Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Opera/Archive 36

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Archive 36


Contents

notable arias

Greetings tutti, Is notable arias really useful as a standard part of the article template? I notice even Gianni Schicchi has a separate section, but it seems to me that mentioning musical high points within the synopsis (with links to arias that have articles) is more in keeping with what I understand to be wikipedia's preference for a prose style. Apologies in advance if this is a dead horse; I dont see an index to the discussion archives. Sparafucil 23:02, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

We haven't discussed this as far as I can remember. Personally I prefer to see the arias given within the synopsis - in italics? - though there are a limited number of articles with good, complete synopses. What do other people think? Should we change the article template? (Incidentally we have been trying to dissuade people from starting articles on arias on WP. Texts should really be on WikiSource). -- Kleinzach 23:30, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
I'm not in favour of having a separate section for "noted/notable arias", especially as some of them aren't arias but duets, choruses, whatever. I'm currently filling out the synopsis of Don Carlos, as time permits, and am incorporating the first lines of the arias as I go. I think that the template should be changed. --GuillaumeTell 00:28, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
Yes it actually much better to put the arias in the synopsis but it is not an easy task mainly because not many contributors have details on it. Most people know the synopsis and the arias for operas but to put it altogether might be a bit difficult. Anyway, if anybody could move the arias to the correct part in the synopsis, it is of course make the article looks much better. About Wikisource, I have no comment; hopefully someday we could have some understanding on how they want the format to be in there. - Jay 03:50, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

We have a reasonable consensus on this so I have changed the article template. Obviously it will take time before we can integrate all the synopses and aria etc. sections but this is only one of many areas we have to address in the long term. -- Kleinzach 05:05, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Great, I wont be shy about editing in the future. I note that the few aria articles have been done within the scope of the songs project. How does WikiSource work? Obviously a text and translation dont constitute an encyclopedic article, but where would one look for errata, customary transpositions, cuts, text alterations, substitutions and other traditions? Sparafucil 06:42, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
WikiSource is supposed to have original texts, just as WikiCommons has images etc.. Unfortunately as Jay experienced, they are not familiar with our kind of material. When Jay presented them with some arias they demanded the whole opera, and they were talking about separating the original text from the translation. Someone needs to sort everything out there but it would take some time to do. Meanwhile, welcome and do sign on the project! -- Kleinzach 09:26, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
I just need a confirmation. After we include the arias/duets/choruses into the synopsis, can the current “noted arias” section be deleted? I have deleted Tosca’s noted arias section and probably will be looking at Carmen and others. I also noticed that GuillaumeTell has removed the section from Don Carlos too. - Jay 07:48, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
To Jay: Yes, what we need to do is gradually merge the arias sections into the synopses. GuillaumeTell removed the Don Carlos arias section because he had included it in the synopsis. -- Kleinzach 09:17, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

I've cleaned up Macbetto and Nabucco (the latter was hard work) but am now worried to notice those synopses "appear by permision". I hope it's a blanket licence... Sparafucil 07:12, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

There are several synopses from Opera Japonica scattered around. Kleinzach sorted out the copyright position some time ago with the WP authorities. I guess that minor amendments such as adding aria details are permissible, but if there's a wholesale rewrite, such as I'm doing on Don Carlos (mostly based on Julian Budden), then the reference to OJ needs to be removed. --GuillaumeTell 10:30, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

The Met 3 act (extended scenes unabridged version)

I do not like edit warring so I took the liberty by publishing the Don Carlo, The Met (3 act - unabridged version) synopsis/DVD/intro from the DVD that I have. Refer Synopsis and details in Fotopages

Verdi never did or revised to 3 acts but The Met did. The storyline is actually the same with Verdi's version but the act was done in three while the scenes were extended. But since it was produced this way, The Met 1983 Don Carlo is known as "Opera in 3 act (Unabridged Version)".

