Talk:List of prominent operas/Archive 4

message: I'd also like to suggest some additions:
Gershwin: Porgy and Bess
*Nay Moreschi 15:04, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: *Added. - Kleinzach 19:13, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

text: *Aye to La belle Helene instead of Orpheus in the Underworld. - Kleinzach 20:16, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's 'cause I deleted it as a copyvio. 'Cause I'm a jerk. All the more reason to have it on the list, so someone writes it. Mak (talk) 16:11, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Surely one of their operettas should be important enough? Perhaps The Pirates of Penzance? Mak (talk) 16:11, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

text: I second that, but would vote for HMS Pinafore, also a masterpiece of operatic parody, but more of a pioneer than The Pirates--GuillaumeTell 16:43, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

text: *Aye to HMS Pinafore' instead of The Mikado. - Kleinzach 20:16, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

text: *Aye to Pinafore. Mak (talk) 20:22, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: *Added. - Kleinzach 09:01, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Operas to add?

message: May I reiterate that I can't see why all this should be proceeding at the pace of an express-train.  Some people have other things to do and may not be watching this page anyway.  A note on the Project's Talk page would be good, and a deadline of week or so for those interested to register votes would also be good. --GuillaumeTell 16:48, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: GuillaumeTell makes an excellent point. Let's chill for a little Kleinzach. :) Mak (talk) 16:56, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have purged/added items above on which we are unanimous and left all the others untouched. I must say getting everybody involved in solving the problem of this article has been most creative, given the history of disagreement on how to deal with this article.  - Kleinzach 19:23, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In reply to GuillaumeTell, I suggest the group of five of us carry on with editing the article but regard the results as provisional. When we have got the format right and a list which is about 90% acceptable to each of us, we can then ask the Opera Project as a whole to comment/vote on the selection as appropriate. How about that? If we ask people to get involved now, I think they will just get confused by the various voting lists we've produced. - Kleinzach 09:14, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Timescale 

message: *I'd include an opera by Glinka (probably Ruslan & Ludmilla) - he pioneered Russian opera as we know it.
*:Aye. - Kleinzach 17:32, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: * Added. - Kleinzach 23:43, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: * Exchanged. - Kleinzach 23:43, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

text: * Added. - Kleinzach 23:43, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Agree absolutely to all. Incidentally, the current page seems to me to have a definite pro-Italian opera bias. Could someone please explain to me the importance of Pagliacci and Cavalleria Rusticana? Please excuse my ignorance in this matter. Moreschi 17:29, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Cavalleria Rusticana is the first verismo opera. Both Cav and Pag are frequently performed as vehicles for star tenors from Caruso to Domingo. - Kleinzach 17:34, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  More to be purged/added 

message: Shall we merge the 'Historically significant operas' into the main list? Aye or Nay? 
*:Aye. - Kleinzach 22:16, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmm. (Some ayes are pretty than others.) The list is now merged. - Kleinzach 08:00, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Merging 'Historically significant operas' into main list?

message: I've rearranged the list chronologically on the basis that there seemed to be a consensus above. I decided to omit the individual Ring operas and just list the first whole cycle at Bayreuth, but otherwise everything that was present when I started should still be there.
Let the annotations start! (We still have some question-marks up above, and, as I did the rearranging, I started to wonder what there is to say about, say, Ballo or Forza.
--GuillaumeTell 18:03, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Great to have a chronological list.  I suggest we make it even more accessible by breaking it into sections. Two possibilities: (1) Baroque, Classic, Romantic, Modern (or whatever), and (2) by century. I prefer by century as it is unambiguous, but I'd be interested to hear other people's ideas! - Kleinzach 21:54, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Re operas we think shouldn't be on the list (in GT's case possibly Ballo and Forza, in my case maybe Clemenza and Idomeneo), the best thing would  surely be to leave then without annotation. Unadopted operas can then be eliminated later. - Kleinzach 23:31, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Chronological arrangement 

