Talk:Utopia, Limited

message: An earlier version claimed that:
:The D'Oyly Carte Opera Company suggested in its later years the use of Sullivan's Imperial March instead of the original opening (which is more-or-less a repeat of the Drawing Room Music (No. 17) heard later). This has not been widely accepted.
The D'Oyly Carte never made any such suggestion. They included the Imperial March on their recording – not instead of, but in addition to the original opening. They did not perform it this way in the theatre. They did suggest that, for the purposes of a recording, the Imperial March is an appropriate companion piece. The Imperial March is written for a much larger orchestra than Sullivan employed in the Savoy pit. That overture could not be performed in the theatre without being re-orchestrated. Marc Shepherd 16:12, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Imperial March ''vs.'' Introduction

message: An earlier edit stated that Utopia was one of Gilbert's favorites. I know of no basis for this statement. Marc Shepherd 13:46, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There is a book included in the G&S Archive that says this in the Ruddigore chapter.  --Ssilvers 00:17, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, it's here. Ou tis 13:39, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gilbert's Favorite? 

message: Hi, Ou Tis.  I disagree with you about patter songs in Utopia.  I think that the following songs could be considered patter songs, and that their lack of tunefulness is one of the weaknesses of Utopia:
2a. "In every mental lore" (Scaphio and Phantis);  
3. "Let all your doubts take wing" (Scaphio and Phantis);  
9. "It's understood, I think" (Zara, Fitz., Scaphio, and Phantis);  
12c. "Henceforward with a verity" (King Paramount and Ensemble);  
15. "Society has quite forsaken" (King with Chorus of Six Flowers of Progress);  
19. "With fury deep we burn" (Scaphio and Phantis);  
20. "If you think that when banded" (King, Scaphio and Phantis);  
21. "With wily brain" (Scaphio, Phantis, and Tarara). 
Let me know if you still disagree.  If not, I'd like to put back the statement.  If you do still disagree, can you think of a way to explain what the problem with Utopia's score is, or do you think it's adequate to say what is there? --Ssilvers 16:42, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ssilvers, I don't insist on taking out everything that has no citable source. While cited sources are better than unsubstantiated personal opinions, it can be awfully tedious to "prove" every statement. People don't necessarily have the time to turn every edit into a full-blown research project. However, when a statement proves to be controversial, often the best resolution is to find a citable source. I also think that the stronger articles, in general, are those that cite sources, but that's something that happens over time, as editors take the time to improve each article. Marc Shepherd 14:38, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Patter songs in Utopia 

message: Upped this to B, but it DOES need much more background and history. I have a copy of Wolfson, but as you may know, I'm doing extra University classes, so my time's limited.  Adam Cuerden talk 20:09, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it's very naughty of you to say, "I have a source and could do this work, but I don't have time to right now."  ;-)  I'm tempted to put it back to "start", but I suppose it just squeaks over the B line.  Regards, -- Ssilvers 23:46, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Bah. Fine. Did a bit of work. Adam Cuerden talk 00:05, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Class

message: Look at the poster advertising the opera shown in the article (:Image:Utopia Limited Poster.jpg). Clearly Richard D'Oyly Carte and the authors thought that it should be advertised under this name, so this name is certainly authentic. It certainly does not have parentheses.  -- Ssilvers 20:24, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: On the other hand, Original Plays, Fourth Series, gives the punctuation as Utopia, Limited; or, The Flowers of Progress - actually, this is the standard pattern used on all the subtitled works - should we fix them all to this convention? Adam Cuerden talk 10:14, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

text: FYI, the opera opened as Utopia (Limited). When the parentheses were dropped, the Chappell libretto title was revised to Utopia Limited (without a comma). As Adam notes, Original Plays puts a comma between "Utopia" and "Limited". Marc Shepherd (talk) 20:24, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Do you think we should use the Original plays format  (Title; or, Subtitle)  pattern in giving titles? I, for one, like it, but it is rather old-fashioned punctuation. If we did it, we'd have to apply it to all thirteen operas. (I don't think that Sorcerer, properly speaking, has a subtitle, though it's sometimes given one) Adam Cuerden talk 20:32, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe the punctuation in Chatto & Windus was simply a house style, and there is no reason to revise all of the articles to match it. Marc Shepherd (talk) 20:35, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: ''Utopia, Limited'' - punctuating the name

