Talk:Arthur Sullivan/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Pirates Overture

Intrigued to read about G Toye's rewritten Pirates Overture. I have not seen this mentioned anywhere else. Interested to know chapter and verse. Tim riley 23 April 2006.

Toye himself wrote a letter to The Gramophone (February 1932 issue):
When we revived Ruddigore an Overture of mine was substituted for the existing one, which incidentally contained a tune which was being omitted in our production of the opera.
This Overture is the one now played before the opera, and is recorded on H.M.V. DB4005. I also substituted a new Overture for Pirates, which seemed to require it. Whether these Overtures have more merit than the old ones is a matter which posterity can judge for itself.
It's quoted on the web here. Marc Shepherd 15:45, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Potential duplication

There is quite a bit of duplication between this article and the Gilbert and Sullivan article. It would probably be appropriate if material related to the collaboration were on the latter page. This page would focus on Sullivan's background and accomplishments as an individual. Their collaboration would be described only briefly here, making reference to the 'G&S' article where the details would reside. Marc Shepherd 20:12, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Thespis score

What is the basis for the story of the score of Thespis turning up and then getting burnt? All the books on Sullivan I've read agree that the score has been missing since Sullivan's day. Wilus

There is a rumor that a copy of the Thespis vocal score was in the Chappell warehouse that was destroyed by fire in the early 1960s. But as it is only an unverifiable rumor, it does not belong here. (Marc Shepherd 22:15, 3 April 2006 (UTC))

Sullivan's pit orchestra

The paragraph about size of the pit orchestra lists "2 trombones". I seem to recall that the joke of Nanki-Poo being a second trombone was a barb by Gilbert at Sullivan for wanting or needing a bigger orchestra. Would that not indicate that there was but a single trombone in the Savoy pit?

That's an old story, but untrue. All of the Savoy Operas from The Sorcerer onwards were written for two trombones (Marc Shepherd 22:15, 3 April 2006 (UTC))

Sullivan's solo career

...Is it just me, or is it damn weird that there's more information on Sullivan's Solo career in Gilbert's article than in Sullivan's? *sigh* Well, best get to work.... Adam Cuerden 06:24, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Sullivan's use of horns

"Sullivan used horns crooked in many different pitches" - Surely that's impossible? This was well after the use of Valve Horns. To be using crooks would be a ridiculous throwback. Adam Cuerden 06:35, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes, this needs corrected. Sullivan wrote in the old style, for horns crooked in many pitches, but the actual players would have had valved horns. Marc Shepherd 22:11, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
The current edit says:
Sullivan used horns crooked in many different pitches, and treated them rather like Brahms, with little chromatic language and economically. Sullivan's orchestration was delicate and concise (though never boring). Iolanthe has some interesting quotes of a Bach fugue (played by clarinets and bassoon) in one of the Lord Chancellor's patter songs.
The statement that Sullivan used horns crooked in many different pitches is definitely wrong. And who said that Sullivan treated the horns "rather like Brahms"?
I'm also not aware of any source that describes Sullivan's orchetration as "delicate and concise (though never boring)." Much as I love Sullivan, to say that he is never boring is an exaggeration. That's the trouble with sentences containing the word "never." All you have to do is point out one counter-example, and the statement is disproved.
And are there "quotes" (plural) of a Bach fugue in Iolanthe's patter songs? In whose opinion are they "interesting"?
I've finally removed the statements in the "Orchestration" section that were unsourced. They were there with "cite needed" for quite a while, and no one was able to substantiate them. Sam added an {{expand}} tag, but I think this is quite unnecessary. As it is, this article is over-long by Wikipedia's standards. Every section of the article could be expanded, but I don't think any of it needs to be.
Anyhow, in my view all three sentences should be deleted, or appropriately supported. Marc Shepherd 13:06, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Rose of Persia and Emerald Isle

Marc has put up pages for these operas. Now every Sullivan opera has a Wiki page. Thanks to Marc, Adam and everyone else who contributed! --Ssilvers 03:25, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Other works

I've revised the section on the collaboration with Gilbert. There's a stub section for "other works," which needs to be filled in. I think it's open whether it should be topical (by type of work) or chronological. Marc Shepherd 22:44, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

I added some info on Martyr of Antioch into the G&S collaboration section, and I thought that the best place for The Zoo was to discuss it in the G&S section--see if you like how I did it. Then, since the "Beginnings" section has info on Sullivan's major non-Gilbert works up to about 1873, I added an brief overview of his non-G&S works *thereafter* up to the mid-1990s, which segues nicely into the morbidly-titled "Decline and Death" section. But the "other works" section could still certainly stand to be beefed up a lot. Regards, Ssilvers 02:48, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Structure of Article

As now organized, I think the article gives a reasonably complete account of Sullivan's career as composer. The major gap is that it says nothing at all about his personal life. His activities as a music educator and conductor should also be given a bit more focus, since these had a lot to do with his knighthood.

It may make sense to put no more than a couple of paragraphs on the collaboration in the individual bio articles, leaving those articles to talk about what each man did alone. The Gilbert and Sullivan article, then, could give the high level history of the collaboration once, and the pages for the individual operas could talk about those operas in detail. A very prominent "See also" could direct the reader in the Gilbert or Sullivan biography to the joint Gilbert & Sullivan page.

In discussing Sullivan's other works, I don't think it's helpful to mention everything he wrote in a "kitchen sink" fashion. As there is already a complete list of all the major works at the bottom of the article, I would suggest that a work should be mentioned in the narrative only if there is something more to say about it than its mere existence. Marc Shepherd 14:58, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

OK, it looks better and more accurate now. Is there more that should be said re: Sullivan's "Orchestration"? That section seems a bit spare. Ssilvers 01:42, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
The right way would be to look up what various sources have said about Sullivan's use of the orchestra. The section, by the way, isn't about Sullivan's orchestration in general, but only in the Savoy Operas. Marc Shepherd 13:45, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Recreating "Magic"

At the end of the collaboration with Gilbert section it says Utopia and Grand Duke did not "recreate the magic of their earlier collaborations." Isn't that subjective? It would be better to say "were not commercial successes." 69.34.177.74 01:42, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Sullivan and money

Under Personal Life, the discussion is all about Sullivan's amorous side. I think a section needs to be added about Sullivan's relationship with money. He was frequently in need of money. Also, apparently, just before Iolanthe, his bankers went belly-up, and Sullivan lost everything. Can someone add something? -- Ssilvers 16:56, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

I also think that his relationship with Fred Sullivan's children needs to be included. After Fred's death, he left a large family behind, and the composer considered them his personal responsibility. He became practically a foster-father to Fred's eldest son, Herbert, who did not accompany the rest of the family to California. Marc Shepherd 22:07, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Burial wishes

Did Sullivan request that he be buried in Bromley cemetery or Brompton cemetery? Both are listed in different parts of the article. Is one simply another name for (or subsection of) the other? A couple of quick Google searches for the phrase "Arthur Sullivan" coupled with "Bromley cemetery" and "Brompton cemetery" produce more results for the latter, so I am assuming that Brompton is correct. This is supported by the fact that the Brompton Cemetery article lists one of Sullivan's relations as being one of its occupants. All the same, I'm not going to remove either cemetery reference from this article until someone more knowledgeable than I can look into the matter. NathanDahlin 21:39, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Oh, and I do realize that Sullivan was actually buried in St. Paul's Cathedral at the Queen's request, but it states that he had asked to be buried with his family. NathanDahlin 21:41, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Good catch. It's Brompton. I've fixed the article. Marc Shepherd 22:05, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Baronet?

I was browsing through the National Portrait Gallery's listing for Sullivan when I noticed they list him as "Sir Arthur Sullivan, Bt." Most all of us know he has been knighted, but was he actually a baronet as well? If so, it's news to me.

It's gotta be an error. He was no Baronet. Marc Shepherd 13:03, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

GA?

Thank god that Sullivan's rather smoother creation has led to a pre-cited article. This should be nowhere near as painful as W. S. Gilbert - at worst, it'll be a simple change from Harvard to footnotes.

