Talk:The Sorcerer

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is part of WikiProject Gilbert and Sullivan, an attempt to complete and improve the Gilbert and Sullivan related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale for the G&S Project.
Article Grading: The article has been rated for quality and/or importance but has no comments yet. If appropriate, please review the article and then leave comments here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article.

[edit] Earlier comments

Constance is not really a mezzo. She has many high A's and optional high C's. There are not really any low notes. Most mezzos would find this role uncomfortably high (as Jessie Bond apparently did).

I am going through these also to change the characterization of the patter roles from "baritone" to "comic baritone", although if someone wants to clean up the html or whatever this stuff is, be my guest. I think it is important for people who are not intimately familiar with G&S to understand that there is some kind of vocal difference between, say, Wells and Daly. --Sam Silvers, 20 April 2006.

FYI, neither Gilbert nor Sullivan ever used the word "operatta" to refer to their works. They called them "operas" or "comic operas." Also, the phrase "Savoy Opera" is pretty much universally applied to all of their works, not just those that literally premiered at the Savoy. (See talk page for Savoy Opera.) Marc Shepherd 04:34, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

The Sorcerer exists in two wildly different forms. Really must get in here andd give the earlier form, and note the cut songs. Also give the history -ö well, I'll do it later, when I'm more awake. Adam Cuerden 04:21, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

The two really aren't that wildly different. The introduction mentions the revisions for the 1884 revival. The only song cut for that revival was the opening of Act II, and the article already mentions that. Marc Shepherd 09:24, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, depending on what you believe as to when Thou hast the power appeared during the first run. But we should probably make mention of In Days gone by, even if lost, and the Ahrimanes scene, even if they never made it to the public stage. Adam Cuerden 10:54, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with that, but you're really talking not about "two wildly different versions," but about a series of multiple, incremental revisions over a long period of time. Nearly all of the Savoy Operas had such revisions, so there is nothing unique about The Sorcerer.

Depending on how "encyclopedic" one wants to get, each opera could have a lengthy section on textual history, covering the development of the text up to the premiere, the first-night text, revisions after the first night, and revisions for revivals.

If you're setting priorities, I think it would be more important to itemize alternatives that are realistically available for performance — "Fold your flapping wings" in Iolanthe, "When jealous torments" and "A laughing boy" in Yeomen, the multiple versions of Ruddy/igore, and so forth.

There's another very long list of numbers that were unset, or for which the setting doesn't survive, and of course they are interesting from a certain perspective, but they can't be performed without writing one's own score. From the point of view of what the average Encyclopedia reader might reasonably want to know, the surviving material is probably more interesting. Marc Shepherd 14:48, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

You do have a good point. Though the Recit for Lady Sangazure is a bit of an odd piece on its own - Doesn't resolve to the Tonic. It might be worth pointing up why. I dunno. Not a high priority, no. Still, though, we really MUST include information about the change to Act II's opening, and possibly the rather major cut to the end of the Act I finale (in which it works back around to the Brindisi after Marvellous illusion) Adam Cuerden 13:03, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, no use talking about how it should be done. Did a first draft now, and will revise it after it has some time to foment. Adam Cuerden 13:37, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

A good first draft. I have revised it for accuracy. You said that "Various songs were cut during the original reheasals, including a song for Lady Sangazure," but Lady Sangazure's ballad was performed on opening night. You also said that Alexis's Act I ballad "may not have appeared in very early performances," but in fact it was in the earliest ones. Besides that, I made various minor copy-edits. Marc Shepherd 15:00, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

...Are you SURE you don't mean Act II Ballad? Because that's the one missing from the early scores. Adam Cuerden 17:53, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes, just a misfire on my part. Of course, it's Act II. Marc Shepherd 18:21, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Hmm. Should we say "a new ending to Act I"? Because it's substantially similar musically, if the revision is abridged, and though the end tableau is different, it's not on the scale of the Act II opening's revision. Or am I being pedantic again? It's certainly accurate in the small... aha! "A new ending to the Act I finale" - accurate and doesn't imply anything more than it should =) Adam Cuerden

Okay, it now says a different ending to Act I. I also deleted the word "Finale" from that sentence, because once you've established that you're talking about the end of the act, the word "Finale" is redundant. Marc Shepherd 21:11, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Is it? I mean, the end of the Finale implies that the beginning of the Finale is unchanged, which is true. The end of the Act could well include all of the Finale being changed. It's explained in full a sentence or two later, so it doesn't matter much, but, well, I get pedantic over shades of meaning sometimes =) Adam Cuerden 07:17, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

The firm in the opera - J. W. Wells & Co - is a major component in the four most recent books by Tom Holt, but I'm not sure whereabouts in the article this should be noted (if at all). Anyone? Tyrhinis 20:09, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

I think the best place for this info is under the "cultural influence" section in the Gilbert and Sullivan entry. Ssilvers 22:50, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Happy are we

How is this song best listed? Certainly, it was performed, which means it's not exactly a cut song. I know that in several of the more scholarly productions it's used either elsewhere in Act II or as curtain call music, so it is still heard sometimes, but that said, it's not quite on the same line as, say, "For thirty-five years" which is done, if Sam's poll is accurate, about as often as the number which replaced it. Is it best kept as it is, moved to a footnote but still given some prominance in the footnote, demoted to versions, or what? Adam Cuerden 15:30, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

I think "Happy are We" is very, very rare -- it's just a curiosity for now. I would demote it to versions. --Ssilvers 16:40, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

"Happy are we" is a cut song. As I noted on Talk:Patience (opera), I've never seen a production that restored the 1877 version in its entirety. Any attempt to restore it into an 1884 text is simply the decision of an isolated production, and there's no consensus about this. (Savoynet, for instance, used it as curtain-call music.) Marc Shepherd 16:49, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Restored it to footnote status, with a brief mention that it's still occassionally used. Adam Cuerden 18:37, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Nice use of "while"! :-) --Ssilvers 19:12, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Aye. Had to have a special edit to remove it, though. Adam Cuerden 19:24, 10 August 2006 (UTC)