message: You know, I think we might have overdone it. Oh, well. We hopefully will expand this, and though there's a couple images in Final Curtain that we MUST include, it'll probably work out more balanced in the end. Adam Cuerden talk 10:11, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think we could safely get rid of the drawing that says "Zara dances with Fitz" (or something like that). Also, the new image could be stacked right under your storybox....  -- Ssilvers (talk) 15:09, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Images 

message: Can someone explain why American professional productions of Utopia would have been more likely after the expiration of Gilbert's copyright in 1961? I thought G&S had always been in the public domain in the U.S. Tparkes (talk) 16:14, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: As now worded, the statement is awkward and misleading. Although Light Opera of Manhattan did produce Utopia, it had nothing to do with the expiration of copyright. LOOM didn't even come into existence until 1968. The statement also says that "some professional companies began to produce it." The word "some" implies more than just one or two—and if this is the case, I'm not aware of who they are (or were). Marc Shepherd (talk) 16:36, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

text: The NYGASP effort was a single concert or quasi-staged performance, right? I'm pretty sure they didn't do a multi-performance run of a fully staged production. Marc Shepherd (talk) 22:07, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

text: I am pretty close to 100% sure of that. Marc Shepherd (talk) 00:04, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  American productions and copyright 

message: OK - I've done it! please don't knee-jerk revert!! --Soundofmusicals (talk) 02:53, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I didn't sight-revert. I kept the changes that had citations (or were improvements of clarity), but I removed those that appeared to be unsupported personal opinion. Marc Shepherd (talk) 17:30, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I moved the Bradley refs out of the intro per WP:LEAD and into the Background section.  I also did some research in Bradley, Ainger and Allen and added refs and info to the Background section.  Stedman would be helpful, too, but I won't get to that for a while.  Allen also has more useful information, and I'm sure more can be gleaned from Wolfson, but I do not have Wolfson.  -- Ssilvers (talk) 05:47, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: September 2008 changes

message: The article thrice makes the claim that Utopia, Limited was "profitable" or "turned a profit," without putting it into context. The sense I get, is that someone was a bit over-eager to make Utopia seem more successful than it really was. None of the other G&S articles protest so much about profits, even though the 1880s operas were, for the most part, considerably more successful.
The correct statement, I believe, is Ainger, p. 352–3: "The final accounts revealed that Gilbert had made £4,600 for his 11 percent of gross receipts, whereas Carte and Sullivan, sharing the net profits between them, had each received only £1,800. Compared with previous operas, Utopia had not been a financial success. . . ."
Although the article as now written is literally true — after all, any amount above zero is technically a profit — one gets a very different impression when the full context is given. In contrast, Gilbert said his profit on Ruddigore, arguably the least successful of the 1880s operas, was £7,000 (Stedman, p. 244). As the partners were then on equal terms, one can infer the total was £21,000. That puts the £8,200 for Utopia (£4,600 + 2×£1,800) in its proper place.
The article also says that Utopia "was able to compete effectively with this new genre" (i.e., musical comedies), without mentioning that among 1893 premieres, both Morocco Bound (295 perfs.; Gänzl, p. 486) and A Gaiety Girl (413 perfs.; Gänzl, p. 491) outran it, the latter significantly; to say nothing of The Shop Girl the following year (546 perfs; Gänzl, p. 533).
Because it lacks concrete details on these matters, the article gives a slightly rosier impression than is warranted. Marc Shepherd (talk) 01:29, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks.  I've modified or eliminated the references to profit and deleted the reference to competing effectively, which didn't seem to add much.  Let us know if you have further comments.  -- Ssilvers (talk) 06:05, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I think you covered it. I made one small change. Marc Shepherd (talk) 14:00, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Protesting too much 

message: Hello! This is a note to let the editors of this article know that :File:Utopia Limited Poster.jpg will be appearing as picture of the day on October 7, 2012. You can view and edit the POTD blurb at Template:POTD/2012-10-07. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page so Wikipedia doesn't look bad. :) Thanks! —howcheng  {chat} 17:58, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[:File:Utopia Limited Poster.jpg]] to appear as POTD soon 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Utopia, Limited. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090502100145/https://www.gsarchive.net/other_gilbert/broken_hearts/intro.html to https://www.gsarchive.net/other_gilbert/broken_hearts/intro.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090216002525/http://www.library.rochester.edu/index.cfm?page=4149 to http://www.library.rochester.edu/index.cfm?page=4149
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:11, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified (January 2018) 

message: The file  on Wikimedia Commons has been nominated for deletion. View and participate in the deletion discussion at the . Community Tech bot (talk) 21:55, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion