Talk:Fidelio

message: Perhaps someone cleverer than I could mention that the alterations made to the beginning opera required overtures in different keys (from C to E if I recall correctly). Constan69 (talk) 08:58, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Overtures 

message: This opera gets mentioned in the motion picture "Eyes Wide Shut" as the password for the high class New York City sex party that Tom Cruise attends midway through the film.  As this was the last major work of Stanley Kubrick, a simple sentence regarding this in the article should do no harm.  However, it was removed using a very uncivil edit summary.  The proper thing would have been to discuss it here instead of calling it "total rubbish" (see WP:CIV).  Is there a legitimate reason for keeping this out?  -OberRanks (talk) 05:25, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I have no comment about the edit summary, however I have to agree with Viva-Verdi that Eyes Wide Shut shouldnt be placed in this opera's "see also" section. I do not see any connection whatsoever except for some small part of it - Jay (talk) 05:34, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, "Fidelio" has many things in common with Eyes Wide Shut. There are some essays out on the web but they're far from sources. The fact that the main character is saved by Leonore from a "chorus of judges" is one of them. That's very similar to when Bill is pulled out of the fire by that masked woman in the ballroom at the party. I think all that needs to be done here is to find a valid source from a school or a novelist or something that points out these similarities because "Fidelio" being included in the film isn't just an accident, especially since the opera shares the same themes of love and fidelity. TabascoMan77 (talk) 22:56, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

text: ... It's a non-issue now, but no, those points would only belong on the EWS article - the movie has nothing to do with Beethoven's opera and the link is thin at best.HammerFilmFan (talk) 19:30, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Connection to [[Eyes Wide Shut]] 

message: The entry for Klemperer's 1962 recording was deleted here  and again here . Bizarre. --Kleinzach 06:49, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Now another recording has been deleted,  --Kleinzach 09:34, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Does someone have a problem with Klemperer's 1962 recording?

message: There's also an opera by Simon Mayr, titled L'amor coniugale, which is the forth operas with this subject matter. Should we add this too? 83.79.133.15 (talk)
:In my opinion, none of these three operas should be mentioned in the lead section. If they are to be mentioned, it should be in the Background section, and even then only if there is a proven link with Beethoven (like the one by Paer). Regards. --Francesco Malipiero (talk) 22:38, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Simon Mayr's version (the 4th!) 

message: A section on the reception of the opera would, of course, be highly desirable, but the current section is not about the "reception" at all, it's about a specific emblematic use of the opera in the very limited period of the late 1940s. Section titles should reflect the actual content and meaning of the section they label. A proper reception section would cover critical reactions to the opera on its first performance, views on the music, libretto and dramatic potential, plus later critical views about the strengths and weaknesses of the work, its changing reputation and so on. The current section is not about that at all. Even if a full reception section were created, I would still think the 1944-8 section would not be best placed as a subsection of it, since it's really about something quite different - the affirmation of "great" German culture and the concept of liberation from oppression, as a counter to Nazi visions of Germany. If a less "clumsy", but accurate, title can be thought of, fine. But having a totally misleading one is not. Paul B (talk) 10:40, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Reception

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just attempted to maintain the sources on Fidelio.  I managed to add archive links to 1 , out of the total 1 I modified, whiling tagging 0 as dead.
Please take a moment to review my changes to verify that the change is accurate and correct.  If it isn't, please modify it accordingly and if necessary tag that source with  to keep Cyberbot from modifying it any further.  Alternatively, you can also add  to keep me off the page's sources altogether.  Let other users know that you have reviewed my edit by leaving a comment on this post.
Below, I have included a list of modifications I've made:
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20090427135240/http://www.operaphilly.com:80/08-09/production1.shtml to http://www.operaphilly.com/08-09/production1.shtml
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 15:40, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sources modified on [[Fidelio]] 

message: Opus33, when would you say the premiere of Fidelio was? I went by the category which says 1805, when the first version Leonore was performed at the Theater an der Wien, on a libretto by Sonnleithner, - that's how I read the article, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:27, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: It's complicated. Those details are not correct for the version we hear now. Infoboxes are not suitable to convey complicated facts. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 01:33, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Exactly. The choices are a hugely long infobox that covers everything the article says (hardly a service to readers) or just to say nothing in the infobox and let curious readers read.  It's really important not to underestimate our readers. Opus33 (talk) 04:28, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
replies: text:  We could have two simple boxes, one for Fidelio on top (with image), one for Leonore below. Compare Der Kontrabass, - I don't underestimate you and think you can imagine ;) - The choice "hugely long infobox that covers everything the article says" is nothing anybody would want. The parameters of  are intentionally limited. For a smile, look at the last example. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:46, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Premiere 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Fidelio. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131227234147/http://www.pristineclassical.com/paco077.html to http://www.pristineclassical.com/paco077.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:38, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Leonore (disambiguation) which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you.  —RMCD bot 10:01, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Move discussion in progress 

message: I thought the performance history in the C20 was unduly political whereas what was needed was a straightforward description of performance styles, with concrete examples, e. g. Modern Dress/Period/abstract/Naturalistic etc. Reference to filmed versions, of which there are several important examples including a noted one created in East Germany in the 1950s in a "regime" the writer of this article seemed so eager to condemn within an appreciation of a work of art. Another example of the hapless (hopeless) neo-liberal bias across Wikipedia which stems directly from its roots in the Washington establishment. 
Come on! Less matter and MORE ART when discussing a work of art! 2A02:C7C:E0AC:3200:1439:B315:3BB1:8F3E (talk) 20:06, 5 May 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unduly political article