don't think it's true that Wagner "spread the idea of a new voice, the bass-baritone", so I deleted that phrase). Also, the individual articles on the voice parts (e.g., soprano) do not agree with the rather badly written article on vocal range, which also does not agree with the incredibly POV article on Fach, so this whole area is a minefield. *sigh* -- Ssilvers 23:57, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for helping out. I could rabbit on about 15th, 16th, and 17th century countertenor history for about 5 hours, but the rest isn't really my speciality. I'll check out my references and add some stuff for mezzos and baritones and see what I can do about citing the rest, + maybe formalizing the vocab a bit.
This next is an appeal to the world: IMO the next things to write are a "Criticism" section and a "Current worldwide operatic scenes" section, or at any rate something along those lines. I don't suppose anyone could help out? Thanks again to Ssilvers. Best, Moreschi 08:55, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Patter Songs

Dear Opera fans: There are many famous patter songs in opera, but many of them are not yet listed at the article patter song. If any of you have the names and relevant information about famous opera patter songs, would you please add them? Thanks! -- Ssilvers 04:14, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Copyright state of linked excerpts

I am suspicious about some of the media linked from here, specifically the two pieces from Traviata and Nessun Dorma. I havn't identified the date of the recordings from Traviata, but the Nessun Dorma is almost certainly from the famous Three Tenors performance in Rome, and is released under Decca. What justification do we have to use this recording? --Alexs letterbox 23:40, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Recitative

"All types of singing in opera are accompanied by musical instruments, though until the late 17th century generally, and persisting until even later in some regions, recitative was accompanied by only the continuo group (harpsichord and 'cello or bassoon). During the period 1680 to roughly 1750, when composers often used both methods of recitative accompaniment in the same opera, the continuo-only practice was referred to as "secco" (dry) recitative, while orchestral-accompanied recitative was called "accompagnato" or "stromentato.""

I'm relatively new to opera, but I must say that I am a little puzzled by this paragraph. It implies that secco was dominant until 1680, then both secco and accompagnato were used until 1750, and then - what? The passage would seem to suggest that people started using only accompagnato, but this is clearly wrong -Don Giovanni (1787, a century after our supposed terminus ante quem) has only or almost only secco, and I think the same holds true even for The Barber of Seville (1816). --194.145.161.227 15:31, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, the paragraph is misleading and should be changed. The beginning of the paragraph is incorrect as well because it suggests that a capella singing never takes place in opera. To the contrary, there are unaccompanied and sporadically-accompanied pieces and sections to be heard in prominent works from every century.--Pheidias 23:47, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
Yes, I agree. It needs expansion (I didn't write it). I'll try to get round to it as soon as I can (i.e once ArbCom have decided). Moreschi 12:42, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Weasel sentence

After a new anonymous editor made yet another change to the lame sentence in the intro that has attempted to distingush opera from musicals (making the sentence even more meaningless), I realized that the article is better without it. Let's say what opera is, rather than (inaccurately) what it is not in the intro. -- Ssilvers 01:34, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Maybe we should just be bold. The introduction is mostly waffle in my opinion. If you look at the foreign language equivalents, they get to the point a lot sooner. BTW I think opera is basically (Western) Classical musical theatre. That's what differentiates it from Broadway musicals, rock opera and so on.--Folantin 08:57, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
How about something like this?: "Opera is a form of theatre in which the drama is conveyed wholly or partly through music and singing. Opera emerged in Italy around the year 1600 and is generally associated with the Western Classical music tradition. Comparable musical theatre traditions developed independently in other cultures and are often called "opera" by analogy (see Chinese opera or kabuki for example). These are beyond the scope of this article. European opera has also spread to other continents. For example, the first opera to be performed in the Americas was Tomás Torrejón y Velasco's La púrpura de la rosa, premiered at Lima, Peru in 1701." Then mention there are other forms of non-operatic musical theatre (Broadway musicals, rock opera). I've cut all the stuff about costumes and scenery - it's really pointless. Perhaps we need an introductory section on "Some basic terms used in opera" though (libretto, aria, recitative etc.). --Folantin 09:15, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Recent rewrite of the article

I've been bold (perhaps overbold) and created a provisional version of "Some basic terms in opera". I mostly adapted it from the first bit of the "History of operatic styles". I deleted the "History of operatic styles" heading and fused it with the larger "History" section (which is where all the historical stuff should be, I think). --Folantin 14:17, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Nice work! I put back the last little paragraph in the intro, however, because if you don't know anything about opera, I think you need this info to give a rounder picture of the art form.
You also cut this paragraph, but doesn't something like this need to be said somewhere?:
During the lifetimes of composers up to Meyerbeer there was no "repertory" of operas. Composers like Bellini and Donizetti were expected to come up with fresh material, season after season, even if they had to cannibalize their own works for material that had not been offered to that city's audience (compare pastiche). One common strategy was to imitate the work of other composers, especially when such work had achieved considerable success. The idea of an opera repertory originated with Richard Wagner, in his Bayreuth Festspielhaus.
Best regards, -- Ssilvers 17:02, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
Thanks. I think you're right about re-adding that intro paragraph. I just made a few modifications (how often does sculpture appear in opera- outside Don Giovanni, I mean?).
I slashed the "history of operatic repertory" section because it seemed pretty contentious to me. Is it really true? Earlier on this talk page I mention that there was definitely a repertoire in France before the Revolution. It might be possible to produce a new version but on the other hand it might end up as a lot of waffle and qualifications. I think that section was a survivor of the late, unlamented "Sociology of opera" section anyway. --Folantin 17:36, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

What if we add something like this: During earlier periods, there was no "repertory" of operas. Composers like Bellini and Donizetti were expected by their patrons to come up with fresh material, season after season, even if they had to cannibalize their own previous works, or imitate the works of others, for material. By the 19th century, opera houses were presenting a repertory of works that had proved popular, adding the most popular new ones.

I imagine you can improve that, but I think we need just a sentence or two somewhere to indicate that operas weren't always played in repertory? -- Ssilvers 17:52, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Ah yes, but my point is I'm not sure it's really true. There was a repertoire in France in the Baroque period. Lully's tragedies were played for over a hundred years since the 1670s and 80s and audiences got very upset if people started messing with their old favourites. They knew the choruses to Lully's works off by heart and would actually sing along with them in the opera house. I think there has been a repertoire in Germany and Austria since the time of Gluck or Mozart too. I don't know if "Don Giovanni" or "The Magic Flute" have ever been off the stage for very long since they were first performed. So maybe the comment really only applies to Italy.--Folantin 18:12, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
I see what you mean. You're right. Leave it out, unless someone has reliable sources that lead to a clearer, verifiable discussion. -- Ssilvers 18:15, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
Still plenty to be done. I've got to finish rewriting the German opera subsection, rewriting Wagner and bringing Richard Strauss back into the game. I think we should say something about famous singers. It wouldn't be an Opera page without a mention of Callas or Caruso, for instance. Maybe add them to the voices section ("Famous tenors include Caruso, Pavarotti..."). Enough for now though--Folantin 18:55, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Recent rewrite of the article (continued)

Right, let's sum up what IMO still needs to be done after round 1 of the Folantin/Ssilvers attack. The article sure looks a lot better than it did before, but leaving out bits that are still missing here is what I think the problems are.
  • The lead is too short. Per, WP:LEAD, an article this size needs a minimum of three paras.
  • I remain to be convinced that a discussion of what opera is NOT should be in the lead. It's kind of a negative impression. The lead needs to say first what opera is, and then why opera is important, the cultural impact the genre has had, etc. A discussion of what opera isn't surely can go somewhere else. Currently, the article doesn't assert notability - i.e a Martian wouldn't know why opera is so important. This is a very stupid concern, obviously - which is why everybody's missed it.
  • Famous singers - yeah, definitely.
  • This is going to be rather hard to do much about, but we need more variety of sound clips. I'm not Verdi's/Puccini's biggest fan anyway, but they are definitely over-represented. Ideal, in my opinion, would be one sound clip for every section of the national opera genres.
  • "The basic terms in opera section" I'm not entirely happy with. It's good, but I'd relabel it "Operatic terminology" and move it down a bit.
Of course, then there's all the new stuff that needs to be written. Opera stages, a "Criticism" section(give me a few more days for this one), an "Opera worldwide" section (crap wording, but you know what I mean)...I could go on.
Right, after all that, fullest congrats to Folantin. The article is vastly improved - and yes, I won't be shedding bitter tears of the opera repertory rubbish. Kudos to whoever cut that POV waffle about Callas, + the superflous bel canto material. One thing that I really like now is the focus on national genres, rather than some mixture of that and chronology. Bravo! Moreschi 19:22, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks (and thanks to you for your weeks of work on this article already). A few brief replies for now:

  • Be my guest and change that section heading to "Operatic terminology" (I was never very happy with the original title). I still think it should come towards the beginning of the piece so we can go right ahead in the rest and start talking about recitatives and libretti without having to define our terms. But I might be wrong.
  • More music samples? Sure, just don't look at a technical incompetent like me to provide them! If you can find some French and German stuff (say), please do.
  • Longer intro. No problem. Let's try to fill it with sharp, cogent stuff.
  • The modernism section is fine, but I get a sense it's maybe a little too long, too "top heavy" for the article. Again, we'll see.
  • I have some thoughts on referencing, but they can wait.
  • A lot of this Talk Page needs archiving!

