Talk:Kathleen Battle

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Ohio Portal
Kathleen Battle is part of WikiProject Ohio, which collaborates on Ohio-related subjects 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/or contribute to current discussions.
B This article has been rated as B-class on the quality scale.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.

Please rate this article, and then leave comments here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article.
Suggested article edit guidelines:
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Biography Portal
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]
This article is supported by WikiProject Musicians, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed biographical guide to musicians and musical groups on Wikipedia.
This article falls within the scope of the Opera WikiProject, a collaboration to develop Wikipedia articles on operas and opera terminology, opera composers and librettists, singers, designers, directors and managers, companies and houses, publications and recordings. The project talk page is a place to discuss issues, identify areas of neglect and exchange ideas. New members are very welcome!
B This article has been rated as B-class on the quality scale.
Archive
Archives
/Archive 1- 2006-2007 discussions



Contents

[edit] Voice

The article states she is lyric-coloratura, but perhaps she is more soubrette? Anyone else agree?

I'd consider 'lyric-coloratura' as a vocal type, and 'soubrette' as a type of opera role. So, her voice is lyric-coloratura, and she often played soubrette roles. Marieblasdell 00:15, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
Actually if you follow her carear, most of the roles she has sang are lyric soprano roles and pretty much all of the articles I have read have described her as a lyric soprano. She really hasn't sang too much in the coloratura literature, and although her earlier career focused largely in soubrette roles, she quickly moved into more traditionally lyric soprano roles in the 1980s. Nrswanson 04:53, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
Here is a quote for you "Kathleen Battle's voice is a high, very pure soprano with great charm. She has excellent technical control, which has allowed her to sing the difficult coloratura roles of Rosina and Zerbinetta though her approach is always more lyric than that of coloratura sopranos. She is an excellent actress and tries to give full characterization to each of her roles." http://www.answers.com/topic/kathleen-battle?cat=entertainmentNrswanson 05:08, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
Like Marielblasdell said, soubrette is a generally considered a role type, though often then a certain voice type is type cast. But for a more authoratative source, webster's online dictionary says this about Soubrette -- 1 a: a coquettish maid or frivolous young woman in comedies b: an actress who plays such a part; 2: a soprano who sings supporting roles in comic opera. And here is what webster's online says about "lyric": 3: of an opera singer : having a light voice and a melodic style — compare dramatic; Yes, you could call her a soubrette, but that would really only be appropriate if she were playing a comedic or supporting role in an opera. But to describe her general voice type, and to encompass her varied repertoire, Lyric Soprano, covers that more. Does that make sense? This may also be useful:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fach#Lyrischer_Koloratursopran_.2F_Koloratursoubrette http://arts.endow.gov/national/gav/voicetypes.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.74.18.183 (talk) 20:18, 12 September 2007 (UTC) Hrannar 14:41, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Her publicist at sony classic that produces and markets all her solo recordings describes her as a lyric soprano. For this reason I have changed her description to lyric soprano. I have also found several newspaper articles, including the New York Times, that have refered to her as a lyric soprano. She is also often refered to as a soprano legiero by opera critics which is to my understanding sort of a hybrid between a lyric soprano and a lyric-coloratura soprano in that the voice has the warmth of the lyric and the agility of a coloratura but not quite the upper extension in the range with a soprano legiero peaking at a high E and not having the coloratura high F. Also, if you read the soubrette article on wikipedia which is well sourced you will realize it is both a voice type and a role. However, the soubrette voice type lacks coloratura facility which does not describe battle at all who has performed roles and recorded roles with challenging coloratura passages including an entire CD dedicated to Bel Canto music. A soubrette would not be capable of singing that literature.Nrswanson (talk) 23:10, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Some Further Suggestions

I've started a new section because the 'Firing' section had become very unwieldy, and the following are more general suggestions that apply to the article as a whole. First, let me clarify something, I'm a member of the Opera Project, not the Biography Project, although I have written several biographies of singers on Wikipedia. I am also a professional writer (but on linguistics, not opera). I see this article has been temporarily locked - an excellent idea. It provides time for reflection. With a bit of calm restored, I've had time to look more closely at the whole article and at some of its many (too many) previous versions. A few more suggestions for the future to avoid edit-warring, and improve the quality of the article at the same time:

