Talk:The Marriage of Figaro

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

An event in this article is a May 1 selected anniversary (may be in HTML comment)

Other languages WikiProject Echo has identified The Marriage of Figaro as a foreign language featured article. You may be able to improve this article with information from the Japanese language 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!
Start This article has been rated as Start-class on the quality scale.

Contents

[edit] "Literal" Italian

The opening paragraph translates "nozze" as "Marriage (lit. wedding)". This is misleading at best. Wedding may be a slightly more accurate translation but Nozze is in fact a plural noun, and the "LITERAL" translation of Le Nozze is probably something closer to "nuptials." Because it is less than 100% accurate and adds nothing to an understanding of the work, might I suggest that the "literal" alternate translation be stricken from the preamble? 69.178.122.114 08:49, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree—it should be stricken. Michael Bednarek 09:45, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Deleted. Further support is given by the fact that the title of Beaumarchais' original play, from which Da Ponte translated the title of the libretto, is "Le Mariage de Figaro." And Mariage is undoubtedly French for marriage and not wedding. Calaf (talk) 00:22, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

I believe that "mariage" is French for both "marriage" and "wedding". As a result of the Norman invasion, English has numerous examples of pairs of germanic and romance words with slightly different connotations for the same thing, like "middle" and "center", for which there is often only one word in French. The French wikipedia has two photographs labeled "Un mariage en Inde" and "Un mariage en Allemagne en 2005", both of which clearly show what would be described in English as weddings. "Nozze" does mean "wedding", just as "nuptials" does, despite the difference in number inflection. So a correct translation is indeed "The wedding of Figaro" or the more colloquial "Figaro's wedding", not unlike the German, "Figaros Hochzeit".

Since I commented on this on 4 December, I've thought about it further and I now agree with 63.86.92.198's assessment: nozze means wedding and the article should mention that. The traditional English translation of the title using the word marriage is incorrect (or at least confusing, as the play/opera clearly describes the wedding, not the marriage), unless marriage can also mean what Hochzeit means in German. To my surprise, Wiktionary:Marriage suggests just that in its 3rd definition, although I'm not familiar with that use.
This leaves three options: 1) Move the article to the Italian name of the opera (dsicussed before, rightfully rejected); 2) start a movement to change the English title to Figaro's Wedding (unlikely to be successful in the short/medium term); 3) explain the situation (which a former version of this article did, although rather clumsily).
I suggest to reintroduce the explanation that nozze means wedding into the article's lead — I'm just not sure about the wording. Michael Bednarek (talk) 00:28, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

How about "The traditional English-language title is 'The Marriage of Figaro'. However, a full and more accurate translation of the Italian is 'Figaro's Wedding, or the Day of Madness'."? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.86.92.198 (talk) 15:28, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] More on the role of Susanna

Due to its length/endurance and tessitura, I have read and heard in more than one source that Susanna is the hardest soprano role in the literature. Is this noteworthy enough to merit inclusion? 69.178.122.114 09:17, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, I suppose it's kind of subjective; but if it can be cited from a serious source, I suppose it can be included. Michael Bednarek 09:45, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Requested move

In accordance with WP:UE and Wikipedia:WikiProject Opera#Operas: original vs English translation, I propose that this article be moved to The Marriage of Figaro. --BaronLarf 13:08, May 25, 2005 (UTC)

  1. Support both here and across-the-board implementation of Wikipedia:WikiProject Opera#Operas: original vs English translation. Susvolans (pigs can fly) 13:13, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
  2. Support -- Viajero | Talk 13:51, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
  3. Support -- This is a "no brainer." --Lordkinbote 15:37, May 25, 2005 (UTC)
Done -- Viajero | Talk 19:39, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] More about the music

We need to try to find more about the music, since that is what Mozart mostly did.


Edit 02/23/2006: The Mass in C K.317 was written before 'Le Nozze di Figaro' K.492, so Mozart has not recyled the aria 'Dove sono' for this mass, but it is the other way around: he used the music from the mass in the opera.


COMMENT BY SOMEONE ELSE

The music is arguably Mozart's best. Please say so.