I think this article looks good, and am so sending it down the FA trail to follow Gilbert, starting with GA. Adam Cuerden talk 15:36, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Excellent article: the only slight problem is that it doesn't appear to have any inline citations, which are now mandatory for GA. Harvard referencing, however, is perfectly acceptable on Wikipedia. Moreschi 17:16, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

I really wish you would hold off on the citation project on this. We have not yet put up articles on Gilbert's most notable plays. Why not finish Gilbert off before we turn to Sullivan? As Moreschi says, this is OK for now (maybe it is really an A-class article?). -- Ssilvers 19:28, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
I have NO INTENTION of doing another citation project any time soon. However, this has quite a number of cites already, and may be enough - what do you think, Moreschi? In any case, asking for the review and being rejected does not mean we must immediately devote all resources here. Adam Cuerden talk 20:07, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
Just checking this over: there's really nothing to add in terms of cites to "Reputation and Criticism" - all the quotes are so darn thorough! HOWEVER, "Musical quotation" is basically a list of unverified assertions that needs first trimming and then citing, or else GA reviewers will freak out. "Life and Career" is less urgent, but "Personal life" needs one or two cites, and surely that should be moved in with "Life and Career" anyway? What's the difference between your "Life", and your "Personal life", pray? Obviously, the "works" section needs to be shunted off to a child article, as was done with Gilbert.Oh, and lastly, the lead is too short for an article of this length - exapnd the lead and trim the rest. That'll get you through GA if you want to have a proper go first time round. Moreschi 21:02, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
Perhaps this isn't a good time for the Sullivan push, then. We're all a bit burned out from The Gilbert one - next month, maybe? Adam Cuerden talk 21:58, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Thank you, thank you, thank you. Now, would you please help me put up some B-class (or at least very good "start" class (w/cats, refs + links) - No stubs, please) articles on the redlinked Gilbert plays? Having gone all fancy on W.S.G., I think we owe him that. I expanded The Martyr of Antioch today, and I'm gonna finish the last of the German Reed pieces tonight. -- Ssilvers 22:13, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

I claim Wicked World: I have the playscript AND the short story. Or, well, the short story now, playscript by Saturday. Adam Cuerden talk 07:10, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

OK, Wicked World is good. You also mentioned that you like Charity. -- Ssilvers 14:01, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Irish Symphony

I rather think it may be wrong to say sans phrase that Sullivan wrote the symphony in 1866. Jacobs (ch 4) states that it is generally assumed that Sullivan completed it in 1863 (though Jacobs himself is not so sure) although it had to wait until 1866 for a performance.Tim riley 11:43, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Reference

http://diamond.boisestate.edu/gas/articles/kresky/kresky.htm - This will be useful later.

Eugene d'Albert and the "Patience" overture

I’m having some difficulty in confirming that Eugene d’Albert wrote the overture for Patience. The only Google citation I can find is here, which is merely a customer review of a CD: "The overtures Sullivan DID write himself (especially the "Yoemen" [sic] overture) are fine pieces - as is the overture to "Patience" (written by a very young Eugene d'Albert) ..."

We do know that d’Albert was a pupil of Sullivan, and we do know that d’Albert arranged the piano reduction for the Vocal Score of ‘’The Martyr of Antioch’’, to accompany the chorus [1].

However we also know [2] that "although in his youth he studied in London with Ernst Pauer, Ebenezer Prout, John Stainer, and Arthur Sullivan at what is now the Royal College of Music, he considered his work during this period more or less worthless. ... It appears that when Sullivan heard that the Philharmonic had engaged d'Albert, he threatened not only to remove his own name from the membership, but to do all he could to induce the Queen and the Prince of Wales to withdraw their patronage. However, he was persuaded to alter his plans. Sullivan helped d'Albert in every possible way when he was a student; obtained engagements for him at the Popular Concerts, the Crystal Palace, etc; and when d'Albert went to the Continent gave him introductions to all the Courts. Yet on his return, a year afterwards, d'Albert not only refused to call on Sullivan but threw contempt on him and all Englishmen."

In light of this opinion of the English, it seems unlikely Eugene d’Albert would have written the overture.

But the plot thickens. Eugene’s father Charles Louis Napoleon d’Albert (1809-1886) made many piano and other arrangements of songs from the G&S operas - [3] and [4]. I think this makes Charles a much more likely candidate for the Patience overture than Eugene.

Patience was premiered in April 1881, when Eugene was 17 and Charles was 72. Eugene was indeed very precocious, writing an overture of his own which was premiered on 23 June 1879, when he was only 15. So it's far from impossible he could have done some arranging for his teacher Sullivan a couple of years later. But none of the reference books I have access to say anything about it, and neither does Google. Similar lack of results for Charles d'Albert.

I suggest we remove the Eugene reference until we can find out something more definite. JackofOz 02:35, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi, Oz. I sent the question to SavoyNet. Let's see what they come back with. Give it 36 hours. BTW, if you are interested in G&S, please join the G&S Project at WP:G&S. Best regards, -- Ssilvers 05:34, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
Amazing coincidence. I've just taken the action I proposed above, before seeing your post. I'll leave it as is now, and reinsert it if proof is forthcoming. JackofOz 05:38, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
Btw, I generally prefer to work alone rather than in collaboration. I know that many heads are better than one, but that's just me. I like to spread my joy lightly amongst the 3,000+ articles on my watchlist. Thanks for the info anyway.  :) JackofOz 05:44, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
OK, fair enough. While you were writing this, I was re-inserting. If you don't mind, just give it 36 hours, and then if I can't come up with a cite, I'll remove it. Best regards, -- Ssilvers 05:47, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
Generally my philosophy is, rather than leaving something in place in the hope of quickly finding a citation, I remove it until a citation can be produced. But I'm OK with this one, given the 36-hour window. Eugene d'Albert is hardly on the top of most people's interests, so there's little risk of grossly misleading the world.  :) JackofOz 05:55, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. As you noted, Eugene did the piano reduction for The Martyr of Antioch in 1880, shortly before Patience (opera) was written. Sullivan often had his students compile the overtures to the G&S operas, so it would follow his usual form for Eugene to have arranged the Patience overture (this would not be inconsistent with his later counting this work as "...worthless"). However, SavoyNet has a number of active scholars reading, and so I hope to get a good citation one way or another within the 36 hours. Best regards, -- Ssilvers 06:10, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

In his 2002 book, Gilbert and Sullivan: A Dual Biography (which is considered to be one of the best biographical research pieces on G&S) Michael Ainger says that Eugene did the Patience overture (p. 195). I added the cite to the article, with a short quote in the footnote. I have also now been assured that (1) Charles was a dance master/actor/pianist who had little or no experience with orchestration, and that his arrangements of Sullivan music are dance quadrilles; (2) Eugen, a child prodigy, had been studying with Sullivan since the age of 15; and (3) Dr. David Russel Hulme, a noted Sullivan expert, was certain that it was in Eugen's handwriting, as reported in his doctoral thesis at U. of Wales (which I do not have a copy of yet). Best wishes. -- Ssilvers 18:25, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
Thanks Ssilvers. That clears this up nicely. JackofOz 02:50, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Images

The Italian Wikipedia has some great images of Sullivan in both the Sullivan article and the G&S article. Can someone import them here? I'm not sure how to do it. Best regards, -- Ssilvers 01:43, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

GA ready?

(excerpted from Mike Christie's talk page):

Do you think the Arthur Sullivan article is GA quality, and if not, what would need to be done to it to get it up to snuff...? -- Ssilvers 17:08, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, on a quick look, the images look fine, the article is stable, and the coverage looks broad. I didn't see any obvious problems with the prose either. However, there are some sections that you don't give explicit citations for -- that will get you into trouble in a GA nom. To pick a section at random, the subsection on Overtures has some cites, but e.g. these are uncited:
  • "However, even those delegated to his assistants were probably based on an outline he provided, and in many cases incorporated his suggestions or corrections."
  • "Thespis is now lost, but there is no doubt that it had an overture and that Sullivan wrote it."
  • "Toye’s Pirates overture, however, did not last long and is now lost."
There is more you could cite, but those are the sentences for which someone new to the topic might want to know whose authority or opinion is being cited.... Hope that's useful. Mike Christie (talk) 00:04, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Mike. The above have now been addressed. More comments, please! -- Ssilvers 13:16, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Mrs Ronalds - corroborative detail?

