Talk:The Yeomen of the Guard

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is part of WikiProject Gilbert and Sullivan, organized to complete and improve the Gilbert and Sullivan related articles on Wikipedia. You can participate by editing the article attached to this page or by visiting the project page, to 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.

You may comment here on the rating or to explain the strengths and weaknesses of the article.

Contents

[edit] Uncertainties as to details

If anyone can correct any mistakes or confirm where I was right, I'd be most grateful. In particular:

I'm not absolutely certain about the list of Gilbert's top three, though I'm fairly sure.
Voice parts:
I'm not sure whether Wilfred and the Lieutenant are basses or bass-baritones.
I'm not sure whether the Second Yeoman is a baritone, bass-baritone or bass.
My source for the Third and Fourth Yeomen's voice parts may be wrong.
I question the classification of Meryll as a bass rather than a baritone; as far as I can tell without a vocal score to hand he has no notes below his bottom Gs in "Strange adventure" and he has a top F in "A laughing boy". This gives him precisely the same range as Ko-Ko in The Mikado, who is quite definitely a baritone, and indeed he has top Fs only if singing with the tenors in the Finale.
The range for Sgt. Meryll can be considered either baritone or bass. Choosing bass implies a preference for timbre. The original actor, Richard Temple, appears to have had quite a diverse singing range, also playing a such a wide variety of characters as Dick Deadeye, Pirate King, the Colonel, Arac, the Mikado, Sir Roderick Murgatroyd, and most curiously, Strephon (the male romantic lead) in Iolanthe, a role often played by tenors. And so his roles, depending on the show, are frequently assigned to a particular voice part, but not always the same one. Due to the more serious nature of work and the character in particular, choosing a singer with a bass timbre who can sing the full range is probably the ideal casting. I must also note that "A laughing boy" is almost always cut, a tradition that started with Gilbert. The general consensus is that unlike the other almost always cut song, Wilfred's "When Jealous Torments Rack My Soul", "A Laughing Boy But Yesterday" does not perform any real character development or advance the plot in any way. Anivron 06:45, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
Since, as you say, it is a matter of personal preference (for my part I don't think a heavily 'dark' basso profondo-type voice does Meryll, or indeed any other G&S character, any favours, just as Fairfax, Nanki-Poo or Tolloller shouldn't [and are most unlikely to] be played by one of the Three Tenors, or heavy-duty operatic altos ruin such characters as Dame Carruthers and Lady Sophy [especially the latter-O!] on older D'Oyly Carte recordings), I've turned him into a bass-baritone. Incidentally, I think it's a shame that "A Laughing Boy" is generally cut; it does nothing for character or plot, but neither do some of the best (e.g. I am a Pirate King, A Policeman's Lot, This Helmet I Suppose, the Nightmare Song, So Please You Sir We Much Regret, I Am So Proud, The Flowers that Bloom in the Spring and the Matter Song), and it is only the presence of the brilliant "A Private Buffoon", "When Our Gallant Norman Foes" and (sometimes) "When Jealous Torments" that prevent me from calling "A Laughing Boy" one of the best solos in "Yeomen". Oh, and woe betide any plonker who casts a tenor as Strephon.
The information on Third and Fourth Yeomen's vocal ranges is correct - they repeat lines given to First and Second Yeomen respectively, and so must be classified the same. However, cutting the Fourth Yeoman also involves a tiny change later, which I have clarified in the notes: to Whit, he came back on with Fairfax at "My lords, my lords, I know not how to tell the news I bear", joined in the unison for the three [now four] thereafter, and has eight harmony notes at "We hunted low" and "We hunted there" that make the soloists' version have the same vocal harmonies as the chorus repeat. Also, I added in a note about the cut lines for Elsie and Point at "All frenzied, frenzied with despair" - Not a cut made by Gilbert, but very, very common since the D'Oyly Carte instituted it.Adam Cuerden 05:24, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
I've gone ahead and made Meryll a bass-baritone, the 2nd Yeoman a baritone, and the 4th Yeoman a bass, which I believe corresponds to modern usage. Marc Shepherd 19:27, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
I agree with this. Meryll needs the dark sound of a bass baritone, and its tessitura is lower than the more lyric baritone roles, like Corcoran, Grosvenor, etc. But it is not really a bass role and has no particularly low notes. 2nd Yeoman has a sustained F in his solo, so he is definitely a baritone. Indeed, many amateur companies split the 2nd Yeoman's solo in #2 between 2nd Yeoman for the first, lower part, and the 1st Yeoman for the second part starting with "...but our year is not so spent...." This makes it easier for more amateur male singers to sing the 2nd Yeoman and provides the opportunity to make the 1st and 2nd Yeoman parts of equal size if either of these factors is preferable given the talent available to, and politics of, any particular amateur group. The 4th Yeoman is rarely used, but when he is, he could be either a baritone, a bass baritone or a bass. It really doesn't matter, matter, matter. --Ssilvers 22:03, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Eh?

I am curious as to what on Earth was the point of replacing "synopsis" with "plot".

It's now "Synopsis" again, consistent with most of the other opera pages. Marc Shepherd 14:17, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Gilbert/Sullivan's Favourite?

The text currently says: "It is thought, however, to have been Sullivan's favourite (for much the same reason) and Gilbert listed it among his top three, along with Ruddigore and Utopia Limited..."

We should find a specific source, rather than just saying "It is thought...."

Similarly, where's the source for Gilbert ranking Yeomen alongside Ruddigore and Utopia? Marc Shepherd 19:30, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

I've removed the paragraph that said the following:
Yeomen remains frequently played, though its popularity lags somewhat behind H.M.S. Pinafore, The Pirates of Penzance and The Mikado, perhaps because it is not as light-hearted, or topsy-turvy, as the other Savoy Operas. It is thought, however, to have been Sullivan's favourite (for much the same reason) and Gilbert listed it among his top three, along with Ruddigore and Utopia Limited, and commented shortly before the opening of their next piece, The Gondoliers (which pre-dated Utopia but not Ruddigore), "I thought The Yeomen of the Guard the best thing we had done, but I am told that the public like the topsy-turvy best, so this time they are going to get it."
No one was able to offer a source that Yeomen was Sullivan's favourite (plausible though that is), and I've never seen any source that Gilbert's top three were Yeomen, Ruddigore, and Utopia.
It is true that Yeomen's popularity lags behind that of Pinafore, Pirates, and The Mikado, but its serious subject can't be the reason, since there are ten other (non-serious) G&S operas that are also less popular than Pinafore, Pirates, or Mikado. Marc Shepherd 14:24, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Size of orchestra

A prior editor put the following paragraph in the "Cut music" section:

A musical note: Yeomen was the first to use Sullivan's larger orchestra: including 2nd bassoon, and 3rd trombone. Prior to this opera, there was only one bassoon and two trombones - making up the standard vaudeville pit orchestra. This larger orchestra Sullivan had been trying to achieve seemingly from the time of Mikado, as there is reference to "2nd trombone in the village band", a none too subtle dig at Sullivan from the pen of Gilbert. Most of Sullivan's subsequent operas, including those not composed with Gilbert as libretist, use this larger orchestra.

I moved a revised version of the comment to the front of the article, as it has nothing to do with cut music.

In addition, I know of no evidence that the reference to a "second trombone" in The Mikado had anything to do with Sullivan's desire to increase the size of the pit band. All of the G&S operas starting from The Sorcerer already had two trombones to begin with. Had Nanki-Poo's disguise been that of a second bassoon or a third trombone, it might make more sense.

In The Complete Annotated Gilbert & Sullivan, Ian Bradley says:

It has been suggested that Gilbert was poking a little gentle fun at his collaborator here. Most theatre orchestras had only one trombone, and Sullivan was always grumbling about the effects of this restriction on his composing. He finally won a second trombone from Richard D'Oyly Carte for The Yeomen of the Guard. (Bradley 1996, p. 584).

But this is obviously incorrect, since there were two trombones in the Savoy Operas all along, and it was a third trombone that he finally got for Yeomen. Marc Shepherd 01:52, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Authorship of overtures

A prior edit said:

The Overture is one of the few composed entirely by Sullivan himself....

Sullivan himself wrote the overtures to , The Sapphire Necklace, Cox and Box,Thespis, The Sorcerer (original version), Iolanthe, Princess Ida, The Yeomen of the Guard, The Gondoliers, Utopia Limited, and The Grand Duke. (A number of the 1890s operas didn't have fully separate overtures, but whatever "introduction" they had, Sullivan wrote.) Some of these overtures were insubstantial pieces, but it doesn't change the fact that Sullivan prepared them himself. The old idea that Sullivan rarely composed his own overtures just isn't true. Marc Shepherd 13:06, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Utopia Limited doesn't actually have an overture - just a short orchestral prelude. The Sapphire Necklace and Cox and Box are not part of the G&S canon, and neither, strictly is Thespis, since its music is almost totally lost. That leaves only six of the "cononical" G&S operettas with overtures by Sullivan. This is pretty remarkable, and it is surely worth noting in some form that writing the overture was NOT a favourite task for Sullivan, in fact one he generally tried, at least, to avoid (succeeding in this at least half the time!!). In fact the Yeomen overture is the ONLY G&S overture that is written as a proper operatic overture, as a opposed to a musical comedy style pot-pourri! So the "old idea" is very far from being "just not true" (even if it is a little overdrawn at times). Soundofmusicals 05:34, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
It is only worth noting that "the overture was NOT a favourite task for Sullivan," if there's a source for it. Sullivan wrote 24 operas, and he delegated the overtures to just six of them. Various reasons have been given for this, but the only ones that matter are those that can be sourced.
Your viewpoint does not seem to be a neutral one. When you say that he "generally tried to avoid" writing the overture, "succeeding in this at least half the time," it implies that he only wrote the overture himself when he could not find someone else to do it. I am not aware of any basis for this.
By the way, the popourri format was not invented by musical comedy composers, nor by Sullivan. There is nothing "improper" about that format, though all agree that Sullivan's Yeomen overture reflects more care and craftsmanship. Marc Shepherd 13:03, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
I'm not interested in point scoring. We're obviously talking about G&S here - not Sullivan's other "operatic" works, most of which are in a totally different category. A full half of the overtures to G&S works were NOT written by Sullivan himself. One instance of this would be pretty meaningless, two or three even might not have too dramatic an implication, but six out of twelve! Actually six out of eleven, because Utopia, which one would expect to have an overture, really hasn't one at all - to the extent that another work by Sullivan in sometimes pressed into service to fill the gap. This has reasonable implications - and several writers on the subject have made more or less the same point I did, as you know as well as I.
IN ANY CASE, on these grounds alone my main point (that the "old idea" is very far from being "just not true") is pretty spot on. Having said that, I concede it IS sometimes overdrawn.
A sensible remark very seldom implies a piece of idiocy. A pot-pourri overture may not be "improper" especially in the sense of "indecent", but it is not the usually accepted form for an overture to a serious opera. A musical pot-pourri is much less trouble than one in the "proper" (in the sense of "belonging", or "in its place") form. I never said that Sullivan, much less musical comedy composers of a later date "invented" the pot-pourri form - and you KNOW I never did. Just that it is the "proper" (in the sense of "usual") form for a musical comedy, and far from the most common one for an opera. Sullivan DID tend to leave the (G&S) overtures that he completed to the last moment - and I suspect YOU could give me more than once source for that one yourself. I also suspect that you could quickly find at least one source for a lot of the other things you are disputing. You are quite as aware as I that they are NOT something I just made up, and your implication that you are not is very disingenuous. In these circumstances you will perhaps not mind too much If I find you hard to take seriously.
Anyway - keep your debating club, and your mediocre articles - I am too old and too tired to get any pleasure out of ignorance competitions that I am bound to lose sooner or later. I suppose this one is my own fault, I should have known exactly what to expect! Soundofmusicals 06:41, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
Sorry you're offended, Soundofmusicals. Feel free to take your ball and go home, but I'll try to make a serious response.
Anyhow, one obvious difference is that you're confining your analysis to Sullivan's operas with Gilbert and Carte, while I am looking at his full output. I am not sure why one would ignore the other half of his oeuvre. But even looking at it your way, the conclusion is that he wrote the overtures about half the time. I think that is enough to justify the original comment, 'The old idea that Sullivan rarely composed his own overtures just isn't true.'
I would add that even the ones nominally by others generally have contributions from Sullivan, and in at least one case (The Mikado) his edits were extensive. When he didn't write the overture himself, he generally gave his assistants an outline, describing the themes to be used, and in what order. Having decided that, what remained was (as one writer put it) "donkey-work," so the delegated overtures were, in a very real sense, still by Sullivan.
Yes, Sullivan frequently left the overtures he composed to the last moment. But that's because he left almost everything to the last moment.. Since most of the overtures contain material lifted from the body of the opera, they wouldn't be assembled—regardless of who was doing the assembling—till the rest of the opera was orchestrated. And that was usually mere days (sometimes mere hours) before opening. Marc Shepherd 13:13, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Dividing up the Finales