Cheers for now. --Folantin 19:52, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Replies: I've cut half of the Verdi/Puccini clips (which didn't seem to work anyway and one of them had questionable copyright, see above), and added one each for English, French, and German opera, all copied-and-pasted from other wiki articles (now that's easy). I'll work on the intro when I get some more time. You could well be right about the modernism stuff: I think we wait for a bit, but child articles are easy to create. I now think that the opera terminology section is fine where it is (i.e before all the history), but something further needs to go before that IMO. I'll give it a think. Moreschi 20:05, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
So, you're going to write a new paragraph for the intro and move the current second paragraph down into the next section? -- Ssilvers 16:09, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] English language opera

I'm slowly easing myself back into WP and see that I've mostly missed a very busy period opera-wise. I'm glad to see that this article is at last being reorganised along the lines I argued for over at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Opera, with plenty of "main articles" elsewhere. What currently sticks out like a sore thumb is the English Opera section. First, I think it ought to be called English-language opera, like the German section. That would enable us to avoid having to have sections or articles on Welsh, Irish, Scottish opera and to incorporate American and other English-language operas. Second, there obviously ought to be a "main article". I see that English opera, a rather puny article, exists, but is anyone working on this or a retitled version? (I note that Moreschi has edited it recently). If so, can I help? If not, can I volunteer? --GuillaumeTell 17:07, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi, GT. I'll let Moreschi speak for himself but I believe he may have some eventual plans in that direction. Once we've got this main article sorted out, I intend to rework the separate articles on French and German opera completely (I've already made a start on the latter). Maybe I'll create articles on other national operas too. --Folantin 17:22, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
Changed section heading to "English-language opera" ("Opera in English" might be an alternative). I've added general references for most sections. Feel free to add some more if you can. I think once Moreschi writes the new "lead", we can consign the paragraph about what opera is not to the footnotes. As far as I can see from the talk page here, it was only added as a disclaimer after some editors objected this article didn't cover Chinese opera etc.. A few scattered thoughts about asserting opera's notability in the lead: it is one of the most prestigious forms of Classical music (probably the most prestigious in the 17th and 18th centuries?) and some major composers (e.g. Rossini, Wagner, Verdi, Puccini) worked almost exclusively in the medium; the social importance of opera-going, especially in the 18th and 19th centuries; worldwide popularity of opera singers such as Caruso, Callas and Pavarotti in the 20th.--Folantin 08:28, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
Re English Opera: IMO the problem with "English-language opera" is that it's too vague. I don't really see why Gershwin should be in there with Britten and Purcell. New World opera is its own genre, and therefore really should get an independant mention, with a link to an independant main article. But I agree that "English Opera" isn't ideal either, so IMO probably "Opera in Great Britain" is best, as that allows for the inclusion of any Welsh, Scottish/Gaelic composers that merit mention, without lumping American opera in, which is, after all, quite different from any UK based genre.
As for child article: anyone who wants to edit it, please to do so. Yes, I do have plans to develop that article, but I've got a lot on my plate at the moment both in real life and wiki, namely this rubbish, this article here, and I'm also trying to work this masterpiece-in-the-making up to GA standard, so I'm kind of busy at the moment, and English opera is on the backburner. Happy editing, basically. Best to all, Moreschi 14:23, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Er, just a moment. Britten is more like Purcell than he is like Glass? Certainly Glass is nothing like Gershwin. What do you think, GT? -- Ssilvers 14:50, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Silghtly facetious point: anyone ever heard Britten's I know a bank after Purcell's Sweeter than Roses? Echoes ain't the word. But I agree, ambivalence is present. I still think, though, that all the various developments in American opera should go together, and not wind up lumped in with a different tradition, which is to me a bit harsh on both genres. But let's see what other people think. Moreschi 15:19, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

For what it's worth, The Oxford Companion to Music article on opera has a section on "Opera in Britain" and another on "Opera in America". More recent US operas already get a mention in the "modern section" of our article. Maybe just a short section on "Opera in the Americas"? Then we can mention (say) the very first US opera (out of historical interest) plus some Latin American stuff (Torrejon, Gomes, Ginastera, Piazzolla). Just a suggestion. --Folantin 15:30, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

