Talk:Pagliacci

message: Does anyone get this? Herbivore 02:45, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The 11th century 

message: Would it be appropriate to add a mention of Engelbert Humperdinck's "when there's no you" in the popular culture section?  The melody in the chorus of "When There's No You" is almost identical to the part of "vesti la giubba" that goes:
Ridi, Pagliaccio, sul tuo amore infranto, ridi del duol che t'avvelena il cor!
(an english translation that I found and spellchecked)
Laugh, Pagliaccio, over your shattered love, laugh at the pain that is poisoning your heart!
Here are the lyrics to Humperdinck's song:
My heart is breaking. It was yours for the taking. You said we're through, What can I do, When there's no you?
Thanks in advance for your input.  Ycaps123 21:04, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Since I didn't get any feedback, Ill go ahead and make the proposed addition. Ycaps123 20:01, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Engelbert Humperdinck's "when there's no you" 

message: Is it time to hive off the section Pagliacci in popular culture and make it into a new page? - Kleinzach 08:29, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I would say no. This page isn't all that long as it is, and "Pagliacci in popular culture" is much too specific a subject. I don't think anybody is going to search for that. Kafziel 13:58, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This section continues to grow and grow. Time to make it a separate article? - Kleinzach 09:34, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Most of the material in this section bares little or no relationship to the opera that it either needsto be removed as trivia or separated off elsewhere.  Viva-Verdi 22:24, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

text: I never saw the episode of "It Takes A Thief" but I have read "It" etc. I think that the article does not need to get anywhere near the "killer (scary, evil) clown" popular culture stuff. Jeez, this is an opera, and a great one. Wastrel Way (talk) 21:04, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: Pagliacci in popular culture

message: The article states "It was to be one act long...". Is this correct? At what stage and for what reason did it become two acts? --David Edgar 11:18, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: One act?

message: I don't know if this should be a redirect from Pagliaccio, who is a character in the commedia dell'arte. I think Pagliaccio should get his own page, and there could be a disambiguation thing about it.--Sobekneferu 06:50, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Disambiguation 

message: Now, I may be wrong, but I thought it was "Il Pagliacci"? Or am I completely mistaken? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Adam Cuerden (talk • contribs) 
:As I understand it (and I'm no expert on Italian), "pagliacci" is plural. And "il" is the singular definite article ("i" being the plural "the"). So "Il Pagliacci" would be incorrect grammar.
:As to whether the title should be "I Pagliaggi", this is addressed at the start of the article where it says "The title is sometimes incorrectly rendered I pagliacci (The Clowns)." Is it this that you disagree with? --David Edgar 10:37, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Unfortunately, Ricordi has made the mistake as well. However, Ricordi was not the original publisher of the score. The original and definitive version was published by Casa Sonzogno in 1892 with the title Pagliacci, and it is still published by them today. See . Best Voceditenore 10:09, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

text: The same goes for Messiah, often lumbered with an otiose definite article. I vote the word "incorrect" be reinstated as regards Pag. Tim riley (talk) 10:53, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

text: You can remove it if you wish, due to the apparant consensus on this page, but I feel that it is a POV statement to call something that is common usage "incorrect".  It just seems that we are pushing users towards a particular usage, when both are common. I think we should just clarify that this wasn't in the original score, but since that time many have referred to the opera with the article. We don't need to make judgmental calls about the usage of it, just note that the title isn't original. ThemFromSpace 20:59, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Good. Glad we have no opposition to reverting. Jack of Oz, would you care to do the necessary, or shall I. Tim riley (talk) 21:03, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  I've already done it.  --  Jack of Oz [your turn] 21:13, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