In line with the principle agreed upon for H.M.S. Pinafore, I have listed major sections of the Finales of both acts (And a couple minor, less contentious tweaks to the Act II list). Unfortunately, this is kind of difficult with Yeomen, so my selection of headings is questionable. Is it worth doing this for Yeomen, and if it is, can a better selection be made? Adam Cuerden 11:44, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

It looks pretty good to me, but please use sub-bullets (as I've done in the revision), as it's far easier to read that way. Marc Shepherd 13:20, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
Started doing so! Adam Cuerden 20:55, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sources of original material

I think it's a lot more useful to talk about sources that people really use. Performing groups that put on Yeomen aren't going to the Royal College of Music or the New York Public Library for music. They are relying on editions and rental parts that are already available. Marc Shepherd 21:38, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Are you suggesting that each articl note what editions and rental parts are available? I don't think the opera articles or musicals articles generally do this. --Ssilvers 22:07, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
It appeared to me that the purpose of the section was to explain where people need to go to get the material, much like the Ruddigore article explains that the deleted music is published in the Oxford University Press edition. That article does not say that Sullivan's autograph score is in the British Library, for while that is true, that's not what the reader is probably looking for. Nobody is going to say, "We're doing Yeomen this year; I'll just pop over to the Royal College of Music to copy out the music." I think this was confirmed by a later message I received from Adam, in which he noted that Chris Browne sells copies of those songs for something like £8.00. That's what people are looking for. Marc Shepherd 02:37, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

It is annoying to feel that one isn't equal to the intellectual pressure of the conversation. You have deleted the section regarding sources, which is fine with me. I thought that, with respect to Ruddigore, we mention the OUP edition because it changed the landscape on what versions people are actually using, rather than as information to the reader on "how to get G&S materials". So, my question is, are we supposed to have a section in each opera article on how to get the P/V scores, full scores and/or band parts? I thought the answer was "no", because it wasn't really encyclopedic info. People interested in sourcing G&S materials probably ought to go to the G&S archive link at the bottom of each article, right? --Ssilvers 03:05, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

I think that it is useful for each of the articles to explain the publication status of the work, and where there is more than one version available, to explain the differences. As long as the usual rules are adhered to (NPOV, verifiable, NOR), this would be useful information. Marc Shepherd 12:21, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
It seems useful to me, however, to note where the original material for each opera resides, as it is the source of all others. Adam Cuerden 11:34, 10 August 2006 (UTC)


[edit] A laughing boy

I am in the process of completing a new Vocal Score of this (and will do one for When Jealous Torments, but the one available on the Archive is much more accurate than the ALB one, and thus isn't quite as important. However, would an image/pdf be a useful addition *to the article itself*, or should it be merely linked? Adam Cuerden 11:38, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

I have a feeling that linking is more suitable.
As a general matter, because we are G&S fans, the things we consider important are different than what the average reader would think. This article has no images in it at all. Should the first image added be the score of "A laughing boy," a song usually cut? That wouldn't be my priority.
I have a similar feeling about noting the archival location of historical artifacts, such as Sullivan's autograph. Obviously, on one level one cannot fault the inclusion of truthful, verifiable information. But when that information is included, and other far-more-useful information to the general reader is omitted, the article may be confusing, or may be perceived to lack the desired balance. Marc Shepherd 13:11, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
I agree with what Marc says. --Ssilvers 13:26, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Prenom Colonel

Did Fairfax have a given name? (Don't tell me, "It's bloody Colonel!") Major Major 09:13, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

The libretto refers to him only as Fairfax or Col. Fairfax. No first name is mentioned. -- Ssilvers 04:35, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Parallel

Far too speculative for the article, of course, but I have just noticed that the operetta has a parallel with Sense and Sensibility -- probably an unintentional one -- in that both works end up with the "romantic" heroine marrying for pragmatic reasons while the "pragmatic" heroine marries for romantic reasons. Of course the dictates of "topsy-turvydom", make that quite likely even in the absence of any influence from Austen to Gilbert but it still seems curious to me. -- Derek Ross | Talk 06:15, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Comic Opera?

I found this article under Category:Comic_operas in the Opera Wikipedia page. Is this intentional? Is Yeomen considered a comic opera in any level? Was it so named by librettist and composer? -- Zelani 13:40, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

It was so named, as were their other works. -- Derek Ross | Talk 17:32, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Right, G&S considered it a comic opera, although it is darker than their frothiest pieces. Still, the dialogue is laced with many comic touches, there is a case of mistaken identity, comic schemes go awry and most everyone is engaged in the end.