The recording history section in the article MUST reflect the “history” of how the actual play took place. We can’t “label” the Met 1983 Don Carlo as 4 or 5 act because it has never be done that way but yes, we can put that in "remarks" column. People who read the intro of Don Carlo/Carlos should be able to know that the "changes" was done by the opera house but not the composer. That is also the reason why I and The Met had to put “Unabridged version” – the term is self explanatory.

Hopefully this would end the "nonsense" remark from those who are not sure. I do not wish to see anymore editing with remarks “nonsense” to me, save it to The MET! Anyway, I am open for discussion; it’s just that I believe our fact about how it was presented by any opera houses must remain and we can't change as we wish. Thanks.

PS- I posted this in Talk:Don_Carlos but also put in here in case some of you don’t go there - Jay 03:39, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Porgy and Bess Infobox

Please look at the discussion at Talk:Porgy and Bess. An editor wishes to add an infobox to the article. My understanding is that the Opera Project does not want infoboxes on opera articles. -- Ssilvers 13:01, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Question about verifiability

Is it acceptable to link a search page on a commercial website to confirm that an aria is notable enough to have had many recordings, or would this be considered commercial spam? At the moment this is the only way I can think of to add a citation note to confirm it. Lethesl 16:56, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

First of all welcome to the Opera Project. We hope you will enjoy contributing to articles here. Regarding your query, do you have an example? We don't normally have to prove the notability of arias, only the operas they are in. Regarding commercial websites, we do sometimes link to them but they are normally not a main reference or source. Best. -- Kleinzach 17:16, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
Thanks. It's to back up the statement about the first aria mentioned in the Hans Heiling music section. I took those arias from a site cited at the end of the list, but regarding it calling the first aria "the gem" of the opera, I was thinking I could link a list like this, to provide examples of many recordings to back it up as not being someone randomly making the claim without verification: http://www.arkivmusic.com/classical/Drilldown?name_id1=7705&name_role1=1&bcorder=1&comp_id=9853 Lethesl 17:35, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
Well, you've done a great job! It's a model article. Given the authoritative approach in the article as a whole, I don't see any problem. If the article is underpinned with good sources then adding one commercial website link is fine IMO. As always I think we should use common sense rather than slavishly follow the capitalised gibberish, After all, we are not writing a legal textbook! -- Kleinzach 00:10, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

vespers

In the US, anglophones refer to Verdi's opera as Vespri, Vespers, and Vêpres in that order. Does Grove (if that's how the last was settled on) elaborate on their rationale? There is some consistency in that we dont have Le coq d'or and Le rossignol, nor (afaikt) other operas that are known under non-original non-English names, but (to me) it seems proper to find the 'cantata' Les noces right where one would expect to...Sparafucil 08:46, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

I thought Les vêpres siciliennes was the original title, hence the article uses the French rather than the Italian (or the English which is not on our list of well-known English titles of foreign operas). We can use redirects to cover all the main possibilities regarding alternative/commonly used titles etc. so it shouldn't be a major problem - if the redirects are in place. -- Kleinzach 17:09, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
My impression (as a Brit) is that a high proportion of American opera-lovers (present company excepted, of course) are very Italian-oriented. That means that they still think in terms of Don Carlo, Medea, La Favorita and Vespri when the rest of the world has woken up to the fact that these operas, although composed by Italians, were actually written to French librettos for performance in Paris. (And, I have to say, "Vespri" is a great deal easier to say than "Vêpres"!) --GuillaumeTell 17:58, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
I might as well weigh in (as an American). My perception is that GuillaumeTell is right and that I tend to hear "Vespri" and "Don Carlo" rather than the French titles (I think there may still be some preference for the Italian versions; last year LA Opera did Don Carlo is Italian). What that means for the titles I'm not sure, but there's my two cents. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 23:16, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

