Talk:The opera corpus

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!


Contents

[edit] Launch

This list was developed by the Opera Project. I think it's sufficiently complete to appear now in a more prominent/conspicuous position linked to the main Opera article. If anyone has any comments about the presentation of the article, I will be interested to read them.

Kleinzach 22:46, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

I have changed the title to sentence-style lower case as it has been pointed out that this is the normal Wikipedia style.

Kleinzach 11:12, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Merging Operetta

For what it's worth, I agree with the suggestion at the top of the operetta list that that page should be deleted, and merged into The Opera Corpus. Marc Shepherd 14:05, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] What is this?

What is meant by "the opera corpus"? The article fails to give a useful definition as it ought to, preferably in the opening sentence or paragraph. If someone finds an opera that's not on this list, how are they supposed to figure out whether it's appropriate to add or not?

Without some attempt of definition, this looks like simply a list of operas by composer. It's apparently not limited to, say, the standard repertoire, something that could be defined with a certain amount of effort. So I'd like to see an explanation of what the corpus is, please. --Michael Snow 17:18, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

There is a clear enough definition in the first eight sentences. Operas that merit independent articles (for whatever reason) are listed here, while 'complete works' appear in the articles on composers.
In view of your other comments, please note, as it says in the introduction, "The list is broad and inclusive". No-one is trying to force a personal view of what should be in "the Opera Corpus' on anyone else. (The field is in any case so large that no one person will be knowledgeable about every aspect of it.)
Most of those who has contributed to the list - a large number both directly and indirectly - have been specialists in particular periods, countries, or languages. They have used their judgement about what should or should not be in. Their contributions have been respected and nothing (to my knowledge) has been deleted.
Judging by your user page you have no special interest in opera and you don't normally contribute to articles about it. This list is not a 'beginner's checklist', hence the introductory sentence "This is a list of more than 1,250 works . . . " There are other, more basic, pages that you can read. I would also recommend going out and actually seeing a live opera. That is the best way to develop a real understanding of what it is all about. Regards.
Kleinzach 18:43, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
In what way have "a large number" of people contributed to this list? On Wikipedia it appears to be very new and have very few editors.
If nothing has been deleted, are you ever going to delete things that get added? If so, on what basis? Can you tell me what operas don't merit independent articles? The "merit inclusion in Wikipedia" bit is still circular, self-referential, and doesn't help me distinguish this from a list of operas by composer.
As to my interests, if you read my user page you should find that they're simply not stated. As you observe, I haven't been that active on opera articles, and I apologize for my missteps as to the disambiguation conventions being used. However, I have written the article for at least one that's on this list, along with one that's not. I've also seen one more that's on the list and currently a red link, which I suppose means I ought to start the article. So please drop the condescending tone. --Michael Snow 19:55, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
First of all, you are very welcome to contribute to the article, rectifying links etc that are misdirected, adding titles that exist but are not listed etc. I hope you will not move any more pages without checking with the contributors that the moves are appropriate and do not cause more problems that they solve (as with the Fibich/Janacek operas).
This article as indicated in the first entry above was developed in the Opera Project pages. It was moved here recently in a fairly complete form, hence the history is there not here.
You write "Can you tell me what operas don't merit independent articles?". This list - which I would not be qualified to write - would be of thousands of titles. You must surely realize this, so why ask this kind of question?
Almost all your questions can be answered by looking at the pages in question. I don't have time to have long discussions about hypothetical questions such as deletions, self-references etc. that are largely irrelevant to the way the list was compiled. Enough!
Kleinzach 23:03, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
Perhaps you've never encountered a hardcore inclusionist contributor. I can assure you that some of them would take the position that there is no opera that doesn't merit an independent article. It is not a rhetorical question, it's entirely real. At this point, I cannot determine any criteria the article uses to determine what's in or out, so the natural assumption is that it doesn't have any. --Michael Snow 23:35, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
It seems sensible to me that if an opera has a Wikipedia article, then it should be listed on The Opera Corpus. This implies that the corpus will grow as Wikipedia grows. I doubt that Wikipedia would ever refuse admission to any bona fide opera article, as long as it's not a vanity piece (i.e., the opera someone wrote for their high school graduation project). (Comment added by Marc Shepherd)
Yes indeed. Please note you can sign your comments with four tildes, like this ~ ~ ~ ~ but without the spaces! - Kleinzach 21:57, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Handmaid's Tale (Tjenerindens Fortælling)

I think only the English title should be listed here - Ruders has always been clear that the English libretto, not the Danish one, is the authoritative one for the opera. Gerry Lynch 17:40, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough. I will remove the Danish title. Thanks. - Kleinzach 20:41, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bernstein/Weill

Shouldn't we just list Candide and A Quiet Place, and leave the rest to the musical theatre project? Also, for Weill, should we leave some of those works listed to the musical theatre project? Ssilvers 06:34, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

As already explained to the musical theatre project, listing here doesn't really imply any kind of ownership. Having half the works of a major composer like Bernstein or Weill might look odd, especially as even a work like West Side Story can be performed in different (both more and less operatic) ways, so IMO this is a non-issue. - Kleinzach 07:09, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
I'm going to reopen this "non-issue" and at least delete Wonderful Town, which is not an opera by any stretch of the imagination --Dmz5 05:30, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sullivan and Gilbert

Before I revert Adam Cuerden's subdividing of the Sullivan entries and his inclusion of a (IMO) completely unjustified entry for Gilbert, I thought I'd solicit a few opinions here. I've put a note on his talk page. --GuillaumeTell 20:50, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

As I said, my logic is as follows:
  1. People looking for Gilbert and Sullivan will probably start at Gilbert first. A redirect there is helpful, however, "See Arthur Sullivan" ignores all the other work he did, which is contrary to all recent moves in Gilbert and Sullivan scholarship (though typical of a few decades ago).
  2. Gilbert is far more famous than any other operatic lyricist, and the only one, to my knowledge, routinely named with the composer.
  3. The redirect to Sullivan means we need to be clear what Sullivan did with Gilbert, and what with others. Furthermore, "Gilbert and Sullivan" works are notable in their own right, above the rest of Sullivan's works. I am not aware of any other composer for which this holds true.
Quite simply, Gilbert seems to me a special case. - Adam Cuerden talk 20:59, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
While I wouldn't object to reverting Gilbert (although it'd be nice to have a separate place to list operas by librettist, with important figures such as him, Piave, Boito, etc.), I think the subdividing of Sullivan works. I often see "Gilbert & Sullivan" and "Sullivan" listed separately. And theirs was a special partnership - I don't know of another operatic partnership that was on such a scale. --User:AlbertHerring Io son l'orecchio e tu la bocca: parla! 22:53, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Guillaume Tell. We shouldn't have librettists on the opera corpus list. The focus is clearly on composers. Think what would happen if we did the same thing for Metastasio or Eugene Scribe on this page. It might be possible to separate the Savoy operas from the rest within Sullivan's entry, but I think anything more is dubious.--Folantin 08:41, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Per Folantin. List in Sullivan's entry his collaborations with Gilbert, but I wouldn't have a separate entry for Gilbert. Maybe you could redirect "Gilbert and Sullivan" to Sullivan's entry? And there have been other great composer-librettist partnerships - surely Mozart and Da Ponte are more important to operatic history than G+S? What about Metastasio and the rest of Europe? Purcell and Dryden? Wagner and himself? Moreschi 14:59, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
...Hugo von Hofmannsthal and Richard Strauss, Quinault and Lully, Piave and Verdi, Boito and Verdi, Scribe and Meyerbeer, Calzabigi and Gluck. No need to stretch the point any further, I think...As Moreschi suggests, a redirect from "Gilbert and Sullivan" to "Sullivan" on the page would be OK though. --Folantin 15:09, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
And where would Handel's oratorios be without Charles Jennens? O.K, this is getting silly. Provided there are no objections, I'll do a redirect from Gilbert and Sullivan to Sullivan. Moreschi 15:13, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
Yes, but none of those librettists is in themselves famous, whilst Gilbert is. In any case, if it is removed, realise I didn't put the opera s I listed under Gilbert elsewhere. Adam Cuerden talk 15:30, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
Shallow debate, but surely Da Ponte, Metastasio, and most especially Dryden are all famous in their own right?? Anyway, it'll be easy to scatter the Gilbert entry around the rest of the list. Moreschi 15:38, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
...and Hofmannsthal is one of the most famous poets and playwrights in Austrian literature, Boito composed some pretty famous operas in his own right, 19th century French opera would be unimaginable without Scribe, Gluck's reforms would not have happened without Calzabigi, etc. etc...--Folantin 15:51, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
Orrey describes Boito's Mefistofele (or whatever) as "one of the finest Faust operas". Moreschi 15:55, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
Well, what I mean is that people don't tend to go to an opera by Piave and Verdi, but do go to Gilbert and Sullivan. The other librettists tend to be known by cognoscenti, but not by the general public, whereas Gilbert is recognised readily by those who haven't dug very deeply into opera. Adam Cuerden talk 16:02, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
Depends which nationality the opera goer is...But if you mean some people might come here looking for "Gilbert and Sullivan", then the simple redirect Moreschi suggested would easily solve that. --Folantin 16:16, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../t/h/e/Talk%7EThe_opera_corpus_5651.html"