message: Should it be Foreign title (English title) (Composer name) ? Or what? It doesn't seem very consistent. Mak (talk) 18:14, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I haven't altered the titles - see the previous version of the article.  They follow the titles of the articles, and those follow what it says at Wikipedia:WikiProject Opera#Operas: original vs English translation, amplified by Wikipedia:WikiProject_Opera/English_names (the former needs to be updated to reflect the latter):  English title if there is a well-known one, or if the original title is in Russian or an Eastern European or Scandinavian language.  Otherwise original title. --GuillaumeTell 20:51, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's true that some (original language) titles are followed by translations (e.g. Die Entführung aus dem Serail) and some aren't (e.g. La liberazione di Ruggiero). Likewise some English titles are followed by originals (e.g. The Barber of Seville) and some are not (e.g. The Bartered Bride). I don't think this is a big problem - we are going to have annotations which will mean changes anyway . - Kleinzach 21:47, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Pedantic question

message: I have added an annotation for Don Giovanni (modified from above). I have noted the language of the opera (which I think should be included) and also the name of the librettist (which may be of limited interest in many cases, but significant here). I hope we can be flexible about content. Different operas can be described in different ways. - Kleinzach 22:15, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Just a note to say that, because this is a list (albeit selective) of important operas, it is imperative that an annotation should say why the opera is important, rather than just describing it. --GuillaumeTell 00:05, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Annotations

message: Incidentally, we probably ought to put some sort of "work-in-progress" template on the article, lest someone complain about its semi - completed state or dig up the list entirely (if such a thing exists). It's all looking much better than it was. Moreschi 15:39, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Not sure one exists. Have you seen an example? - Kleinzach 18:11, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've seen one for translations-in-progress, but not for something like this. It hardly matters, but if such a thing does exist or can be created then it probably would be useful. Moreschi 19:59, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Work in progress template?

message: I propose we also remove:
*1625 La liberazione di Ruggiero (Francesca Caccini)
*1632 Sant'Alessio (Stefano Landi)
*1939 The Old Maid and the Thief (Gian Carlo Menotti)
*1951 Amahl and the Night Visitors (Gian Carlo Menotti)
Reason - in all cases - obscurity. (Sant'Alessio doesn't have an article of course.) - Kleinzach 19:16, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: First of all, Amahl isn't at all obscure, as any American opera-lover will tell you.  Second, all of these were in the "historical" category when the list was of Famous Operas, and they all have reasons for being listed as Important, unlike most of the rest (at present). I can't see that "first opera composed by a woman" is worth bothering with, but the reasons for listing the others do still seem to me to be valid.  (And isn't the Landi called Il Sant'Alessio?  That's what it says in the Oxford Dictionary of Opera.  As for it not having an article, it would be very easy to create one by using the two paras of the Landi article which deals with the opera - which, BTW, also makes a very good case for this work to be considered Important.) --GuillaumeTell 21:24, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Correct me if I am wrong, but I don't think any Menotti has been done by a major American company in recent years except The Consul (which Washington Opera did in 2001). Regarding Sant'Alessio, that's the title in Grove (Margaret Murata). If you want to make the case for its importance, that will be great! - Kleinzach 22:20, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: And correct me if I am wrong, but I believe that Amahl can be found somewhere on American TV every Christmas.  The case for Sant'Alessio has already been made, and I will sort out its article (in both senses) tomorrow. --GuillaumeTell 23:57, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Fair enough. If Amahl is that popular then we should include it. But what about The Old Maid and the Thief? We currently have 2 Menottis and no Henze, Messaien, Dallapiccola, Tippett, Barber, Bernstein, Stockhausen etc. - Kleinzach 08:49, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Good. Then would it be possible to add a couple of sentences per item to that effect on the article? By the way, I see you contributed to the Peri Euridice - why are we not listing Dafne? Any particular reason? Should we list it? - Kleinzach 23:39, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Purge round three

message: Re:Dafne - we should probably list it, but as far as I know there is very very little information available about it (I haven't looked very hard). I'll try to add a better annotations to those two soon, and I'll see what I can find on Dafne. Mak (talk) 01:38, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: From reading Grove (and WP!) my impression is that Dafne is more fragmentary and Euridice less, however it does seem to be acknowledged that Dafne is an opera (and the first one). Is it worth listing both? (After all we don't have a huge number of early operas.) Or just one of them? This is more your field than mine! - Kleinzach 08:49, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Dafne and Euridice

message: I feel that Rameau ought to be represented here.  Which is his most important opera? --GuillaumeTell 21:49, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I wrote the list below before I saw your question. Anyway there is my answer! - Kleinzach 21:57, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rameau 

message: In the squibs for the earlier period operas, the descriptions start with a lower case letter, while later they switch to upper case.  Do we want to standardize?   Best regards, Ssilvers 22:36, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Capitalization 

message: I added the two other Monteverdi operas (Ulisse and Poppea). There's no way they should be absent from a list like this, both in terms of musical quality and historical importance. They've fully entered the contemporary repertoire and there are several different versions available on CD and DVD.
I'd also like to put Rameau's first opera Hippolite et Aricie in there. Plus maybe Heinrich Schuetz's "Daphne", as the first German opera, even though the music's now lost. But I'll wait for further comment on those.--Folantin 10:18, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes I am in favour of adding these titles, however it would be helpful if you could add a couple of sentences on each one explaining why they are important, giving links etc. (e.g. similar to the Mozart opera listings). - Kleinzach 15:35, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's strange, I can't see anything. Did you save your annotations? - Kleinzach 01:36, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

text: I don't hold any particular brief for "Alceste", but it is a seminal work in the history of opera, if only for Gluck's famous Preface.  Actually, I don't see why we can't have more than two works by Gluck in the list - Verdi has twelve (at present).  I'm still intending to annotate a whole lot more operas on the list, but am very busy at the moment, so it won't be till Monday at the earliest that I can give the job my full attention.  --GuillaumeTell 21:26, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree: keep Alceste (Gluck) and add Iphigénie en Tauride - but let's have some convincing annotations! Re Serse, everybody also knows 'Ombra mai fu'! How about changing Rodelinda for Rinaldo (opera)? - Kleinzach 01:38, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Monteverdi etc.

message: I feel like it'd be to our benefit to add "Princess Magogo kaDinuzulu", an opera by Mzilikazi Khumalo and Themba Msimnang that is considered the first Zulu opera. I've included a New York Times Reviewfor the benefit of those of you who haven't heard anything about it, whether you agree with the addition or not. --ClarineteBajo 19:45, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The list here is very short and select. (We have some 500 articles on operas on WP.) If you wish to champion this opera - which is great - then the best way to start would be to write a WP article about it giving all the necessary background information. Good luck. - Kleinzach 01:33, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: First Zulu Opera?

message: After its London premiere in '04 and now its Santa Fe Opera American premiere, I'd propose it as an addition to the 21st C. list.
I've now seen it twice in Santa Fe; shall see it a third time on 10 Aug 06.  Am planning an article on it to link to the Thomas Ades page.
Agreement?
Objections?
Etc:?
Vivaverdi 03:29, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: How does it meet the criterion of "important"? Fireplace 03:34, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It really is far too early to be putting such a recent opera into this list, which has recently been boiled down from a somewhat longer one (with some regrets by practically everyone about particular works).  I'd second Kleinzach's suggestion in the section above - write the article first.  (I'm not knocking this opera - I enjoyed it when it was on TV, BUT...!) --GuillaumeTell 11:21, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Operas to add: proposed addition of Thomas Ades' THE TEMPEST 

message: I happened to notice yesterday that Jimbo Wales had commented himself on the talk page for List of commercial failures in computer and video gaming. Jimbo doesn't comment in the main namespace very often, so when he comments on an article three times, as he did here, it's worth taking notice.
Jimbo said:
:(a) I tend to look with disfavor on such lists in the first place but that (b) if we must have them, we must require that we work from extant lists compiled by others.
He cited with approval two other lists, Films that have been considered the greatest ever and Films considered the worst ever. What is very apparent is that both those lists are rigorously cited. The latter article, for instance, has 61 footnotes, as compared to zero in List of important operas.
Having been here a while, I fully expect someone to say that opera isn't the same thing as video gaming or film. Of course it isn't. However, the criteria that make the video game list bad, and the two film lists good, are well worth observing. In terms of its rigor, this article at present is more like the video game list than the two film lists.
During the AfD discussion, Kleinzach repeatedly mentioned all of the effort that went into the List of important operas. But what is important is not effort, but WP:VER, WP:NPOV, and WP:NOR. I would strongly recommend arriving at concrete criteria that are better than just a consensus of whatever editors happen to be working on the article at present. Marc Shepherd 13:05, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Some other Wikipedia examples