text: I guess my concern with this action is the question who says this is incorrect?  If it is Wikipedia that is saying it, then we are making a POV statement and also adding in original research.  If it is reliable sources, they would need to be in large agreement, and preferably cited.  I don't want us to be making the fallacy that the original intent of the composer is the only thing we should report as fact. We can cite the original score for the original name, but we cannot cite it for the correct name. ThemFromSpace 21:14, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  Of course we can.  Imagine if you were watching a movie about the sinking of the Titanic, and when the ship first loomed into view, it had the words "The Titanic" emblazoned on its side.  Wouldn't you feel just a slight urge to get in touch with the producers and tell them they had the name of the ship wrong?  Well, Pagliacci is an even more clear cut case than that.  At least with ships we do actually say the word "the" when referring to them, even if the word "the" is not normally part of the formal name.  But here, we have an opera whose name means "Clowns".  Not "The Clowns", just "Clowns".  If it were an English-language opera by an English composer, its title would have been "Clowns", and anyone referring to it as "The Clowns" would be as wrong as they would be if referring to "Messiah" as "The Messiah".  People in the opera world often refer colloquially to La bohème, Il trovatore, La traviata, Les Huguenots etc as simply Bohème, Trovatore, Traviata and Huguenots - but they know when it comes to some formal context, the full and correct title is the only acceptable one.  Well, WP is a formal context, and the full and correct title of Pagliacci is - wait for it - Pagliacci.  --  Jack of Oz [your turn] 21:31, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  You just said the correct title was Pagliacci because it is... that's not very convincing. When many refer to it with a different name, you need more than the original score to verify the correctness (not just the originality) of the name. Today's correct usage and historical truth aren't always the same thing.  ThemFromSpace 21:44, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  What is your definition of the word "correct"?  Did Humphrey Bogart say the exact sequence of words "Play it again, Sam" in Casablanca, just because millions of people think he did and "quote" him as having said that?  If an opera was called X by its creator, how could it possibly become "correct" to call it Y without his imprimatur?  Did Leoncavallo ever sanction this?  I have no problem with acknowledging that many, many people do in fact call it I Pagliacci (which should probably be spelt I pagliacci).  But to leave it at that, as if it was a perfectly OK variant, is misleading.  Fifty million Frenchmen can be wrong. --  Jack of Oz [your turn] 04:16, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  Correct here means the same as proper. To use either term to describe a name would be to judge based off of opinions, personal taste, and assumptions; not facts.  The fact is that Pagliacci is the original name of the opera, but whether the original name should be preferred to another common name is a matter of opinion. Stating that one name is incorrect is taking a side on the issue. We are a neutral encyclopedia, so using language such as this is beyond our scope. ThemFromSpace 06:01, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I think that according the same value to the newer, arbitrarily changed title that has zero creative authority, as we give to the original title given by the composer, is very much taking sides with the latter-day miscreants.  It's saying "Call it anything you like, we'll accept the new name as long as enough of you get it wrong the same way".  There is a sort of strength in numbers, hence we have linguistic change and evolution, which only a madman would resist to the death.  But this isn't about general linguistic change, it's about the specific title of an opera as provided by the composer.  He called it X; he did not call it Y.  Others can call it Y till the cows come home, but nothing can change its proper title except Leoncavallo, and he's dead.  --  Jack of Oz [your turn] 06:39, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'm not much a fan of the composer=God mentality that many classical music fans and scholars have. A composer's original intention doesn't make that particular element of music "correct", which is a subjective statement, only historically accurate. This is an important distinction that needs to be made that I don't think you're seeing. Whether one usage is incorrect or against the composer's wishes is irrelevant in an encyclopedia that states facts and not assertions. The fact is that both names are is use by scholars and fans, the one being original and the other having arisen shortly after the opera's first publication. (And the name with the article is nearly as old as the name without, here are two contemporary references to the opera with the article, both dated 1893   ) ThemFromSpace 06:58, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  That's hardly relevant to today.  Any opera company that in this day and age presents something they call "I Pagliacci" could expect to receive a lot of feedback, criticism, and even abuse for being so operatically illiterate. (Not that I condone abuse.)  No opera company or record company in the world would ever consider "common usage" carries enough weight to allow "I Pagliacci" to be presented or recorded, and so they all present or record "Pagliacci".  --  Jack of Oz [your turn] 21:05, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Title

message: Regarding this edit, which removed the notion of "incorrectness" in favour of "common usage":  Well, of course it's incorrect to inject an article into a title when the creator of the title decided he didn't want it there.  Common usage doesn't get to trump that.  How about we start calling Dickens' Bleak House - "The Bleak House"?  No, sorry, we don't get to do that.  Same applies with Pagliacci.  Many people write I Pagliacci, but they're every man jack of them incorrect. --  Jack of Oz [your turn] 01:49, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: The same goes for Messiah, often lumbered with an otiose definite article. I vote the word "incorrect" be reinstated as regards Pag. Tim riley (talk) 10:53, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

text: You can remove it if you wish, due to the apparant consensus on this page, but I feel that it is a POV statement to call something that is common usage "incorrect".  It just seems that we are pushing users towards a particular usage, when both are common. I think we should just clarify that this wasn't in the original score, but since that time many have referred to the opera with the article. We don't need to make judgmental calls about the usage of it, just note that the title isn't original. ThemFromSpace 20:59, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Good. Glad we have no opposition to reverting. Jack of Oz, would you care to do the necessary, or shall I. Tim riley (talk) 21:03, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  I've already done it.  --  Jack of Oz [your turn] 21:13, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

text: I guess my concern with this action is the question who says this is incorrect?  If it is Wikipedia that is saying it, then we are making a POV statement and also adding in original research.  If it is reliable sources, they would need to be in large agreement, and preferably cited.  I don't want us to be making the fallacy that the original intent of the composer is the only thing we should report as fact. We can cite the original score for the original name, but we cannot cite it for the correct name. ThemFromSpace 21:14, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  Of course we can.  Imagine if you were watching a movie about the sinking of the Titanic, and when the ship first loomed into view, it had the words "The Titanic" emblazoned on its side.  Wouldn't you feel just a slight urge to get in touch with the producers and tell them they had the name of the ship wrong?  Well, Pagliacci is an even more clear cut case than that.  At least with ships we do actually say the word "the" when referring to them, even if the word "the" is not normally part of the formal name.  But here, we have an opera whose name means "Clowns".  Not "The Clowns", just "Clowns".  If it were an English-language opera by an English composer, its title would have been "Clowns", and anyone referring to it as "The Clowns" would be as wrong as they would be if referring to "Messiah" as "The Messiah".  People in the opera world often refer colloquially to La bohème, Il trovatore, La traviata, Les Huguenots etc as simply Bohème, Trovatore, Traviata and Huguenots - but they know when it comes to some formal context, the full and correct title is the only acceptable one.  Well, WP is a formal context, and the full and correct title of Pagliacci is - wait for it - Pagliacci.  --  Jack of Oz [your turn] 21:31, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  You just said the correct title was Pagliacci because it is... that's not very convincing. When many refer to it with a different name, you need more than the original score to verify the correctness (not just the originality) of the name. Today's correct usage and historical truth aren't always the same thing.  ThemFromSpace 21:44, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  What is your definition of the word "correct"?  Did Humphrey Bogart say the exact sequence of words "Play it again, Sam" in Casablanca, just because millions of people think he did and "quote" him as having said that?  If an opera was called X by its creator, how could it possibly become "correct" to call it Y without his imprimatur?  Did Leoncavallo ever sanction this?  I have no problem with acknowledging that many, many people do in fact call it I Pagliacci (which should probably be spelt I pagliacci).  But to leave it at that, as if it was a perfectly OK variant, is misleading.  Fifty million Frenchmen can be wrong. --  Jack of Oz [your turn] 04:16, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  Correct here means the same as proper. To use either term to describe a name would be to judge based off of opinions, personal taste, and assumptions; not facts.  The fact is that Pagliacci is the original name of the opera, but whether the original name should be preferred to another common name is a matter of opinion. Stating that one name is incorrect is taking a side on the issue. We are a neutral encyclopedia, so using language such as this is beyond our scope. ThemFromSpace 06:01, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I think that according the same value to the newer, arbitrarily changed title that has zero creative authority, as we give to the original title given by the composer, is very much taking sides with the latter-day miscreants.  It's saying "Call it anything you like, we'll accept the new name as long as enough of you get it wrong the same way".  There is a sort of strength in numbers, hence we have linguistic change and evolution, which only a madman would resist to the death.  But this isn't about general linguistic change, it's about the specific title of an opera as provided by the composer.  He called it X; he did not call it Y.  Others can call it Y till the cows come home, but nothing can change its proper title except Leoncavallo, and he's dead.  --  Jack of Oz [your turn] 06:39, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'm not much a fan of the composer=God mentality that many classical music fans and scholars have. A composer's original intention doesn't make that particular element of music "correct", which is a subjective statement, only historically accurate. This is an important distinction that needs to be made that I don't think you're seeing. Whether one usage is incorrect or against the composer's wishes is irrelevant in an encyclopedia that states facts and not assertions. The fact is that both names are is use by scholars and fans, the one being original and the other having arisen shortly after the opera's first publication. (And the name with the article is nearly as old as the name without, here are two contemporary references to the opera with the article, both dated 1893   ) ThemFromSpace 06:58, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  That's hardly relevant to today.  Any opera company that in this day and age presents something they call "I Pagliacci" could expect to receive a lot of feedback, criticism, and even abuse for being so operatically illiterate. (Not that I condone abuse.)  No opera company or record company in the world would ever consider "common usage" carries enough weight to allow "I Pagliacci" to be presented or recorded, and so they all present or record "Pagliacci".  --  Jack of Oz [your turn] 21:05, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Revisited

message: Is the popular phrase "On with the motley" a loose translation of this aria's title? Daibhid C 17:39, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Vesti la giubba

message: Wasn't this opera featured in one of the Godfather films? I could've swore I saw a clip of one of the films where someone was watching the opera while someone else was brutally killed backstage. Am I thinking of another film?PowderedToastMan 04:40, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The only opera reference I can think of from any of the Godfathers I can think of is Cavalleria Rusticana in part 3.NewYork1956 01:07, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Godfather 

message: The inclusion of only one brief item (about the performance tradition of giving the final line to Canio instead of Tonio) did not seem to justify an entire Notes section. I incorporated the item into the Synopsis section (Act II) and deleted the Notes section header. Voceditenore 07:21, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Notes Section

message: Viva-Verdi 19:46, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Support removal of trivia section 

message: This article claims Pagliacci is the only one of Leoncavallo's operas still widely staged. La Bohème is both the most famous of all Leoncavallo's works but it is also easily has to be the most widely staged.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by BruceCMcD (talk • contribs) 16:51, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I think you're confusing this with Puccini's La bohème which is a highly popular and frequently performed opera. Leoncavallo's La bohème is very rarely peformed or even recorded. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 21:52, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  "The Only One of Leoncavallo's operas that is still widely staged"? 

message: I have removed the following redundant and inaccurate table from the Roles section.
Role                                   	Role in Commedia                                    	Voice type         	Premiere Cast, June 15, 1893(Producer: Gustave Hindrichs )
Canio, head of the troupe              	Pagliaccio                                          	tenor              	Agostino Montegriffo
Nedda, Canio's wife,in love with Silvio	Colombina, Pagliaccio's wife,in love with Arlecchino	soprano            	Selma Koet-Kronold
Tonio, the fool                        	Taddeo                                              	baritone           	Giuseppe Campanari
Beppe, actor                           	Arlecchino, Colombina's lover                       	tenor              	Mangioni de Pasquali
Silvio, Nedda's lover                  	                                                    	baritone           	Perry Averill
Chorus of villagers                    	Chorus of villagers                                 	Chorus of villagers	Chorus of villagers
The Roles section is for the world premiere not every country premiere or performance. Double tables are only used for premieres of different versions of the opera, in which case this format is used. Add the cast info above as prose to a performance history section if this was a significant performance and please specify the theatre and why this particular performance was significant. Voceditenore (talk) 14:09, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Role tables 

message: I was just having a look at the article Ride of the Valkyries, and noticed that all unreferenced items in the In popular culture section of that article have been removed after discussion on the talk-page. I suggest we do the same here.--Francesco Malipiero (talk) 21:49, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree; 'tis done. Viva-Verdi (talk) 00:30, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: You  one entry which seems entirely non-notable – it sports a very odd title ("Account creation of …"?) – and the quoted source no longer exists. I suggest to remove it. --Michael Bednarek (talk) 03:05, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Far be it from me to revive this removed section, but it seems that the striking parallels between this and its allusion in the second book of Watchmen should by now have produced a mention in a reliable source of some merit. I'll check Watchmen and Philosophy, but I don't recall one there. Does anyone else have one? Scartol • Tok 00:11, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Now User:Svnpenn felt it necessary to add this list again – without following the etiquette of WP:BRD. There's not a single usable source for any of the entries. Many consist of material so utterly non-notable that they don't have a single wiki link, and none add anything to the understanding of Leoncavallo's work. Those that have Wikipedia articles should be mentioned there, which surprisingly often they aren't. I suggest to remove the whole list. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 04:43, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

text: Totally support removal, and have "thanked" the most recent editor who reverted the entire section.  In addition, I have posted a note on User:Svnpenn's Talk page warning him/her/them of the 3-revert rule and the very limited value of all that material.  We now have 3 editors on record as being opposed to its inclusion. Viva-Verdi (talk) 18:22, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm also willing to go on record as opposing the inclusion of pointless trivia here.  These allusions, if they are discussed on Wikipedia at all, should be elsewhere.  Ozob (talk) 01:34, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

text: Anything to say ad rem? What abot the "D" in WP:BRD? What about WP:Consensus and WP:LISTEN? -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 05:27, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

text: FWIW I regard the proposed addition as highly undesirable. Please stop adding it without further discussion. William Avery (talk) 07:10, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Per Michael, instead of counting how many times you have "safely" reverted, Svnpenn, please use the talk page to discuss (the D in BRD) and justify why you think that disorganized mess of unreferenced trivia belongs in the article. Voceditenore (talk) 07:17, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  The never-ending story of popular culture 

message: This article says that "Nellie Melba played Nedda in London in 1892," but later it says that "the UK premiere of Pagliacci took place at the Royal Opera House, Covent Garden in London on 19 May 1893." So my question is: It if premiered in the UK in 1893, how could Nellie Melba have performed in it in London a year earlier? 2604:2000:EFC0:2:7C16:4E2E:E4E5:E5E8 (talk) 01:14, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: I assumed that was a typo and made it consistent. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 05:16, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  UK Premiere? 

message: This has become a lengthy, largely unreferenced, and uninformative laundry list. I have removed to here all the entries which are unreferenced. Please do not restore until you can provide a published source which explicitly states that the final line was given to Tonio in that production.
Removed entries
* The 2017 Opera Ithaca production directed by Zachary James
* The 2017 Opera North production directed by Charles Edwards
* The 2015 Opera Panama production directed by Irena Sylya
* The 2015 Royal Opera House, Covent Garden production directed by Damiano Michieletto
* The 2016 Welsh National Opera production directed by Elijah Moshinsky
* The 2015 Metropolitan Opera production directed by Sir David McVicar
* The 2014 Teatro Petruzzelli production directed by Marco Bellocchio
* The 2013 English-language production by Opera Theatre of Saint Louis
*The 1982 film by Franco Zeffirelli
I am now going to check those entries which do have references to see if they actually verify the claim. Any which do not will also be removed to this talk page. Additionally, a list like this gives undue weight to a relatively minor aspect of the opera in my view. The article does not need a giant list of every single putative production which gives Tonio the final line, no matter how obscure the production or the opera company. But that's a question for another time. Voceditenore (talk) 06:14, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Assignment of the final line