No reason not to use the original title (even if the original is not in print); it's just that Vêpres suggests a distinct version, illogical as it may be to think of Vespri as more generic! Just for my curiousity, 1) will anyone confirm that Vêpres is really prefered in Britan? The Italian community has long roots in America (the neighboring church has many parishoners who know "Va pensiero by heart) but you had Storace even before we got Da Ponte. San Francisco announced Vêpres some years ago but put on Vespri; I dont know the details but both the international cast and Riccordi were blamed. 2) WP says it prefers the title familiar to English speakers, which I note does not neccesarily mean either the original or the English title! (cf. Renard)Sparafucil 09:22, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, this isn't a well-known opera. Publishers in Britain evidently all use Vêpres. The opera houses will use whichever title is appropriate to the performance (which in many cases will be the Italian). Re WP policy, this opera is unfamiliar to the public so IMO the rule about using a familiar title can't apply - also note that on WP the English title is used for the actual historical event.
General note: The easy option for us here - as always - is to follow Grove. They assembled the experts and wrote a house style document which must have been exhaustive, detailed and expensive. There is no point in us duplicating their effort, even if we were capable of it, which we are'nt. (BTW we don't always follow Grove, exceptions are explained on the Project page, section 10). -- Kleinzach 09:53, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Halévy

Just to let folks know that I have started putting up articles on the operas of Fromental Halévy and have created {{Template:Halévy operas}}. Still a long way to go, so if anyone wants to chip in.......Smerus 21:10, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

That's terrific! Perhaps this is a good opportiunity for me to make a plug for including new operas in The opera corpus, and Category:Operas as well as including Opera Project banners on the Talk page and using default sort tags! That everything will be perfectly perfect. Best. -- Kleinzach 01:53, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

On categories

I have a query here on categorisation, arising from Kleinzach's comment immediately above. My understanding of WP practice is, if an item is categorised at a lower level, it should not also be listed at a higher level. E.g. an opera in Category:Grand operas should not also be listed in Category:Operas. See WP:Category#How_to_categorize_an_article which commends 'frugality, placing articles only in the most specific categories they reasonably fit in.' I would propose that we adopt this procedure, thus avoiding 'double vertical categorisation' (although of course many articles may fall into more than one category 'horizontally').

As regards banners, The opera corpus, etc. I entirely agree with Kleinzach. --Smerus 09:44, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

The Opera Project has an establish guideline on putting all operas in Category:Operas see Wikipedia:WikiProject_Opera#Operas. This is based on the to the 'Secondary categorization rule' of WP:SUBCAT. The intention is to make it possible to access a full list of operas which have WP articles. This issue was discussed in great detail here very recently (see 'Operas category' in Archive 26, 5 to 8 june 2007) and a strong consensus reconfirmed using the category in this way. It would be appreciated if everyone could respect that decision and use the category so new articles don't slip under the radar. -- Kleinzach 16:04, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
OK, will do, thanks for explaining this. --Smerus 16:35, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

One-act operas

This category is potentially very useful, though much under-used! I've added a few off the top of my head, and find myself wondering if it shouldnt be used for multi-act operas given as part of a double bill, such as Dido and Aeneas... Sparafucil 08:42, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

shouldnt be used for multi-act operas given as part of a double bill, such as Dido and Aeneas. Hmmm, I wouldn't be happy going along with that. It would count as original research anyway. --Folantin 09:10, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Mine is hardly an original observation. If there is a consensus to instead create a new category:Double-bill operas we could do that instead and exclude Rheingold and maybe even Salome. But maybe I'm misunderstanding your reservations? Sparafucil 20:21, 29 July 2007 (UTC) Would anyone else care to weigh in? The Medium is already down as a 'One-act' piece. I myself have added Serva padrona, whose two intemezzi are arguably scenes of a one-act piece. But King Harald's Saga needs an article: shall I put this ten minute monodrama down as a 4 acter? I'm assuming (perhaps mistakenly) that only the purpose of <no wiki>Category:One-act operas</no wiki> is to help people searching for companion pieces. Sparafucil 08:18, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

