Talk:La Périchole

message: Wikipedia has a surprisingly long and interesting article on the word "cholo," so I've linked to it, but the word is a tricky one to translate.  I know that "of mixed blood" is better than "not purebred," but there might be a better translation out there. I'm open to suggestions. I just don't want to make this (background) paragraph too much longer than it already is. Thanks for any help. ForDorothy 23:40, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Can anyone explain why the title would be pronounced as indicated, with a "k" sound?  I would expect "ch" in a French word to be pronounced "sh"; and in a Spanish word, "ch".  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.240.78.1 (talk) 03:05, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Comment

message: Half the performance history now relates just to New York. This is unbalanced. We need to prioritze the original premiere and give equal weight to local premieres elsewhere. - Kleinzach 04:55, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've been wondering what to do about this, too.  It's particularly annoying because of the cavalier way in which the opera was treated there (maybe it should all go into a Trivia section!).  Given that most of the named Met participants have their own articles, the info on how many performances they sang, etc., could be removed to those articles and the whole thing cut down to a couple of sentences. --GuillaumeTell 09:55, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, that might be the best solution. - Kleinzach 10:14, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: New York performance history

message: What is the connection between the two works given here and the subject of the article? Am I missing something? --Kleinzach 07:04, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I have added a reference from Grove which I hope explains it - unless these are in the wrong place? Cg2p0B0u8m (talk) 10:56, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah, I see, thanks. --Kleinzach 11:17, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Other operatic versions section

message: The reasons given for blanking this new section were that the material in it is not notable. Each production listed is referenced from a serious musical publication (there's a TV broadcast of one of them on Youtube). Each one has at least a 'notable' (in Wikipedia terms) participant. None are on the level of, say, the Patrice Chéreau Ring cycle, but they all give broader picture and a little more international balance for any passing reader. In time I'm sure as the section fills out a bigger and better picture will emerge of its regularity (but I doubt there have been hundreds of productions in say the last 50 years, or more). 
I strongly suspect that 50% of productions mentioned in the performance history sections of all the opera articles on Wikipedia have not achieved two or three hundred performances, toured internationally nor had a book devoted to them; but I can't think why they would be deleted.
Given the time and effort many people put into improving and expanding articles, a little more hesitation before blanking would be helpful. I'm looking forward to improving the article further. Cg2p0B0u8m (talk) 22:15, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: The standard for content within an article is not notability, but rather WP:NOTEWORTHYness.  I did not say that these productions are not noteworthy, I merely said that you had not established that they are noteworthy.  The fact that someone reviewed a production in a publication does not make it noteworthy.  Among all the many productions of this operetta over the past century, the question is: which have been the most important ones?  I would expect that Andrew Lamb or Ganzl, or one of the other writers who focus on operetta, would have discussed which were the most important productions. I notice that you have not mentioned any French productions, which is pretty surprising. I'm sorry you are offended, but of course it wasn't hard for you to undo my edit, and perhaps I should have just opened the discussion first, so if you like, I extend an apology and will try to be patient.  But I really do think there needs to be some objective standard used for finding/deciding which productions are the most important/encyclopedic.  I have never thought, for example, that the production in which Trial by Jury premiered alongside La Perichole was noteworthy with respect to the latter, although that production of La Perichole involved notable people and ran for months. -- Ssilvers (talk) 22:33, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: I welcome the additions. We give 130 words to what was plainly a mangled production by a New York company, and the additions rebalance the article. Besch was a more distinguished director of opera than Ritchard; and a production at either the Buxton or the Garsington festivals  is, to my mind, ipso facto noteworthy. Elsewhere we give details of ten productions of Princess Ida and eight of The Sorcerer, with nothing to demonstrate that any of them was particularly noteworthy, and the handful of productions of La Périchole mentioned here seem to me to bear mention on a similar basis. Tim riley talk 07:56, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: There are details here of numerous productions in France (and Francophone Switzerland and Belgium). Some of the directors such as Jérôme Savary and Laurent Pelly are top-class names, and likewise singers such as Jane Rhodes, Michel Caron, Gabriel Bacquier and Maria Ewing. A mention of some of these productions would not be amiss. Tim riley talk 08:31, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Gänzl (p. 1592 of his Encyclopedia) writes: "Other top Parisian prima donnas later took turns at La Périchole. In 1877 Anna Judic made a Parisian appearance in the role and in 1895 Jeanne Granier was also seen as Périchole, with Guy as her Piquillo, at the Variétés … In the later years of the twentieth century La Périchole held a position and a popularity in the Offenbach canon greater than at perhaps any other time, a popularity witnessed by several recordings and by Paris revivals in 1969 (Théâtre de Paris), 1979 (Théâtre Mogador 19 May) and 1984 (Théâtre des Champs-Élysées 17 September)." Gänzl also mentions a new production at the Vienna Volksoper in 1996. Tim riley talk 08:46, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

text: I have had a shot at that. What think you? Tim riley talk 12:34, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Excellent!  I will give it a proofread, but I feel more confident, now, that the productions mentioned focus on the most historically significant ones.  I apologize again for my ham-handed approach in my earlier objections. -- Ssilvers (talk) 14:42, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

text: Nothing in any of them about that, as far as I can see. My own (and highly WP:OR) feeling is that in Britain, at any rate, the piece is not often done by amateurs. I shouldn't be surprised if there were more amateur stagings in the US, but I really don't know. Tim riley talk 18:44, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: I have seen several, both at music schools and by community groups.  One was by the Village Light Opera Group in NY.  And I've known of many more.  Here are just a few examples from google (several of them in Britain): , 2 productions by the same amateur company, , , , , also twice, , , (1976), 2 mentions of amateur Pericholes in Ireland, , .... I'll try to find a useful source. -- Ssilvers (talk) 19:54, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

text: I've mentioned that production both in the revivals and the recordings section. (I've just been watching a video of it and I laughed aloud at the Viceroy's first number.) Tim riley talk 17:56, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

text: The link goes to a source I don't regard as reliable. The production was at the Princess's not the Prince's, as the press coverage for June 1870 makes crystal clear. The page claims Gänzl's Book of the Musical Theatre as its source, but Gänzl (p. 306) gets the name of the theatre right. There wasn't a Prince's Theatre in London in 1870, as the perpetrator of the webpage ought to have known. Tim riley talk 08:49, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Now I look again I see the page gets the date of the American premiere wrong by a decade. (And the writer doesn't know about possessive apostrophes – Princes Theatre!) I earnestly advise against referring to that website again. Tim riley talk 10:09, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, just checking.  I also was not able to find a Prince's Theatre in operation in 1870, so I am not surprised by your answer.  Sources often get such names confused.  I have seen so many errors concerning the Prince of Wales Theatre vs. the Prince of Wales's Theatre, Princess vs. Princess's, etc. -- Ssilvers (talk) 15:42, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title: Performance history

message: We have a mish-mash of citation styles. If nobody objects, I'll tidy it up into Notes, References and Sources. Tim riley talk 09:39, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Sure, please do. -- Ssilvers (talk) 14:38, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Referencing 

message: Should we add any of these images?:
* from Commons -- More images from Commons are linked here.
*- Poster from a Paris production
*- Waltz cover
*-- Quadrille cover -- 
Also, the French Wikipedia article may have something else of interest. Ssilvers (talk) 19:24, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: All Jake (or perhaps Jacques) with me. Tim riley talk 15:52, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title: Images

message: It seems to me that M. Offenbach's article deserves a run at FAC. Cg2p0B0u8m, Ssilvers (and anyone else with a view) what say you? Tim riley talk 13:33, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it is probably ready.  If you take it to FAC, I will re-read and comment. -- Ssilvers (talk) 15:23, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Et tu (if I may) mon Général? Tim riley talk 16:44, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I think he and his article are worthy of being featured. No.1 : can we get rid of all the phoneticisms in the first few words, or lose them in a footnote? Cg2p0B0u8m (talk) 17:10, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  And as for the composer