  1. The best way to achieve neutrality over section titles and to avoid giving undue weight to any particular aspect of the subject's life and career (either positive or negative) is to use simple chronological labelling for the sub-sections. Take a look at how José Carreras is structured.
  2. The lead paragraph should outline briefly why the singer is notable, but avoid critical judgements like "She is particularly known for her pure timbre, exceptional technique and musicianship, and ability to connect with her audience.", especially unreferenced ones. Such assessments, meticulously referenced, preferably to multiple sources, belong more properly in the body of the article. For example, take a look at how this is handled in José Carreras, Rockwell Blake and Juan Diego Flórez
  3. Avoid adjectives that are in themselves evaluative when describing the person. e.g. 'gracious' unless they are part of a direct quote. There are some versions of this article (and to a certain extent the current version) which, to an outsider, give the slight impression of a 'fan' or 'PR' page. It actually does the subject a disservice, because readers then tend to discount what is written and start wondering about what is not written.
  4. For the same reason, avoid adjectives to describe the sources of quotes which appear to 'load' the importance or validity of their views. Let the reader decide. For example: "Matthew A. Epstein, a noted music producer..." (and the previous to-ing and fro-ing over whether he is "noted" or "distinguished"). Simply say: "Matthew A. Epstein, the music producer who has worked with Ms. Battle in a production of Handel's Semele at Carnegie Hall, also stated..." Note also than in all the melée, there is now a stranded mention of "Holland", whom I presume to be Bernard Holland, the NY Times critic. But the sentence in which it appears lacks any context, or referencing. It's a good example of how piecemeal, rapid-fire editing can be contraproductive to producing a well-written article.
  5. Similarly, watch out for describing colleagues, conductors, and collaborators as "important", "renowned", or "distinguished". Even though it's not intentional, it reads like 'PR speak' and tends to reduce rather than increase the article's credibility. A word like "prominent" is slightly preferable, but even that should be used very judiciously. Most of the colleagues, etc. mentioned in the article have Wikipedia articles to which their names are linked. That alone gives an idea of their prominence.

All the best, Voceditenore 07:18, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] And finally...

The section Choral, recital repertoire, soundtracks, and collaborations has content too diffuse to be under one section. It's also rather 'bitty' and disorganized. I would suggest retitling it simply Recital repertoire, which can also incorporate information about the notable 'non-classical' (for want of a better word) repertoire. The work with Stevie Wonder, Bobby McFerrin, Grover Washington, Jr., Janet Jackson etc. should all be in the same paragraph. At moment those bits are scattered around in several paragraphs. I would also suggest removing the paragraphs which simply list collaborators and festivals variously described as "respected", "important" and "renowned". They contribute to the article's 'PR' tone which I mentioned above and are indeed very similar to this. They simply make the reader's eyes glaze over. They also contribute to the repetitiousness of the article, several of them are already mentioned elsewhere, e.g. Salzburg Festival, Cincinnati's May Festival, James Levine, Von Karajan, etc. etc.

It is important to give an idea of the breadth and importance of the conductors, orchestras, etc. that the artist has worked with, but there are ways to do this which make for a much better article:

  1. Some of the really key or unusual live performances can be much more usefully incorporated on an individual basis and in more detail in the section on her career. By more detail, I mean not simply listing the conductor and/or orchestra, but describing the performance including the date, and referencing to any available press coverage/reviews. I would also include the Vangelis project and the film track work in the relevant chronological sections of Life and career (see below for more on sections).
  2. Change the format of the discography. (The table is very constricting.) And then change the contents. Prune some of the compilations. The current selections make it seem like she only does recital discs and misses a very impressive opera discography. Provide some of the important full length opera recordings as well as some interesting collaborations she's done with links to Wikipedia articles of the conductors and fellow performers e.g. (I haven't done all the links, and she has several other major full-length opera recordings, but this gives you an idea)
  • Rossini: L'Italiana in Algeri - Marilyn Horne, Samuel Ramey, Kathleen Battle, Ernesto Palacio , Nicolai Zaccaria, I Solisti Veneti, conductor Claudio Scimone (Erato CD)
  • Donizetti: L'Elisir d'Amore - Luciano Pavarotti, Kathleen Battle, Juan Pons, Metropolitan Opera Orchestra, conductor Levine (Deutsche Grammophon DVD)
  • Mozart: Die Zauberflöte - Kathleen Battle, Francisco Araiza, Kurt Moll, Luciana Serra, Metropolitan Opera Orchestra, conductor Levine (Deutsche Grammophon DVD)
  • Richard Strauss: Ariadne auf Naxos - Jessye Norman, Kathleen Battle, Tatiana Troyanos, Metropolitan Opera Orchestra, conductor Levine (Deutsche Grammophon DVD)
  • Handel: Semele - Kathleen Battle, Marilyn Horne, Samuel Ramey, John Aler, Sylvia McNair, Michael Chance, English Chamber Orchestra, conductor John Nelson (Deutsche Grammophon DVD)
  • Kathleen Battle & Jean-Pierre Rampal in Concert (Sony CD)
  • Baroque Duet - Kathleen Battle & Wynton Marsalis (Sony CD)