The trouble with this is that, say, "Opera in Britain" looks more like "which operas are/were performed in Britain and where", rather than "operas composed by British persons". --GuillaumeTell 17:04, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
"British Opera" then?--Folantin 17:09, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm sure I know less about this than any of you, but I can't believe that Spanish or Portugese language operas by Latin American compsers are more similar to North American English-language opera than British opera. Handel and Balfe were influenced by Italian Opera. But they still wrote English-language opera. Do what you want, but it seems strange to me to separate English language operas by which side of the Atlantic Ocean they were written on. By the way, does William Vincent Wallace deserve a mention? -- Ssilvers 18:41, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Handel is a bit problematic because, while he may have been a German he composed in England, and furthermore he didn't compose English-language opera; his operas are all in Italian with the exception of Acis and Galatea (I can't think of any others off the top of my head). The oratorios are in English, but that's something else altogether. Something else to try and get our heads round, I suppose. Orrey (the source I used for List of major opera composers has "Opera in GB", and this includes Handel, just to confuse everyone. Best, Moreschi 19:10, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
Years ago, we lost our tenor just before dress rehearsal for The Messiah. The conductor was referred to a young Japanese tenor who hardly spoke any English, but was supposed to be a crack sight reader. So we get started, and he sings: "Comfort ye" (so far, so good). "Comfort ye!" (nice voice!) "Comfort ye, my Pay-o-play". -- Ssilvers 20:48, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

"British and American Opera"? (Ignoring the Latin Americans). Gluck and Mozart (both Germans) get their major mentions under "Italian opera". Handel should probably get his main treatment there when we talk about opera seria (but still leave the mention of him we already have in the British opera section - he had a big influence on English opera, even if it was negative in many ways). Mozart actually appears in both the Italian and German sections; Gluck in both the Italian and French. As they should. I don't think we should worry unduly about these things. Have you ever heard Telemann's Orpheus? It's an opera in German, Italian and French!--Folantin 19:14, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Hoelle Rache sample

I have some doubts whether this recording/performance is suitable for introducing people to Mozart's operas. Personally, I think I would be scared off by it :). The lack of accompaniment could be part of the problem, the singer's strange pronunciation of German could be part of the problem - anyway, whatever the reason, the first 40 seconds or so are almost a torture for me. Maybe it takes a more refined/experienced ear to enjoy it? --194.145.161.227 22:18, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] English-language opera

I found cites for a historical discussion of early opera and antecedents in Britain, and so I added some discussion. Feel free to refine it. -- Ssilvers 05:12, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User:Daniel.Bryant's sprotect2 tag

User:Daniel.Bryant has put a sprotect2 tag on this article. Perhaps we could have an explanation of why, what and how does it work? - Kleinzach 09:21, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

See WP:SEMI, unregistered and "new2 accoutns cannot edit the page whilst semi-protection is in place, basically it should cut down the amount of vandalism, the article's been getting hit quite a lot recently. David Underdown 10:29, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Protection

Per a request, I have copied this note here explaining my action on the article Opera a couple of hours ago:-

What I have done is used my ability as an administrator to restrict editing for a period of five days under the protection policy; no IP address or user less than four days old will be able to edit the page. This action has been logged on the article's log by the MediaWiki software.

Although administrators generally don't leave protection notes on talk pages (rather, {{sprotect}} etc. on the article), I have added this one per a request to. Daniel Bryant 10:41, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for explaining. Much appreciated. I just wonder how effective a 5-day restriction will be. I'd really like to see a longer period or a permanent block on unregistered editors. What do other people think? - Kleinzach 10:47, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
Generally, permanent semi-protection is only afforded to those articles which IP vandals love: George W. Bush, etc. Other articles, including this one, can generally only have short-term semi-protection, to prevent the disruption and to bore the vandals out, basically. Quoting the policy,

Indefinite semi-protection may be used for [a]rticles subject to heavy and continued vandalism, such as George W. Bush; *[b]iographies subject to vandalism and/or POV-pushing that aren't widely watchlisted; [and u]ser pages (but not user talk pages), when requested by the user.

Unfortunately, this article does not fit this criteria; rather, it fits the "temporary protection" criteria (quoting again):

Temporary semi-protection may be used for [p]reventing vandalism when blocking users individually is not a feasible option, such as a high rate of vandalism from a wide range of anonymous IP addresses; and [a]rticle talk pages that are being disrupted; this should be used sparingly because it prevents new users and anons from being part of discussions.

Reading a little more,

Semi-protection should not be used...[t]o prohibit anonymous editing in general.

Of course, if the vandalism returns at absured levels after the five days, then you could request reprotection, and more-than-likely the duration would increase (no guarantees, but it should, to something like 10-14). Hope that helps in explaining. Cheers, Daniel Bryant 10:52, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Pictures

How many pictures of opera houses does this article need? We already have three and now somebody is trying to add a fourth. Can't we make do with one representative example, e.g. La Scala? --Folantin 14:04, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Right. Since it's an article on "opera", not "opera houses", shouldn't there be images of one of each of these: an opera house (one exterior and one interior?), a famous opera singer (male and female?), a famous composer or two, maybe a page of music, a programme cover from an opera or two, a poster/advertisement for an opera or two, and album cover of an opera recording or two, a statue or painting based on an opera, etc? Best regards -- Ssilvers 18:38, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
Agreed. The best place fror multiple pictures of opera houses is the article on Opera houses. - Kleinzach 23:05, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../o/p/e/Talk%7EOpera_5d25.html"