Talk:Les pêcheurs de perles

message: Since it is such a standard, is it worthwhile having a table of notable recordings of it alone? Varlaam (talk) 18:58, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Au fond du temple saint" 

message: This article identifies this image as an illustration of the 1863 production at the Théâtre Lyrique, but the caption is in Italian, and the illustrator is Antonio Bonamore (1845–1907). It seems more likely it was for a late 19th century production in Italy (possibly Milan, since Bonamore is known to have worked there). See :File:Final scene of Act1 of 'The Pearl Fishers' by Bizet - Gallica.jpg for a higher resolution version. --Robert.Allen (talk) 11:03, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I do not know about the background of the image, but Gallica itself states it as published in 1863.  That said, I am more interested in how you obtained a 3,533 × 4,250 pixels image from Gallica; I fail to see any links there that allow one to do so.  Revealing your method would help to obtain some better images from Gallica.  Jappalang (talk) 05:34, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: In these gallery collections the information given in the Gallica annotation does not always seem to apply to every item. A date of 1863 seems very improbable in the case of this stage illustration by Bonamore. He was only 17 or 18 at the time. All the other examples of his work that we have are later, and 1886 would fall in that period of activity. It also seems improbable that this opera would have received any attention in Italy before Carmen became well known. And if Bonamore had actually been in Paris in 1863, it would more likely have been published in French. It might be better to use a non-committal caption like "Final scene of act 1, illustration by Antonio Bonamore (1845–1907)". If you follow the source link for the high res version, you will see a zoom option. Overlapping, fully zoomed images can be reassembled in a photo editor. (A large browser window reduces the number of steps.) --Robert.Allen (talk) 12:12, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  Ah, I saw that zoom feature, but it was pretty useless for the page I was looking at that time (no zoom in detail).  I thought the zoom was a red herring, so it seems my first experience was just bad luck.  Jappalang (talk) 13:20, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[:File:Pearl-Fishers-Paris-1863.jpg]] 

message: Editors are politely requested not to add to this section details of performances that are of only marginal significance. There are many such productions of this opera, and they can't all be mentioned, otherwise the article will degenerate into a disorganised hotchpotch list of random performances.  Please note that this is a featured article, and should be maintained as an example of Wikipedia's best work. Thank you, Brianboulton (talk) 22:57, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Completely concur with this. Voceditenore (talk) 05:42, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I have added to External links a link to the Operabase page which lists recent and forthcoming productions. This should be helpful to the casual reader. Brianboulton (talk) 08:52, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Modern productions

message: French capitalisation would call for Les Pêcheurs de perles, English Les Pêcheurs de Perles. What's with the no-caps-at-all version? Awien (talk) 12:46, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: The article follows the capitalisation conventions in the WikiProject Opera Guide, which are those used in the most recent editions of New Grove Dictionary of Music and Musicians, New Grove Dictionary of Opera, The Oxford Dictionary of Opera and The Viking Opera Guide. Voceditenore (talk) 16:01, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Caps 

message: I see some editors claiming (elsewhere) that the existence of this aria on a pop DVD is a "trivial" piece of information. In my view, it is additional evidence of the degree to which Bizet's music has crossed over into popular culture and one of the more interesting facts to be added to this article. --Robert.Allen (talk) 06:44, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Whether this information should  remain in the article is properly a matter for discussion, and I am glad that you have brought it here. A contrary view to yours is that a performance of a pop version of this aria in a  concert 12 years ago is by no means notable, and hardly indicative of Bizet's music having  "crossed over into popular culture". To call this "one of the more interesting facts" in the article shows a pretty blank mind as far as the opera is concerned.  Versions of operatic arias have been frequently performed outside the context of the original work – in pop versions, parodies (N.B. Anna Russell) and TV adverts; should all these be listed in opera articles as contributions to popular culture? Creating an "other recordings" section looks an open invitation to this, with potentially adverse consequences for this and other opera articles. Rather than eliminate the information before discussion,  I have tidied it and moved  it to the text part of the main "Recordings" section. This may or may not be considered a reasonable compromise. Brianboulton (talk) 09:59, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm with Brian on this. This one instance of one rock singer covering one aria in one concert tour hardly qualifies as evidence of the impact of this opera on popular culture—quite unlike Rossini's William Tell and Barber of Seville or Mascagni's Cavalleria rusticana whose impact on popular culture has been written about extensively in scholarly sources. If it has to be in here, a brief mention in the prose introduction to the recording section is all that it merits, certainly not a separate section, which not only gives this piece of trivia undue weight, but as Brian says opens up a cruft magnet. Interestingly, and as per usual with these items, the fact that he sang this particular aria in his concerts in 2001/2002 is given zero importance and discussion in the two articles that are actually about the David Gilmour in Concert DVD and David Gilmour. Voceditenore (talk) 11:56, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: As I said earlier , I wouldn't have blinked if the Gilmour recording had been removed because of its trivial or non-notable character. However, removing it because of lacking sources seemed utterly bureaucratic and bizarre to me. I should have accepted the removal, despite its unfounded reasoning. I apologise for the ensuing kerfuffle. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 13:12, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure that ensuring our very best articles have adequate sources can be classified as "bureaucratic and bizarre". I could have added a  tag, but that doesn't seem terribly appropriate for the TFA either. As I said in the other thread on this, and others have also said above, the material is trivial in itself: one repetition a popular crossover does not make. - SchroCat (talk) 13:25, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: As someone with a blank mind I merely note that this is the only recording listed here which is apparently notable enough to have its own artcle on Wikipedia. --Robert.Allen (talk) 02:12, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: The fact that there is an article for the Gilmour recording as opposed to none for the others, is hardly an indication of notability or lack thereof. If, for example, one wanted to write an article about the 1954 André Cluytens recording of Les pêcheurs for EMI, there are plenty of sources, including ones with critical commentary . Rather, it is an artifact of the approach taken by editors in classical music subjects which gives very low priority to individual recordings as subjects for articles, unlike popular music subjects where they abound, many of highly dubious notability and the vast majority consisting solely of track listings, personnel, chart rank (if any), and a large infobox with a picture of the album cover. They have virtually no commentary, let alone critical commentary, although I notice that since this conversation started, a very basic sentence mentioning Gilmour's cover version of the aria was quickly added to the DVD article yesterday, albeit devoid of any mention of critics having evaluated this unusual addition to his repertoire.  Anyhow, just start clicking randomly on the articles in :Category:2002 video albums, which has over 100 articles for that year alone, and you'll see what I mean. Not to mention :Category:2002 albums which has over 3000 articles.  Voceditenore (talk) 06:29, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I suppose that why it is said to be popular. The editors who add these things do so because they like it, not because they are trying to be scholars (and I have nothing against editors who do try to be scholars, in fact, like you, I favor that). However, for fans of Gilmour (my brother-in-law was a guitar collector and a big fan), you might really seem to be going a bit overboard with the negativity. In any case, I think I would trust Gilmour's judgment of the cross-over potential of this music, more than most of us who have contributed to the discussion here, altho he probably sang it, just because he liked it and could. Lucky man! --Robert.Allen (talk) 09:23, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  David Gilmour DVD 

message: ... to have a pic from the opera on top of the page, not the composer. It is pretty boring to see Mr. Verdi in 40 opera featured as the first one. If someone googles for Carmen, he or she wants to see Carmen. Therefore I propose to put a picture of an actual opera production on top.--Meister und Margarita (talk) 00:03, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed.  Bizet's pic is already the first one after the lead.  I will make the change.Anythingyouwant (talk) 12:49, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not quite sure I like how that image was cropped and fixed up. Mind, that's probably a good thing for you, given my current project. Expect a restoration. Adam Cuerden (talk) 13:34, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Sure, no problem, thanks.  Either way, it seems better than the Bizet pic at that location.Anythingyouwant (talk) 14:22, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Frankly, I think it would be better ... 

message: Many thanks to User:Adam Cuerden for improving the sound file.  Very well done.Anythingyouwant (talk) 12:47, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I got a rather nasty message about it from the project, by the way. User_talk:Adam_Cuerden#Louder_but_now_in_very_bad_quality. Apparently, they don't want to do any alterations themselves, but any attempts to do amateur restoration are also right out. Adam Cuerden (talk) 10:08, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Thx 

message: The recordings section talks about "the 1989 recording by Platini". It's unclear whether this refers to the 1989 Plasson, or the 1991 Piantini version. 62.205.104.182 (talk) 05:15, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, spotted! It must refer to the Plasson recording, where multiple sources,  e.g. Bizet by Hugh Macdonald, OUP and Gramophone, note that it has both versions of the duet, with the earlier version as an appendix. I'm going to change "Platini" to "Plasson". Voceditenore (talk) 07:01, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recording by "Platini" 

message: Oh yes, I love these old drawings and engravings. But please ..... this opera is performed everywhere nowadays. Why do we not have beautiful photographs from one of these productions! Cologne or Palermo! We urgently need a competition WIKIPEDIA AT THE OPERA. 212.41.231.74 (talk) 16:48, 24 February 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Please find a modern production photograph that meets Wikipedia's strict rules about copyright and it can go in the article to loud applause all round. Tim riley talk 17:33, 24 February 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why?