As a category it would be a bit strange, but how about an article on Opera double-bills? It needn't be original research. Running times, and performances of various double bills (past and present) at the world's opera houses are well documented. Best, Voceditenore 09:57, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
Checking on Google, it seems that the double bill is used uniformly throughout the English-speaking world for two short operas performed together. An article about it it could be categorized under 'Opera terminology'. I'd suggest calling it simply 'Double bill'. (This is a redirect to the (film) 'Double feature' at the moment). -- Kleinzach 10:44, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
The problem with just 'Double bill' is that it also used uniformly for two short plays performed together. See [1]. Might Double bill, opera be better? Best, Voceditenore 12:47, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
If the opera and drama concepts are the same, then IMO they should be served by the same article (as, for example, Claque.) If the article is to be just about opera then I think the form should be Double bill (opera). -- Kleinzach 13:50, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Apropos this discussion, Sparafucil, I removed the Category:One-act operas which you just put on Pagliacci. It's got two acts. Best, Voceditenore 20:56, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

A couple of comments: First, the exact definition of a one-act opera ought to be elastic enough to encompass operas which purport to have more than one act but are normally performed without an interval. In my book, that includes Pagliacci and Dido and Aeneas (but not The Flying Dutchman or Wozzeck or Kat'a Kabanova, which can be performed without an interval but usually aren't).
Second: Double-bills, in my experience, aren't always two operas - I've recently seen both Dido and Aeneas and Busoni's Arlecchino partnered by (different!) Stravinsky ballets! --GuillaumeTell 21:22, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
"First, the exact definition of a one-act opera ought to be elastic enough to encompass operas which purport to have more than one act but are normally performed without an interval." Good point. If we want to make it more elastic, I'm not really fussed one way or another, but if it does include operas of more than one act, then the catregory name becomes a bit odd. At the very least, the opening 'blurb' [2] would have to be changed if the category became more elastic. There was a discussion here about this a while back [3]. Best, Voceditenore 22:10, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
Certainly an article on One act operas could discuss usual pairings; this is perhaps better served in the articles (I'm curious, for example, what else, if anything, was on the bill at Pagliacci's premiere, and whether Salome (opera) is ever combined with anything). Still, the category (which already exists) should (as I am proposing) contain a list of works that dont fill an evening by themselves (and I dont see any harm in including Rheingold). There is an article One act play which fills in (rather poorly, you might agree) for the missing cat: one act plays. Or do categories serve some purpose of which I'm unaware? Sparafucil 21:25, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
On Salome, try the Met database here - just click Keyword Search, type Salome into the Search box and press the Search button. Just imagine seeing Gianni Schicchi (or indeed Cav or Pag) and then Salome! --GuillaumeTell 00:08, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
Thanks, a great resource. Serva padrona/Salome raised my eyebrow! We (Shoebox Opera) very quickly talked each other out of Serva/Bluebeard last year, and even more briefly considered Bluebeard/Salome this time.Sparafucil 05:17, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

I think some resistance is due to expanding "one-act" from its literal meaning. Double-bill wont solve this; I'm sure sooner or later someone will remove Il trittico unless we precisely define the category. I've had a go at this [4]; please let me know what you all think. Sparafucil 07:53, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

I still wouldn't be happy trying to change the category to anything but its literal meaning, since few people will read the explanation you plan to provide (which is in danger of infringing "no original research" anyway). The problem is that categories are rather blunt instruments. The best thing would be to explain in the body of each article that a particular opera is short and often heard in a double bill (I imagine that's already been done for "Cav" and "Pag"). BTW, by the standards of some of the other cats we have "One-act operas" is pretty full. --Folantin 08:03, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
First, thanks Vociditenore for the link to the May disscusion and to Folantin whose page has helpful pointers to the archives (shall I add those links to the category description page?). There was a concensus then that the category was viable; I'm just having trouble envisioning uses for a list that excludes Pagliacci. If we do hear of such a use, will anyone help me with Category:Operas performed without intermission as part of a double, triple or multiple bill? (the very name smacks of original research, dosnt it? ;-)) Sparafucil 11:24, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
I'm not entirely sure what the point of the "One-act opera" category is either and I'm not sure why we don't have "Two-act" or "Three-act" etc. opera cats (not that I'm recommending we should!). I certainly didn't come up with it (at least I hope not!) as I've grown to dislike categories since they're too unsubtle. Unless they're definitely appropriate, I'm wary of applying them. The trouble with the "double bill" is that the only operas I can think of regularly paired together are "Cav" and "Pag" (you also have "Il trittico" of course). "Dido and Aeneas", for example, is often paired with something else but what that something is varies considerably. If you put it in a category "Double bill operas" then people will wonder what its partner is (also, it isn't always performed as part of a double bill - AFAIK it certainly wasn't at its premiere). So I think the whole subject is too involved to be adequately treated by categories.
shall I add those links to the category description page? Could you point out to me which links are those? I don't remember having any on my user page! (My memory is pretty bad in this hot weather though). --Folantin 12:05, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
I couldnt easily refind it either! It's your Sandbox 2.Sparafucil 01:45, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

"Categories", by their very nature are problematic in terms of defining the boundaries. The more I think about it, the more I'm inclined to agree with Folantin, at least about moving away from the literal criteria, of having only one act. If you add 'length' as a criteria, then Rheingold will be excluded, although that begs the question "How short is short?". If you use 'no interval' as a criteria, note that Pagliacci has increasingly been performed with an interval, e.g. Los Angeles, London, Seattle. Likewise, several of the shorter operas like Flying Dutchman and Rheingold are pretty evenly divided between 'no interval' and 'interval' productions. If you include operas of more than one-act, then this makes the category name a misnomer. Also the number of exceptions (via any of the above criteria) make the category potentially confusing. Given what you have in mind, Sparafucil, instead of a Category, perhaps a List would be better. It could be a List of opera double bills (to include the odd triple bills like Il trittico, which I don't think would cause any controversy). It would avoid 'hypotheticals', since it would only list pairings that have actually been performed as such. And, it would be easy to research and reference via opera house data bases, Operabase, and googling opera double bill. Each entry in the list could give one example of a performance of each different pairing, e.g.

That would probably be more useful to opera houses looking for candidates for double bills than a category with quite a few members that might not be appropriate. Best, Voceditenore 12:33, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Your point about intervals is a good one (please have another look at [5]) , but you seem to have demontrated that "how short is short" is pretty easy to answer (if someone starts documenting cases of double bills with Dutchman I'll have to reconsider!). Categories seem to be lower maintainence than lists, and actual double bills as you have outlined looks rather large as well as something I wouldnt neccesarily volunteer for, being expressly interested in hypothetical pairings. I've looked around Wikipedia:Categorization and read that the purpose of a category is to lead readers to new information, and among criteria is
If you go to the article from the category, will it be obvious why the article was put in the category?
Note that the reverse is not considered, i.e. a category added at the bottom of the page need not be taken as a characterization of the subject. But, Vdt, would Cat:Short operas for Pag. with a redirect page be an acceptable compromise? Folantin, are you arguing against the existence of Cat:One-act in the first place or in favor of always taking the title page at its word?Sparafucil 22:33, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
I'm not sure I have followed all the subtleties of this argument, but I would be strongly opposed to a category for short operas (or long operas, big operas, small operas etc etc.) as being impractical. -- Kleinzach 02:52, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Just to see if I understand,
1) The concensus (except perhaps for Foletin?) is that there is a practical need for a list that includes Pag as well as Cav.
2) Guillaume Tell seems to agree with me that One-act operas is an intuitive name and could be expanded.
3) Kleinzach favors a new category Double-bill, actually defined as multiple bill lest the literal-minded start removing Gianni Schicchi.

No, I don't favour a new category 'Double bill'. (Are you confusing me with somebody else?) I agreed with the suggestion that 'Double bill (opera)' should be an article. -- Kleinzach 13:31, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

4) Voceditenore seems to object to having a category name at the bottom of a page contradict the article but has not said he objects to the use of the category itself.
Would anyone object to renaming One-act operas Companion pieces or else adding such a category that would point to One-act?Sparafucil 10:08, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

I'd suggest if you really want to do this, then a list rather than categories would be better (i.e. do what Voceditenore proposes). Categories are simply incapable of handling this subject properly. I'd object to a category "companion pieces" since many one-act operas weren't created to be performed that way. --Folantin 10:13, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
Yes, Il trittico makes this argument (I myself can't say how POV it might be). Perhaps Kleinzach can say whether a list is as easy to maintain as a category; I get the impresion that The opera corpus gets a lot of attention. Given that there was enthusiasm in May for keeping cat:One-act and that many have spent effort adding to it, it seems to me that the question should now be how to make it as useful as possible. Folantin, I dont quite see why your objections dont apply to all other categories as well. Since we can't know whether it ever crossed Stravinsky's mind that Oedipus rex (opera) might be done in the Vatican, should the category Latin-language operas be abandoned too? Sparafucil 03:23, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
Oedipus Rex is in the "Latin-language" category because it's in Latin. I don't see what potential performance in the Vatican has to do with this. --Folantin 07:47, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

It is (correctly) in the Multiple-language category; the speaker is instructed to use the language of the audience. I added Latin because of a glaring gap in that category's list.Sparafucil 22:06, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't think changing the name of Category: One-act operas would achieve anything. It was previously underused but it is now reasonably complete. If a reader is interested in one act operas he/she can use the category to find other ones. I don't think a category is meant to do much more than that.
To Sparafucil: Yes, The opera corpus takes some time to look after - but that is because it is very long and includes stats. Most other lists are low maintenance - like categories. -- Kleinzach 13:55, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Otto mesi in due ore

I've just created this article. The opera sort of 'morphed' into Elisabetta. Some would argue that in the process they became almost separate operas. Nevertheless, I've put them both here and discussed the process in the performance history. Do with it what you will. ;-). Best, Voceditenore 17:02, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Excellent. I've added it to the navigation box. Are you going to add redirects from Élisabeth ou la fille de l'exilé , Gli esiliati in Siberia and Elisabetta? -- Kleinzach 01:07, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
Have now added the redirects. Best, Voceditenore 05:22, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
Just added standard frame for roles - Jay 12:41, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Trivia

May I know whether it is necessary to have? Some of them are really “funny” (pathetic actually) and sorry to say “useless”. I seriously do not see why we should have trivia that doesn’t seem to benefit the article. What do you guys think about this? Usually (most of them) were added by non opera fans like adding “sport” section, video games etc. I don’t think this is something an encyclopedia’s articles should have, this is just my opinion. Some of are just plain stupid!- Jay 12:23, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Which articles are involved? Usually the best thing to do is to make a Trivia section heading and then put a {{trivia}} tag underneath it. -- Kleinzach 12:42, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
I just removed from Tosca and Viva-Verdi removed it from Nessun Dorma (under title "Appearances in popular culture"). I also have removed some lines from Pavarotti's and Domingo's trivia - something about Pavarotti doesn’t read music notes and Domingo's granddaughter taken nude photo and makes him sad bla bla and many more from other articles (I can’t remember) . Well, some of them are true (I know) but I just don’t feel it should be included in there. Sometimes it feels like reading a tabloid. - Jay 12:54, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
I'm all for chopping such trivia. As they say, Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. --Folantin 13:00, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
In any case we have a clear policy on this here -- Kleinzach 14:56, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
There's also Wikipedia:Avoid trivia sections. Useful stuff can be mentioned in the article proper; junk should be culled. Trivia sections are pretty awful things. Moreschi Talk 13:00, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
There's a lot of it now on Pagliacci. -- Kleinzach 23:03, 6 August 2007 (UTC)