Talk:Thespis (opera)/Archive 1

message: Right! A list of numbers! Adam Cuerden 14:48, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Original comment 

message: I've updated the discussion of the ballet. Spencer and Tillett concluded that they had correctly identified all five of the movements, not merely three out of five. Offhand, I can't think of any citable source that has disputed their conclusion as to the remaining two movements. Although they rely on different kinds of evidence for those movements, they back it up with highly specific and detailed reasoning. I've added the specific references. I am not suggesting that someone couldn't have disagreed with them, only that I'm not aware of any published source that did so. Marc Shepherd 16:35, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, but neutrality requires that we represent their view accurately. The previous edit implied that T&S just dropped in a couple of random movements because they needed five, and only three were available. To the contrary, they had specific reasons (and not just the photo of St. George and the Dragon) for beliving the two movements they chose were the correct ones. If a quotable source has disagreed, naturally we should represent that view too. Marc Shepherd 12:06, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Perfectly agree. I should have been more careful: There were the page numbers to give the length, and so on. If we accept the hypothesis that the music WAS used elsewhere, I think we can accept their judgements with reasonable confidence. But, well, think it is worth pointing out a difference between a probable reconstruction and a definite identification. Must reign in the more agressive side that I have, though.  Adam Cuerden 12:56, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ballet 

message: Adam, you've done an excellent job researching and writing the new sections, and I think the piece is pretty comprehensive.  I have gone through the intro and background sections carefully now and have made copy edits.  There is a bit of repetition in the background sections, but it may be helpful to the flow of the writing.  Let's see what the GA reviewer thinks.  Congratulations.  -- Ssilvers 04:46, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that it is at least GA, but probably not yet FA. I think that, with a very reasonable effort, most of the G&S opera pages could be pushed up to GA. Marc Shepherd 15:05, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree it probably does need a little more work for FA, but the FA process is pretty good at getting things past the last few hurdles, so, as long as it's nearly there, I think we should go ahead. Of course, Peer Review first. Adam Cuerden talk 15:30, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: GA nomination

message: Should the rumor that a copy of the vocal score was held secretly by a firm of music publishers in London and was accidentally destroyed in a fire in 1964 be included and, if so, does anyone have a citation about the rumor? Shsilver 21:12, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't recall seeing that rumor in print. Terence Rees did tell me this himself, but our undocumented conversation wouldn't count as a reliable source. Anyhow, it was hearsay. By the time Rees became aware of it, the warehouse was already gone. All Rees had to go on was the unsubstantiated statement of someone who had formerly worked there. Marc Shepherd 21:49, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah, the Chappell fire. I think it's mentioned in Thespis: A Gilbert and Sullivan Enigma  in passing Adam Cuerden talk 06:33, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: The Rumor

message: An earlier edit said:
:When asked in his later years what had become of Thespis, he "answered with a laugh that he had saved up its tunes for other operas."
Adam removed this, on the grounds that both Stedman and Rees refuted it. All Stedman says is that "neither author admitted it," which is ambiguous and unsourced. Rees says the following:
:If we accept the story of Sullivan's pillaging of his own score to Thespis whenever he was short of a tune, then sooner or later and for this reason alone a revival would have become impossible...." (Rees, p. 88.)
That isn't a refuation. Rather, Rees is pointing out that if Sullivan did reuse most of the music, it supplies a logical reason why the piece would not have been revived. Adam, do you have another page citation from Rees? You mentioned p. 100 in one of your edit summaries, but it's certainly not there. Marc Shepherd 01:27, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: How about page 3 of Forty Years of Thespis Scholarship "It is famously alleged that at some time in the 1890s, in the course of an interview with a reporter, Sullivan was asked a direct question about the music of Thespis. Identifying this interview has so far eluded the present writers." Let's document it fully in a footnote - can you add in the early sources? Adam Cuerden talk 03:42, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I noticed that last night too. I should be able to add something tonight. But take note of the modesty that Tillett & Spencer employ. They don't say it is incorrect; they only say that they have been unable to verify it. The current wording in the article refers vaguely to a rumour, which could be anything from a newspaper quote to something one heard on a street corner. Marc Shepherd 13:57, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Subsequent reuse

message: In my edit yesterday, I included a link to this image, which I had uploaded for the purpose. I will never do that again, but in the meantime, I was wondering at the reason for its quick removal from the article. Marc Shepherd 02:06, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Adam substituted it for another image of John Hollingshead.  I think that Marc's is more relevant to the idea of Hollingshead presenting a piece like Thespis, since it shows the variety of entertainments that Hollingshead was producing.  I'm going to start a Hollingshead stub and move the other image to it.  -- Ssilvers 03:11, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I like the image, but I couldn't find out where it was from with a search, and saw that bot was yelling at you on your page, so thought it might be deleted. Adam Cuerden talk 03:42, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hollingshead.jpg 

message: I'm finished with copy edits up to the "Assessments" section.  I'll do that tomorrow.  Also, all the identical footnotes should be combined.  For instance, if there are two footnotes that refer to page 4 of Rees, the tag should start: <ref name=Rees4>  -- Ssilvers 05:31, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Adam, the columns look good at various different resolutions that I have tested.  I really think they are useful, unless you are telling me that they look bad in Firefox.  Please put it back unless you have plans to add a nice image to the right.  -- Ssilvers 05:34, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I was getting "Toole" [of J.L.Toole] moved to a second row. That seemed a little awkward. Could move the Mlle. Clary image back there. Adam Cuerden talk 08:05, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

text: I agree about the redundant footnotes. When I was drafting this over the weekend, I footnoted everything as if it were unique, because I had no idea what would stay in (and in what order), and what would be removed. As we're now heading towards a stable version, this is an appropriate next step. Marc Shepherd 13:59, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

text: It may be helpful to discuss some examples. In the broader literature, my sense is that one normally names the writer if you are quoting an opinion, but not if you are citing a fact. For instance, in the Assessment section, if you are quoting someone who believes Thespis is a very good libretto, you would name the person who said that. But if you are stating that Thespis ran for 63 performances, you would just state the bare fact, with the name of the person who discovered it in a footnote. Sometimes there's an exception for a particularly startling discovery, e.g., that it was Tillett & Spencer who found the ballet. Disputed facts present something of a borderline case, because the credibility of a position may depend on who is asserting it. Marc Shepherd 14:54, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would agree with Marc.  scholars' names in the text should be reserved for debated issues (such as the section on when the libretto was written).  In cases of fact, it isn't needed and in cases of opinion, it may or may not be needed in-line. Shsilver 15:13, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed, except where we're giving a direct quote from a scholar. Also, try to include first name on first appearance, or first appearance after a long gap. I think it makes it easier to follow. Adam Cuerden talk 17:15, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

text: I disagree.  If you quote a scholar, and the scholar is not a notable person, it should suffice that you name the scholar in the footnote to the quote.  Wikipedia readers don't care who Ainger, Goldberg or Allen are.  We have the references to their books below and say their names in the footnote.  I think that the only place where you could possibly want to say these irrelevant names is, as ShSilver said, in the context of discussing a debated issue.  Really, it is mucking up the article, IMO.  -- Ssilvers 18:04, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

text: I've made a few edits that try to address Sam's concern. I have tried to take names out where they aren't really that relevant while retaining the quotes. I do think the quotes add value, as otherwise we are liable to wind up with a colourless paraphrase that might not really capture the nuance of what the other writers have said.  Marc Shepherd 21:23, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

text: They usually add value, though there was one section where they seemed to be standing in the way of clearly saying what had happened (The bit about Gilbert not having gone to America). I paraphrased that. Adam Cuerden talk 04:37, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Copy edits

message: In the cast list, why is Nellie Farren shown as
"Mercury – Miss E. Farren (Nellie Farren)".  Why not use Mercury – Miss E. Farren? Shsilver 15:27, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The current cast list is a jumble of styles. We should be consistent. One option is to list the performers as the original programme did, in which case we would have Miss E. Farren for Mercury and Mr. F. Sullivan for Apollo. The other option is that, where the performer's full name is known, we give the full name. Marc Shepherd 16:00, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

text: I would agree, but why is "principal" in the heading? If that word is omitted, what confusion is introduced? Are you concerned people won't realize there's a chorus? Marc Shepherd 17:58, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Also, I note that we discuss that G&S elevated the chorus into an important element of the opera, yet we don't mention them in the cast list.  I will do so.  -- Ssilvers 18:07, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That works for me. I think people realize that when a cast list is offered, it doesn't include the individual choristers by name. That's why I thought "principal" was redundant. Marc Shepherd 18:11, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Cast Question

message: I think we need to either discuss the error straight out, or correct it to seventy or seven[ty]. If we don't, it's going to confuse everyone. I've tried the discussion approach, though, frankly, since it's not part of the main argument, I'd prefer to either correct to sevent[ty], or use elipsis to bypass the corrupt text, and be done with it. What do you think? Adam Cuerden talk 16:25, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I am fine with [ty] in brackets. It is unacceptable to silently alter a quote, even where you are positive that it is incorrect. As the edit now stands, you are elevating this issue to a status far beyond its actual standing. The early writers who described Thespis as a failure used the "one month" figure, not the seven days. Marc Shepherd 16:36, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, then. Adam Cuerden talk 16:43, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  seven vs. seventy 

message: Should the sections on Text and surviving music go above the Reception and Assessment sections?  And should the modern productions section go above at least the assessment section?  -- Ssilvers 18:22, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Also, there is a cite to Rees, p. 81-81.  Can someone fix that, please?  -- Ssilvers 18:40, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll fix the Rees citation tonight, if Adam doesn't beat me to it.Marc Shepherd 18:49, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

text: I agree that "Modern Productions" should come right after "Aftermath." I'm not as sure about "Text" and "Surviving music," but I won't object if you move them. I resequenced the sections several times before posting on Sunday, so there's definitely not a single "right way" to do it. Marc Shepherd 18:49, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Order of article

message: I tried to tease out the digression on R. M. Field, but I'm not sure I was entirely successful in this. Anyone else want to have a go? Adam Cuerden talk 03:17, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  R. M. Field letter 

message: Robin Gordon-Powell said on S'Net today, that Sullivan had part of the score in front of him when composing Victoria and Merrie England.  Does anyone have the cite for this? Right now, the article refers to it being "available" in 1894. -- Ssilvers 03:07, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe there's a letter to that effect, though I'm not sure if it's referring to just the ballet or Thespis as a whole. Sorry. Adam Cuerden talk 03:47, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, I think it's actually Sapphire Necklace I was thinking of... Adam Cuerden talk 17:56, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Gordon-Powell was just being a bit loose in his description. We can say for sure that Sullivan had the Thespis ballet available to him at that time, since he used part of it in V&ME. Either he had the whole score of Thespis, or the ballet had been extracted from it on an earlier occasion. Marc Shepherd 15:13, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Sullivan had the score in 1897?

message: I was actually wondering about moving the role list later in the article: A list seems a little awkward as a first section. Adam Cuerden talk 02:19, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I wouldn't mind moving the Background section above roles and summary.  That is our usual structure.  Opinions?  -- Ssilvers 04:50, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Well, then, would you rather have the musical numbers up under the synopsis, or would you prefer the roles and synopsis down near musical numbers?  Or should we leave well enough alone?  I still think they should all go in between Background - which is before the show - and Reception, which is after the show.  As thus: Background; roles/plot/music; Reception.  In any event, it seems to me that roles, synopsis and musical numbers belong together.  -- Ssilvers 04:31, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

text: As currently placed, "Musical numbers" disrupts the narrative flow of the article. I would either move it up to the top (before "Background"), or way down to the bottom (before "Recordings"). When I was doing the new draft, originally "Background" was above the roles and plot summary, as it is for the rest of the G&S articles. But as "Background" expanded, that structure no longer seemed to make sense. Marc Shepherd 15:19, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I boldly moved it to the top. Marc Shepherd 17:42, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Article structure, again

message: Too many sections now end on quotes, without any commentary to pull the thoughts of that section together. Please, if you add quotes, talk about them. Adam Cuerden talk 17:45, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry,t hat wasn't clear: I mean things like Sullivan's letter to Hollingshead, which now forms part of an undiscussed  block of quotes, instead of being brought into a coherent discussion of the movements of the score. The criticism quotes are by and large put in context and perfectly relevant to the sections they're in. Adam Cuerden talk 17:48, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Adam, maybe you can suggest some improvements. I don't really have a problem with sections that end on a quote. In the example you mentioned, I couldn't think of anything further to say, nor could I readily see any better way of arranging the material. Marc Shepherd 18:13, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Too many dangling quotes! 

message: Two surviving Sullivan letters refer to Thespis. In 1873, he wrote, in response to a query by Joseph Rummell (who had arranged Sullivan's Merchant of Venice score for the piano), "Thespis is not published but if you like I will send you the Full Score of the Duet in question."Allen & D'Luhy, p. 67. The subject is most likely the duet for Sparkeion and and Nicemis, "Here far away from all the world." There is no further known correspondence on the subject.
First off, have a look at page 14 of , I think Rees also discusses the incident. Both specifically say it's Here far away from all the world. Second, I think we have Joseph Rummell's letter in Rees - I may be wrong, it's gone walkabout again, but he at least provides a summary - and it seems far more relevant than Sullivan's response, which isn't even particularly well written. Thirdly, the section aftermath is a really poor place to discuss it, it'd be better in "Music", or, even better, move all these discussions of the movements of the score to the existing discussion at the start of "Surviving numbers".  Adam Cuerden talk 18:15, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Does Allen not give the context or something? I'm getting the most awful view of Allen's book from this second-hand view of it. Adam Cuerden talk 18:21, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I see Adam's point, and have moved the discussion to the "Music" section. "Surviving numbers" wouldn't really make sense, as it doesn't survive. The Allen/D'Luhy book was an exhibition catalog. It contains a brief description of the items that were put on display, without a lot of commentary. It just happens to be the only source I could find that quotes this particular letter. Marc Shepherd 18:25, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah, fair enough. Adam Cuerden talk 18:35, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Are you sure that quote is accurate? It seems oddly punctuated for a Victorian quote. Adam Cuerden talk 18:43, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In their private correspondence, G & S were much more loose about the standard rules of punctuation and grammar than they would have been in a published piece, just as people are in e-mail today. Marc Shepherd 18:58, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Problematic paragraph 

message: I have finished proofreading the article and making my copy edits.  I also did a little reorganization here and there, most notably moving the "text" section below the music section and renaming it "state of the text", since it is not really about the libretto, but only about why the text survives in the state that it does.  On the other hand, the "surviving music" section continues the musical analysis that was begun in the Assessment section, so the reorg leaves those two related sections one above the other.  Best regards, -- Ssilvers 19:08, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks good. I've done some minor copyedits, but think, when we're back from Bob and Jackie's, we'll be about ready to put this up for FA. What do you think, Marc? Adam Cuerden talk 21:40, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Moved "text" section below "surviving music" section