The article mentions that not including thematic material in the overture is in keeping with the adult Mozart's practice, but the opening of the overture to Don Giovanni (written just after Figaro) is lifted pretty much wholesale from the finale. I'm going to change this section unless someone has an objection. MattHanlon 06:07, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

And furthermore, the tune to which the words "Così fan tutte" are sung in the eponymous opera also appears in the overture. And the three chords that represent Sarastro's temple or the brotherhood or something-or-other also appear in the Magic Flute overture.
As for Figaro, the diddle-diddle-diddle-diddle "scurrying" coda to the overture can be heard under the final chorus in the opera. --GuillaumeTell 11:26, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Indeed the entire 'Music' section is scattershot. I suggest a wholesale revision. I intend to eliminate some trivia -- the Coldstream Guards have no place here -- and hopefully introduce some sourced opinions on the significant contribution to Western music that 'Figaro' constitutes. MattHanlon 09:16, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Cherubino casting

I removed a reference to Cherubino being cast as a countertenor. As far as I can tell this kind of casting is quite rare, and in my opinion is basically a stunt. Also thought the wording was clumsy and out of context. MattHanlon 15:41, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Count 'no longer in love'?

I don't think it's accurate to describe the Count as no longer being in love with the Countess (this is in the character list). In fact, I would contest that the Count is very much in love with the Countess. The final scene of forgiveness and togetherness should be enough to justify my deletion of 'no longer in love with Rosina' from the Count's entry in the character list.

FractaL 23:55, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Staging

Some interesting but problematic material about hte staging of The Marriage of Figaro was cut from Pierre Beaumarchais. It may have copyright issues, and it lacks citation, but it is suggestive of a direction for someone to look into for this article. - Jmabel | Talk 20:26, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Noted Arias

Why there are 2 Noted Arias sections? Please remove one. 80.108.64.239 09:26, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Done :) - Jay 09:37, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Non più andrai quoted in The Magic Flute

I can't site a source and don't remember what part of the opera it is in, but I do remember hearing it in The Magic Flute in a similar context as in Don Giovanni. CH52584 —Preceding unsigned comment added by CH52584 (talk • contribs) 03:23, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] How many acts?

The opera is conventionally considered to have four acts. However, it is often performed with the last two of these merged into a single third act, particularly when the opera is shortened by the traditional cuts of Marcellina's and Don Basilio's arias. There is strong internal evidence that it was conceived as a two-act opera, in that the conventional first act completely lacks the finale that a proper opera buffa should have, the "finale" of the conventional third act hardly deserves the name, and the opera buffa form originated as a two-act opera performed between the three acts of an opera seria. Michael Kelly ("Ochelli") supports this idea in his Reminiscences. His description of the success of the first performance of Non piu andrai in rehearsal is often quoted: "...Those in the orchestra I thought never would have ceased applauding, by beating the bows of their violins against the music desks." He goes on to write, "The same meed of approbation was given to the finale at the end of the first act", and, "In the sestetto, in the second act..., I had a very conspicuous part, as the stuttering judge." The acts which he names as the first and second are now considered the second and third respectively. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.54.89.30 (talk) 00:19, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Arbitrary removal of OPERA America's ranking of operas

I have posted the following on the talk page of User talk:Captbaritone:

I suggest that you refer to the DISCUSSION PAGE before arbitrarily removing copy from an article, especially the 20 opera articles which contain this reference to their popularity.
Who are you to determine that is is "uncessary" - and WHY? Justify your position on the Discussion page first and wait for responses.Viva-Verdi (talk) 02:02, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
I agree with Viva-Verdi's objection to the unwarranted removal of that section. In fact, without it, the sentence It is now regarded as a cornerstone of the standard operatic repertoire deserves to be tagged with Template:Who; to avoid being so tagged, I re-added the reference. Michael Bednarek (talk) 07:03, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Missing bibliographical entry

There are two refs to a work by a "Solomon", but no corresponding entry in the References section.
--Jerome Potts (talk) 01:18, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Inclusion of links to reviews of productions of this opera

I see that a link to a Northern Ireland production from February 2008 has been added.

Is there any value in including reviews of productions - as worthy as they may be - in what could become an everlasting series of links? And, if they are included, what criteria should be employed to determine their value? Viva-Verdi (talk) 17:09, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Based on the reasons for removal of this link by User:HowardBerry, I support this revert. Viva-Verdi (talk) 03:38, 18 April 2008 (UTC)FelixY817 04:17, 19 May 2008 (UTC)