Most G&S works are of course English language Operettas. The term "Operetta" was studiously avoided by them to distinguish it from French and German operetta of the period, which was often "naughty" and not highly regarded among the respectable portion of the theatre-going public (remember this was the late Victorian era when public standards were VERY puritanical). Wiki uses the term "Savoy Opera" as if G&S was sui generis - this is very old-fashioned, not to mention highly POV and against many of the best references but we are stuck with it for the moment.
But in fact Yeoman IS a comic opera!! Not in the sense of a "Savoy Opera" at all - just that it is simply too "serious" (both musically and in its lyrics/storyline) to be classed as operetta. A comic opera is of course an opera that is a comedy rather than a tragedy. This why it is such a BAD description for most G&S, which are in fact VERY light operettas - almost musical comedies in fact! It is on the other hand a very GOOD description of "Yeomen". Soundofmusicals 03:23, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "Laughing boy" vs "Jealous torments".

The first of these is almost always restored nowadays (just check a few recent recordings if you don't believe me!!). The latter on the other hand, while it has been recorded at least once, has been restored very infrequently, if at all. My most recent edit tried to make this point, but the two songs have been re-linked to give the (quite erroneous) impression that the two songs are both "occasionally" restored, and to roughly the same degree! Much as I detest reverting I'll really have to correct this if it is not fixed quickly!!! Soundofmusicals 03:01, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

I must disagree with you about Laughing Boy vs. Jealous Torments. Both are done sometimes, sometimes one or the other, and sometimes neither. These pieces (especially JT) have only really been available to perform for a couple of decades, and people are doing them for the novelty. You do not cite any references for your assertion, and IMO, you are just wrong in this case. Sorry to disagree with you. -- Ssilvers 04:37, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
I first heard "Laughing Boy" in a sixties production of Yoemen. At that time (if not earlier), and ever since, it has been very unusual to have a production (or recording) of the opera without this number, at least in the UK or Australia (I can't speak for North America). It's "restoration" is pretty well established in fact - and it would only be omitted if the director had similar misgivings to the original ones that led to its deletion.
"Jealous Torments" on the other hand has only been even considered for re-instatement relatively recently (late 90s?). It has, as far as I know, not as yet been heard in a professional production in the UK or Australia.
I am still very uneasy about linking the two numbers as if their status was identical Soundofmusicals 04:59, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
I think the truth is betwixt and between. I have heard Meryll's solo done in the theatre, but never (as far as I remember) Shadbolt's, but at the majority of performances I have been to neither was performed. Incidentally, and not perhaps entirely relevantly for present purposes, checking the programme for the WNO perfs at Covent Garden (1995) I find in an essay by Andrew Wickes that, "neither partner was convinced of the need for [Meryll's] song - it may have been added in response to a request from the original singer, Richard Temple." As far as I recall, that production included neither Meryll's nor Shadbolt's solos, though the couplets in the Act I finale were given in full, necessitating a Third and Fourth Yeoman. Certainly the revived D'Oyly Carte company didn't use either solo in its 1988 revival. A more recent DC revival at the Savoy (2002) used Meryll's song but not Shadbolt's. In short, it seems to me that neither song is likely to be given in the theatre (recordings are of course another matter) but that Meryll's is less of a rara avis than Shadbolt's. - Tim Riley 07:39, 22 September 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tim riley (talk • contribs)
Which is a pity, because Shadbolt's song actually forwards the plot, whereas Leonard's stops it dead. Adam Cuerden talk 08:02, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
There are many G&S musical numbers that don't advance the plot, including some of the most beloved ones (e.g., "Take a pair of sparkling eyes"). Musical numbers are not written solely for plot advancement.
Reliable viewpoints about performance practice are hard to come by. Someone will say, "Such-and-such is often done," and another will say, "Where I live, that's never done." I think we can confidently state that both songs are sometimes restored. We have no basis for opining on the relative frequency. Marc Shepherd 14:08, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
For that matter, if we're looking at professional performances, how many, exactly, is that? Yeomen is not exactly the most revived of the G&S operas, and there aren't that many professional companies anymore. Adam Cuerden talk 17:00, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
The cold fact remains that "Laughing boy" was first restored fifty years ago or more. It is by no means always played, but omitting it is probably a conscious decision - it is (more or less, if rather less than more) a recognised part of the score, albeit not an essential one. In any case it is NOT (especially outside North America) a novelty. On the other hand "Jealous Torments", while I may be a little behind the times in supposing it to a a complete novelty, is something that a producer might decide to put in (possibly based as much as anything on how strong his Shadbolt's voice might be - it is a demanding piece for the average Shadbolt!), rather than something he might choose to leave out to keep things flowing. If that makes more sense. I would still rather split the paragraph discussing these songs, and make this distinction, which remains a useful one, clear. Thank you for the sensible and rational arguments on this one by the way - at least I feel happier about this one now - even if we don't change the wording of the article. Soundofmusicals 06:55, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
The paragraph that's there is very awkwardly written, so I would welcome any improvement. I just think we need to limit ourselves to verifiable facts. Marc Shepherd 13:16, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
How's this then???Soundofmusicals 18:08, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

I think it's better to split the discussion of the two songs, as you have now done. Anecdotally, I agree that "Laughing boy" is restored more frequently than "Jealous torments," but I have no reliable data on how much difference there is. One issue is that the orchestration for "jealous torments" came to light much more recently—I don't have the dates handy—so it hasn't been available as long. Marc Shepherd 19:10, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't like all the choppy little paragraphs, but if you guys like the way it looks, OK. Jealous Torments was always in the manuscript at the NY Public library, but it was not transcribed until the 1980s. -- Ssilvers 19:58, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
I'm fairly happy with Adam's latest version. Marc Shepherd 00:27, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
I'm not really! I have been into my Oxford Complete Annotated Gilbert & Sullivan - the note is on p.768. If one doesn't like "choppy little paragraphs" one might add a referenced note with the information contained there - in particular that "Laughing Boy" was included in the 1962, 1964 and 1978 Tower of London productions (although apparently D'Oyly Carte weren't interested). I STILL think that if there is any point in separate paragraphs it is because the two songs are in different categories - one has been restored (off and on) for well over fifty years, and must be considered as more or less established, even if it is deliberately omitted by some producers (probably because they agree with Gilbert that it is "wholly irrelevant") whereas "Jealous Torments" is something no one thought of restoring until quite recently, and that is added by some producers.Soundofmusicals 08:42, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
By all means let's bolster the article with facts, and the preceding post includes several. To those, we could add that "laughing boy" was included in the two most recent D'OC recordings, and I think (this would need to be looked up) that it's in "Sing with Sullivan." I believe the last recording (by NDOC) has "laughing boy," as well.
Since the published vocal scores exclude both numbers, I think producers are well aware that if they include either one, they are adding something that the librettist and composer had decided to leave out. "Laughing boy" has never become standard, though I agree it's a bit more frequently encountered than "jealous torments." Marc Shepherd 12:08, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
Jealous torments was in at least one of the two recordings, possibly both, and is also in Sing with Sullivan. If we can find definite evidence that Laughing boy is used more often, great, but we can't just make bold assertions that we think are true. Adam Cuerden talk 12:55, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
That's the ticket. The new info and reference look good to me. I added ISBN info. I still think that it would look nicer for the two numbers (and the first act couplets?) to be described in one paragraph, but at least the information seems correct now and is referenced to a WP:RS. Well done. -- Ssilvers 21:45, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Photo caption

Thanks. I agree that the photo of Phoebe and Wilfred should not say "Were I thy Bride". That looked awkward before. Best regards, -- Ssilvers 22:34, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

"Were I thy Bride" is very obviously the number illustrated by the photo. If it should not be in the caption where would you put the information? I think eliminating information because it "looks awkward" is a bit stupid. Soundofmusicals 00:07, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

I doubt that awkwardness was the reason for the deletion—that could be fixed. A more likely reason is that the photo is a pose, and the caption might convey the false impression that it was shot during an actual performance of that number. I agree that there's no other logical point in the story that it could represent. Marc Shepherd 00:27, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Memorandum

If we have a source for it, we really should talk about the unusual time signatures in "Here's a man of jollity". You don't get much 19th century music with 5/4 (alternating with 4/4 no less to make an irregular 9/4) and 7/4 sections Adam Cuerden talk 14:13, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] So POV is fine provided it's reported???

Reporting the subjective opinion of a critic as if it were fact (even if it is...) can't be right!! What it boils down to is - what's the difference between personal opinion from an editor, and the personal opinion of a source?? In "art" subjects one could surely find a critical source to say almost anything, and the point of an "art" encyclopedia would be gone completely. The fact that cuts were made is objective and can stand, as can a general remark that a production is "admired" (or not) - personal opinion about the merits of a particular performance on the other hand needs at least to be attributed in the text itself as well as being referenced - e.g. "Joe Bloggs, the stage critic for the Daily Blah says ..." - inverted commas aren't quite enough. This at least gives the reader the proper context in which the original subjective statement is made. Personally I think something like my own change would be much better.

You are much better at reverting than me so I won't even try - but this is one case where no amount of reverting would make you right, I'm afraid. Soundofmusicals (talk) 09:10, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes! Wikipedia's core principle WP:V (see also WP:POV) says that published points of view should be represented in an article according to their relative importance in the published literature. My point of view and yours are not relevant to Wikipedia articles. If you can find a published, reliable source (WP:RS) that says something about the show, by all means quote it. What concerns me about your editing is that you don't add references, but just write what you are thinking in your head. You might be right, and you might be a genius, but that is not how Wikipedia articles are supposed to be written. See WP:NOT and WP:OR. -- Ssilvers (talk) 17:23, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
I'd like you to consider changing the word "misjudged" to something more neutral that conveys the same information in a non-pejorative way, like say "idiosyncratic" or "unusual". If "misjudged" is to stand then it needs to be directly attributed, not just footnoted. I am surprised and saddened you don't get the point about POV being just as bad if it comes from "outside". Especially as you are the very person who goaded me into being stricter with references and objectivity! If something IS POV, and presenting a subjective judgement as fact (fine in a critical review but not in an encyclopedia article), then it can't be cured with a footnote. My own past editing is not only irrelevant to the case in point, by the way, but constitutes a personal attack - although I perhaps asked for it with my equally unnecessary remark about your "revertery". (Combined apologies and forgiveness). Anyway, life's too short. I most certainly can't be bothered arguing with you. Soundofmusicals (talk) 19:39, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
I agree that there is no reason to argue. The critics hated him, so I have said so and given a reference to an important critic. I could get more, but it would just be piling on. As for your assertion above that I "don't get the point", I believe that you don't get the point, and I am also saddened by this. Please read WP:V, WP:POV and WP:NPOV. -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:13, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

I like your new version - it was really the word "misjudged" that got me - even though it was a literal quote. It is objective to say the critics hated him in the role - subjective to directly quote a critic's pejorative term without attribution. Perhaps you did get the point after all - since you have fixed the fault! It wouldn't have hurt to say so, but ... Soundofmusicals (talk) 21:38, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, if that's all you wanted, why didn't you say so? Man, reread your first message above - it's so long, and the tone is so condescending and nasty, especially in the last sentence, that it's no wonder that I had no idea what you wanted. As you see, there was a simple compromise that we were able to reach. There was no reason for you to pick this fight with me. Just make a proposal next time you want a change to content, telling me what you want. I think you're a good writer, and there is no reason why we can't work amiably on content together on articles that we are both interested in. I added a big section on recordings, and it turns out that you really only objected to one word. How about a message like, "I suggest that we substitute some other language for the word "misjudged", because quoting this critic's characterization of the performance is not a clear/balanced enough way to explain to our readers what the overall critical response has been." I am always willing to discuss content, and I'd prefer if you started the discussion with a more polite suggestion of some ways that you can see to fix the language in the article. Best regards, -- Ssilvers (talk) 14:28, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

I've already apologised for that last sentence in my first post (and incidentally forgiven your improper but understandable response to it). I think the rest was pretty reasonable - there was certainly no deliberate intent to be condescending (I will refrain from mentioning pots and kettles at this point) and I certainly wasn't just out to "pick a fight". I not only made it clear precisely what I objected to (and exactly why) but suggested a "fix". Especially since we succeeded in this case in quickly coming to a sensible compromise I especially regret the "nasty" tone that crept in on both sides, and apologise unreservedly for my part in it, while stressing I have no resentment over yours. I share your hope that our next "encounter" will be just as productive, but (if possible) rather more amiable. Soundofmusicals (talk) 01:42, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

We can certainly agree on that, and for what it's worth, I apologize if I overreacted, and I should have been more patient in this discussion. Best regards, -- Ssilvers (talk) 04:34, 5 May 2008 (UTC)