Talk:The Yeomen of the Guard

message: 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)
thread_title: Eh?

message: 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)
thread_title: Size of orchestra

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  Started doing so! Adam Cuerden 20:55, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Dividing up the Finales

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Sources of original material 

message: Did Fairfax have a given name? (Don't tell me, "It's bloody Colonel!") Major Major 09:13, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The libretto refers to him only as Fairfax or Col. Fairfax.  No first name is mentioned.  -- Ssilvers 04:35, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[given name|Prenom]] [[Colonel]]

message: 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)
thread_title: Parallel

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Photo caption

message: 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)
thread_title:  Memorandum 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  So POV is fine provided it's reported??? 

message: Is last Sunday's BBC Proms performance sufficiently notable to be included in the article?  It was semi-staged, with the principals in full costume and a wide variety of props, though the chorus had inimal costume and were static.  It was broadcast live on BBC Radio 3 and was recorded for deferred TV broadcast (which will be on Saturday 25 August on BBC2 at 8pm). Details http://www.bbc.co.uk/proms/whats-on/2012/august-19/14246.  Reviewed by The Guardian http://www.guardian.co.uk/music/2012/aug/20/prom-49-yeoman-guard-review and Telegraph http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/music/proms/9490073/Proms-2012-The-Yeomen-of-the-Guard-Royal-Albert-Hall-review.html - Independent will probably follow but they've been quite slow this year.  David Underdown (talk) 14:38, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think so.  It's a one-night only semi-staged performance.  Yeomen is regularly performed in fully-staged productions by professional companies like New York Gilbert and Sullivan Players, Opera Australia and the G&S Festival's G&S Opera Company, so it is not a rarity.  See WP:RECENT for more information about why recent events usually are less encyclopedic than one might think.  If a recording is issued and sells well, we could mention that.  -- Ssilvers (talk) 15:05, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Well that's why I mentioned it here, rather than just diving in.  However, the broadcast is likely to bring it to the attention of a fair number of listeners and viewers, potentially more than would be aware of other professional performances (have there been any other complete live radio broadcasts or televised performances?) David Underdown (talk) 10:39, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, there have been live (and also prerecorded) radio broadcasts of most of the G&S operas in the UK and other countries since the beginning of radio.   Some of these are mentioned at the G&S discography.  I do not think that the broadcast is very important:  a broadcast is ephemeral.  A best-selling recording is of more interest.  Who will care about this broadcast in 10 or 20 years?  Again, I urge you to read  WP:RECENT.  BTW, there was an all-star 1957 television broadcast of Yeomen with Alfred Drake, Barbara Cook, etc., but it was never [has just become] commercially available, so I [just added it in the section near the bottom].  Listening to a radio broadcast or seeing a concert at the Proms is not the same as going to the theatre and settling down in the dark for a fully-staged production.  There are zillions of amateur productions, concerts and broadcasts that we do not list, because we are an encyclopedia, rather than a concordance or other type of database or work that contains complete lists of things.  See WP:NOT.  The line that Wikipedia usually draws with respect to dramatic works is fully-staged professional productions, films and widely broadcast TV productions.  -- Ssilvers (talk) 14:59, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Apart from the fact this was almost a fully-staged performance, it still seems to me that then impact a broadcast makes has some wider reflection on the reception of this work - and rather than being part of a purely G&S festival (as at Buxton), it's included in one of the world's major classical music festivals.  I'm not saying it should be a huge mention, but I don't see that a passing inclusion does any major harm.  Howver, maybe I'm slightly barking up the wrong tree, maybe it would be better to have some mention of the long-standing relationship between G&S and the Proms in Cultural influence of Gilbert and Sullivan, the Proms archive shows just how common performances of G&S have been throughout the history of the Proms http://www.bbc.co.uk/proms/archive/search/people/4b466f5e-4620-4084-8841-3fe4ea38e689 (with a "Grand Selection" from Gondoliers in the third Prom of all http://www.bbc.co.uk/proms/archive/search/1890s/1895/august-13/203), with regular G&S evenings (of excerpts and individual numbers) once a staple, and moving forward to the full performances of the last 15 years.  David Underdown (talk) 10:40, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that your idea about G&S at the proms would fit better in Gilbert and Sullivan, in the section called "Legacy and assessment" – a brief mention in the text, with more detail in a footnote (maybe also in the Sullivan article).  If you can write a concise footnote about it, with a reference(s) that verifies all the info, by all means. -- Ssilvers (talk) 14:34, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proms performance 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on The Yeomen of the Guard. 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/20110726200009/http://www.oxfordtimes.co.uk/leisure/8336547.print/ to http://www.oxfordtimes.co.uk/leisure/8336547.print/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120626161615/http://gsfestivals.org/shop/professional-shows to http://www.gsfestivals.org/shop/professional-shows
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) 22:40, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified