Talk:Macbeth (Verdi)

message: I have reverted to the last but one version which explains about the differences between the Verdi and Shakespeare versions. This had been deleted by someone using an IP number.
Kleinzach 12:29, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Revert

message: I've removed a comment in the article re: the San Francisco Opera's 2007 Macbeth which suggested that the aria was included in the Thomas Hampson performances (which I saw in November '07).
I asked Dr. Kip Cranna, Director of Musical Administration, at the San Francisco Opera about this, and his reply (in part) reads:
:Your question was forwarded to me.  We did not perform the aria “Mal per me che m’affidai” in our 2007 production of “Macbeth.”  There was some discussion about possibly adding it in, which was favored by the conductor Massimo Zanetti, but was opposed by the director David Pountney... 
(and he goes on to give reasons.)
Does anyone know of any companies which have done it this way? Dr Cranna did add that the 1994 production with James Morris did incoropate the aria.
Viva-Verdi (talk) 23:13, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Live productions which incorporate Macbeth's 1847 aria into the 1865 ending 

message: Shouldn't his name be listed as "Banco" which the opera uses, rather than "Banquo" as in the play?  207.237.243.185 (talk) 00:34, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: On reflection, I think it probably should.  Opera Grove has "Banco (Banquo)".  I'll leave the link to the character in the play, however. --GuillaumeTell 17:52, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: The Italian libretto accessed from the link at the bottom of the article also has Banco. Now the name has been changed in the roles table, should not every instance of the name Banquo in the synopsis also be replaced with Banco, for consistency?--Francesco Malipiero (talk) 18:28, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Feel free! --GuillaumeTell 21:37, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Banco

message: An editor has just added a second, nearly identical navbox to this article . The only difference between the boxes — besides arguably more accessibility and better design in the upper box — are the two bottom sections in the lower box (theatre names, biographical plays and films) which are marginal trivia with AFAIK nothing to do with this article.  Can we please remove the redundant lower box. Thank you. --Kleinzach 08:04, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: An editor added the broad scope open navbox in March, I support it and restored it, :Discussion is open, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:22, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: What broad scope are you referring to? I think you've confused this with another box. --Kleinzach 03:05, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: As said above: discussion is open on the project talk. is not specifically Macbeth, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:04, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Two navboxes with the same content 

message: [Note: This thread was moved here from Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Opera to keep discussions about the article's content local. --Xover (talk) 09:21, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: That is a very outdated quote ("the present Verdi craze" - Verdi's entire canon is now much more highly valued and frequently performed than it was during the supposed "craze" of 1964) and is an old-fashioned snooty view of "primitive" Italian opera, typical of British Wagnerians such as Cooke at that time. It doesn't belong in the article at all imo and I am removing it.Smeat75 (talk) 17:35, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: @: Since this is specifically about the content of the article, which belongs on the article's talk page, I'm going to go ahead and copy this thread there for discussion just after I save this here. But everyone interested should, of course, feel free to comment there (the more the better!).Regarding the specific edit, I disagree that it should be removed (per WP:PRESERVE, if nothing else). What the critical opinion was at the time, or among a certain subset of critics, is importance historical context about its reception. We have entire articles dedicated to that (e.g. Critical approaches to Hamlet). If you feel the quote as currently used isn't sufficiently contextualized, the correct fix is to rewrite it. For example by adding the context you just did in your comment here: the opinion Cook expresses reflects a trend of snobbery among a certain group of critics, at a certain time, and the modern view is completely different. As a general rule, we shouldn't hide such things but document, contextualize, and explain them. --Xover (talk) 09:21, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Use of Deryck Cooke quote 

message: :The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The result of the move request was: moved.  Extraordinary Writ (talk) 23:56, 31 March 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Macbeth (opera) →  – Dab from other operas with same name. * Pppery * it has begun... 18:26, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requested move 19 February 2024