Some final things to consider when you can all start editing again

  1. The line between respectful tone and reverent tone can be a very fine one. Singer's biographies should always aim for respectful and strenuously avoid reverent. The latter not only attracts time-wasting edit-wars but also detracts (paradoxically) from the importance of the singer's career. Another small point in this respect - this is an encylopedia, so avoid references to the subject as "Ms. (or Miss) Battle". Use either her full name or simply her last name.
  2. Don't go on and on fiddling with the part about her firing. Apart from my suggestions in the previous sections, leave the text about her firing pretty much as it is for a while. There is far more valuable and important work to be done on this article, including sorting out the very poor referencing format. Also, by adding more and more material to it, you simply attract attention to the episode and give it undue weight in what has otherwise been a very distinguished career. Besides, the more additions that are made to put it in as positive a light as possible... well... it's liable to make the famous Hamlet quote come to the reader's mind "The lady doth protest too much, methinks."  ;-) Note also that in something controversial, the use of direct quotes which are only positive will invite negative ones to redress the balance. Trust me, there are some very damning ones out there from quite prominent figures in the opera and classical music world quoted in reputable sources e.g. Time Magazine (Feb. 21, 1994), The Sydney Morning Herald (November 8, 2002), to name a few.
  3. In terms of the chronological labelling of the sub-sections, I'd suggest Early years, 1970s, 1980s, 1990s, and 2000 to the present. Then move the various relevant debuts, landmark performances, etc into their appropriate chronological sections. At the moment, there is a certain amount of disorganzation and repetition in the way these are presented.
  4. Given the 'history' here, the editors who are most involved in this article should think about having sandboxes in their user pages so they can show each other what they are thinking of adding and get some consensus before adding it to the article itself. See this for how to create one if you don't already know.

All the Best, Voceditenore 10:43, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

All these suggestions do indeed focus more on making it a solid, living biography. And apologies about the 'protesting' too much. I hoped to share the other side (about the dismissal), but I can see I wasn't too succesful. I think the Jose Carreras article is a nice example. You note several other ways to make this article more valuable. Thanks again! Man, Voceditenore, I wish I had contacted you much earlier. :-) For some time, as you are probably aware, editors were posting information like this: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kathleen_Battle&oldid=56514996; so while that might be perfect for the national enquirer, it just didn't seem right for wikipedia. Hrannar 19:10, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

I was happy to help, and I think that this article has the potential to become a really good one. In its current state, it's a definite improvement over its earliest versions. The main thing now, is for everyone involved in the article to agree to discuss significant additions/deletions or rephrasings here first. It's also a good idea to work in larger chunks, getting the wording right, making sure it's well-integrated into the article and does not repeat what is written in another section, ensuring that the references are there and properly formatted, proofreading for spelling and punctuation, etc. rather than adding or changing only a small bit at a time. Otherwise, when there are several editors involved, each of whom is editing bits in rapid succession, the article gets out of whack. It becomes disorganized. And worse, in the rapid to-ing and fro-ing, references get lost, and things everyone was happy to keep go missing or become oddly worded, etc.. That's why I recommend adding sandboxes to your user pages. Anyhow, from what I can see, the main editors here all have the same goal, producing a balanced, well-written article that does justice to Battle's career. Everyone just got into a bit of a tizzy over how to go about it.;-) All the best, and happy editing, Voceditenore 05:33, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Difficult?

How does the following indicate that Battle has developed a reputation for being difficult?

Kathleen Battle first gained the tag "difficult" in 1983 when working with Kiri Te Kanawa in a production of Arabella. Some production staff advised her to request restoring of parts of Zdenka (Kathleen Battle's part) that were cut. Te Kanawa denied the requests, and their relationship subsequently deteriorated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.101.150.198 (talk) 03:00, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] New Picture?

Is there a way to make this new pic the same size as the old one?Nrswanson (talk) 21:51, 10 June 2008 (UTC)