Talk:Orfeo ed Euridice

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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!

Orfeo ed Euridice has been listed as a good article under the good-article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can delist it, or ask for a review.

Contents 1 proposed shortening of intro 2 personal impression of decline of mixed versions 3 Recordings 4 Table of roles/different versions 5 Translation? 6 More sources 7 Passed GA

[edit] proposed shortening of intro

Hello, I was looking at this article, and it struck me how long the introduction is. If there are no objections, I propose having a much shorter introduction, and moving most of the content about the different versions of Orfeo to another section, below the table of contents. Any thoughts on this? Thanks. --Kyoko 14:45, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Go ahead. Per WP:LEAD, the current version isn't really on. I've got the Bowman recording arriving in a few days, so I'm hoping it will have some good info I can use to work on this article. Cheers, Moreschi 15:31, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

I have the Kowalski, Podles, and (I forget who's on Naxos) recordings myself... it's an opera I've actually seen, one that I like a lot and one of the few operas I have multiple recordings of. Maybe I'll make this my pet project for the time being. Maybe. Thanks for the quick response. --Kyoko 15:38, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Enjoy. By a strange coincidence (hmm?) this was going to be MY next BIG thing as well, so we can work together In Sweetest Harmony. Cheers, Moreschi 15:40, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

This one has a long history. It dates back to 2003, before we had formats to follow. It would certainly benefit from the introduction being split up into more sections - in the same style as other opera articles. Having clearly organized sections is also helpful for an opera with multiple versions (like Orfeo). (Also I'd recommend checking out the basic facts with Grove, which can then serve as a basic reference. I'd do this myself except that I am separated from my books right now.) - Kleinzach 16:45, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] personal impression of decline of mixed versions

Hello all, I'm not sure precisely how to word this, but I have the impression that along with the rise of the period performance movement (or however you call it), the use of countertenors became more common with Orfeo, and the number of performances (or at least, recordings) that mixed and matched elements from Vienna and Paris declined sharply. Is this impression correct, and furthermore, would something about this belong in the article? Thanks. --Kyoko 15:48, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, as far as I'm aware, and most definitely yes. The thing is that the French voice - the haute-contre - has virtually vanished, largely because the technique of singing in that manner - a high tessitura and light tone blurred with falsetto at the top - has been lost. Most recordings these days use either a countertenor or a woman, and stick largely to one version. Best, Moreschi 17:05, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

The problem with mentioning this shift in performance/recording is that I'm not sure if something like that can be supported by an easily citable source. --Kyoko 18:13, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Recordings

This section is way too big, and urgently needs cutting down to size IMO. Any other opinions? Moreschi 17:20, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

It is getting pretty big. Perhaps a single representative sample of each version might be better, though that could be interpreted as playing favourites. I suppose it is, at that. For what it's worth, I had added the Podles 1859 Berlioz version because it was a recording in French with a contralto, as opposed to von Otter's mezzo-soprano voice. Not that there's anything wrong with mezzo-sopranos. --Kyoko 17:29, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

I dunno. It's not that long. It could actually be a lot longer - it's a popular opera. I don't know how these things are decided. Watch out for the NPOV paranoiacs though if you do make a selection. --Folantin 17:39, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Don't be ridiculous. There is everything wrong with mezzos:)) Joking apart, I think that's a pretty good solution. It also just be one section - get rid of all the subheadings - and put details that were in the headers in brackets. Cheers, Moreschi 17:47, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Folantin does have a good point that if recordings are excluded, someone might complain. I still think that the page would be better if the content about the recordings wasn't so large compared to the rest of the article. That means one of two solutions: trim the recordings list (pretty easy to do), or expand the other content (a bit harder). Speaking of expanding the content, see the prior discussion about the perceived decline of mixed versions. --Kyoko 18:12, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Hang on, why not base what recordings are included upon what sells best at Amazon? Seriously. Then people can't complain - we're just including the most popular recordings for each version. No problemo. There's lots of stuff from Grove that I'm planning to put into this article over the next few days, so expanding the content will not be a problem. Cheers, Moreschi 18:15, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

That's a good idea too. Everybody is having a good idea! I would like to add references to the material that I've added, but I'm still unfamiliar with how to do this (yes, despite having done it before). Hopefully I'll get around to this soon. --Kyoko 18:26, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

As an unreconstructed completist, let me say I really like long lists of recordings, particualrly those that include early recordings. In this case, with all the different versions, long recording lists are particularly valuable. I although think we should be careful to avoid POV recommendations. - Kleinzach 18:52, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

I enjoy long lists of recordings too, but I'm just concerned that such lists will be seen as unencyclopedic and not proper for Wikipedia. I wouldn't delete such a list if I saw one, but some people might. I guess I'm trying to find the right balance between inclusionism and deletionism. --Kyoko 19:14, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't really see the problem with a longish list, especially given the amount of Pokemoncruft allowed on Wikipedia. --Folantin 19:19, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

I think that at this point, perhaps the non-recording content should be expanded first before worrying about trimming the recordings list. As you can tell, I'm not committed either way between inclusionism and deletionism. Note to self: must start adding more to article. --Kyoko 19:24, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Table of roles/different versions

The character "A happy shade" doesn't appear in the 1762 version, since the aria "Cet asile/Questo asilo" was written for Paris, and so shouldn't appear in the table, unless someone is planning to augment the table to show the first performers of the various later versions. Even then, I'd be prepared to bet that it may not be clear whether the aria was sung by Euridice or by someone else, and you might prefer to omit the character altogether.

More generally, I don't think I have time to join the O&E GA task-force, but as this opera is a favourite of mine (I have 4 recordings, with Orpheus sung by a contralto, a tenor, a mezzo and a counter-tenor) you may find me adding my 2p here from time to time. One thing I could do to help, if anyone's interested, would be to provide a table of the relationship between the individual numbers (and keys) in the four main versions, based on the one by Max Loppert in "Opera on Record, Vol 1". Another service I could perform would be to look the article over when it's nearly ready. Reading through it just now, my editing finger was itching to make all sorts of amendments to the existing text... --GuillaumeTell 18:00, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Actually, the same thought about the table of roles was running through my teeming brain yesterday - I'll see what I can do. The table of keys - sounds great, please feel free to go ahead when you have the time. I'm just off to add a whole more whack of stuff from Grove. Cheers, Moreschi 18:31, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

I note the "sexier roles table". Personally I prefer the un-indented German WP lined version but I may be old fashioned . . . however can we have dates of the first performances so that we know what exactly is being referred to? - Kleinzach 18:45, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Uh, and I don't think that Joseph Legros was an alto castrato... --GuillaumeTell 18:57, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Will fix. Apologies for one or two balls-ups. Cheers, Moreschi 18:58, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Why don't you just copy what I did with the tables on Alceste (Gluck)? --Folantin 12:15, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes the tables on Alceste (Gluck) are a good model. Very easy to understand. - Kleinzach 16:06, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Translation?

The intro to the article says, "...twelve years after the 1762 premiere, Gluck re-adapted the opera to suit the tastes of a Parisian audience...." Wasn't it also translated into French? If so, the article should say so. Regards, -- Ssilvers 19:26, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

It was, and the article says so lower down in the Performance History section: "This version, named Orphée et Eurydice, had a French libretto by Pierre-Louis Moline, which was both a translation of and an expansion upon Calzabigi's original text". I don't think this should go into the lead: the lead is meant to summarize the article and not to contain overmuch data, and I have seen GA reviewers be quite strict in enforcing this: some take the line that the lead should contain no data that is not developed further later. Cheers, Moreschi ^Deletion! 19:30, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] More sources

Considering that this is a pretty significant work, it would be nice to see an article that didnt lean so heavily on the grove . . . -Dmz5*Edits**Talk* 05:04, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

<ref>Innocent look<ref> Well, the Grove is very, very good. The whole thing isn't cited entirely from Grove, anyway, I have introduced other sources. And possible over-reliance on one high-quality, reliable source should not really be a problem for GA, nothing in WP:WIAGA about that: this is more of an objection I would expect to see at FA level.

But if you think it's a major problem, I can try to get some more. Cheers, Moreschi ^Deletion! 15:11, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

I've added my source for the 1762/1774 differences. The list of references does need tidying up, however. --GuillaumeTell 16:28, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

The list of references could in fact be much shorter. Are you aware that, when you have several references to the same source, you can simply use the formula:

<ref name="Grove">Grove</ref>

and then for every subsequent reference to the same source use:

<ref name="Grove" />

This way the same source will only appear once in the list of references, with letters directing to the correct place in the article. This is particularly useful for websites, where there are no page numbers to consider. I think this would cut the list to about a third in this case. Lampman 18:33, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Just to clarify, I guess that should be 'notes', not 'references'. I've tried to implement it. Also, you should decide whether you want the references to be on the form of 'Firstname Lastname' or 'Lastname, Firstname'. Lampman 18:58, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

WP:CITE specifies Lastname, Firstname. The "cite book" ref for Girdlestone is right, and the ones for Holden seem to me to be wrong. My version of one of the latter is in the refs at the bottom of Der Vampyr. And I think the notes/refs should be in alpha order of author. I'm thinking of putting up some guidance on this, plus some "cite book" cribs, on the Opera Project page. --GuillaumeTell 21:35, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

I've changed the Holden refs to conform to Last, First and coauthors. The Grove ref is formatted as Grove mandates; I don't think that should be changed, and the Astrée refs still need formatting. Fvasconcellos 21:42, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Passed GA

A very nice looking article that does a good job of synthesising its sources. My only real complaint is that in places it appears to be overcited (unusual, I know!). There are several paragraphs that are based on only one source, but have several citations in them. Unless you're dealing with direct quotes or particularly controversial/opinionated assertions, you might want to consider cutting some of them down. Good job, though. MLilburne 20:15, 12 February 2007 (UTC)