It is altogether scholarly to mention that (admirable and entertaining) film Topsy-Turvy in discussing whether or not Mrs R had abortions? Tim Riley 13:16, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't see any reason not to mention it, although please do fix the language if you think it does not look encyclopedic. We should give the evidence that abortions took place, and then we can say that the film illustrated the incident....

Images

Try to be consistent: Unless other layout issues prevent it (a section should never start with a left-aligned image, though you can sometimes drop it a paragraph to fix this), a large number of close-together images are best done right-left-right-left-right-left etc. This staggering means that people with extra-wide monitors get the images as near to their appropriate place as possible. However, reset to right after a *long* section without a picture.Adam Cuerden talk 16:16, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree. We should also try to space the images out in a reasonable manner. Not so easy, now that we have a lot of images. Thanks, Tim, for the wonderful new image of the painting. -- Ssilvers 18:43, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Article structure

Why do we go through Sullivan's life twice, once to talk about what happened, again to tell what happened - but this time saying how it affected his reputation? Adam Cuerden talk 16:27, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

This structure has certainly been there for well over a year. I'm not sure if Marc designed it or someone before any of our times here. I think the idea is supposed to be first biographical and then analysis/critical reception stuff.
You make a good point, but a clearly better structure is not readily apparent to me. If you are sure that something is repeated and not needed in the second half, you can of course delete it (making sure that any helpful references are preserved in the appropriate place). Or, if you have a better way to rewrite the article, I suggest you do so in your Sandbox, and then we can talk about it. Best regards, -- Ssilvers 18:43, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
It was I who added the whole Reputation and Criticism section. I felt that the arc of his reputation was a self-contained unit, and it would be difficult to get the point across if the same quotes were spread out in the rest of the article. At this point, it would require something like a total rewrite to do it the other way, and I'm not sure it would be an improvement. Marc Shepherd 18:51, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

References

I’m struggling with some of the unreferenced statements in the section on Sullivan’s musical quotations. All help gratefully received:

My comments in-line: Marc Shepherd 18:56, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Doubtful (in my opinion) and need a reference anyway:

  • In "Who are you, sir?" from Cox and Box, Mozart is parodied. First I’ve heard of it. Doesn’t sound remotely Mozartian to me. Hughes cites this duet as an example of Sullivan using the tricks of Italian Opera (and da Ponte libretti notwithstanding Hughes was not, I think, referring to Mozart.)
  • Likewise, in Iolanthe there is a Wagnerian style in the Fairy Queen's music in the finale of Act I ("All the most terrific thunders in my armoury of wonders"), as well as the fairies' music during Iolanthe's self-revelation. Iolanthe enters to an oboe solo quoting "Die alte Weise" from Tristan und Isolde (see Jacobs, p 179, who regards Wagnerian echoes as a delusion.)
  • In Iolanthe, Sullivan imitates a Bach fugue (not conspicuously Bachian to my ear.)
  • There is a Mozartean quintet, "Try we lifelong".
All my books are in boxes right now, as I have just moved. Offhand, I do not recall any source where the above could be confirmed. Marc Shepherd 18:56, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

I have no view on this, but it needs a reference, and I haven’t got one:

There might be a source, but I'd have to hunt for it. Marc Shepherd 18:56, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

These seem right to me, but I can’t lay hands on a reference:

  • In the Major-General's Act II song "Sighing softly to the river" from The Pirates of Penzance, Sullivan imitates Schubert’s partsongs for male voices.
  • The chorus "With catlike tread" from the same opera is an imitation of Verdi's "Anvil Chorus" from Il Trovatore.
  • Sullivan also quotes the theme of Schubert’s song "Der Wanderer" in the choral entry of the family ghosts in Act II of Ruddigore.
  • The strings over Phyllis' "heart that's aching" passage play virtually the same notes as the theme of desire (sometimes called "yearning") from Tristan.
  • Other fairy music bears many similarities to Mendelssohn's fairy music from his incidental music to Midsummer Night's Dream.
  • In Princess Ida, there is a strong Handelian flavour to Arac's song in Act III,
  • In "My Object All Sublime," when the Mikado mentions "Bach interwoven with Spohr and Beethoven," the bassoon quotes from the fugue subject of Bach's Fantasia and Fugue in G minor, BWV 542 (the subject is itself evidently a quote from Reincken).

Tim Riley 13:48, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Several of these should be pretty easy, though I'm not sure they can all be substantiated. (I don't think I added any of them.) Marc Shepherd 18:56, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
After you get a chance to unpack and settle in, please let us know if you can find sources for any of these. Thanks! -- Ssilvers 19:56, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Fauré

Devoted as one is to the beloved Gabriel, can we have a reference for the 'Lydian/Lydia' addition? Tim Riley 20:06, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

I couldn't find a reference, so I deleted it. Best regards, -- Ssilvers 22:00, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

GA?

Think it's worth nominating this for GA, or is it still in need of too much re-referencing work? Adam Cuerden talk 01:52, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

It's getting closer, but, for instance, Marc stated above that he will look for some refs, and I don't think he's done that yet. Before nominating it, let's wait until we're done with Thespis and see if we can get Marc to give it a once over. -- Ssilvers 04:47, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
Okay! Basically, just kind of want to start moving our core articles up the tree a bit. Adam Cuerden talk 06:28, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Besides the refs that Tim identified and the Marc was going to check, someone else had also noted the following in the subsection on Overtures. Have they been fixed?:

  • "However, even those delegated to his assistants were probably based on an outline he provided, and in many cases incorporated his suggestions or corrections."
  • "Thespis is now lost, but there is no doubt that it had an overture and that Sullivan wrote it."
  • "Toye’s Pirates overture, however, did not last long and is now lost." -- It's 3AM. goodnight! -- Ssilvers 06:58, 25 October 2007 (UTC)


You know, I think Image:Sullivpunch.gif has to go. I mean, it doesn't even have the poem. Either one. And they're hilarious little pastiches too. Adam Cuerden talk 17:03, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, what do you mean "has to go"? Do you mean you think we should remove it from the article? Why? I think it's a great image. -- Ssilvers 17:55, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

And yet it has to go as soon as my much better copy hits the scanner's bed. Adam Cuerden talk 02:26, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

I think this now meets the GA criteria by a comfortable margin. The references need some work before I would put it up for FA. But for GA, I'd say go ahead. Marc Shepherd 13:13, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Query

Who wrote, or which newspaper published, the review beginning "Sir Arthur Sullivan's music is music for the people. There is no attempt made to force on the public the dullness of academic experience"? It's not, at present, said. Adam Cuerden talk 16:33, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Comments

(moved from former subpage) Decent article but inline cits are required, and the extensive "Works" section should be shunted off elsewhere. Moreschi 18:48, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

GA Review

  1. Well-written: It is well-written. Even very well-written. The prose occasionally exceeds mere correctness, and has moments of style. "If the musical establishment never quite forgave Sullivan for condescending to write music that was both comic and popular, he was, nevertheless, the nation's de facto composer laureate." Sentences like that have a touch of pizazz.

    It complies with all the WP:MOS guidelines that I know, though I am not the world's leading expert in these matters. In any case, if there are deviations from the guidelines (that I have missed), they do not detract from the overall readability of the article.

  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable. Carefully footnoted. One of the faults I often find in Wikipedia articles is unreferenced quotes. People footnote all kinds of extraneous stuff, and then don't credit their quotes. Gads! But there is none of that here. All the quotes are attributed, as are all the other things that need to be attributed.

    There is the issue of no original research. I have always had a question in my mind about this when it comes to musical analysis. If you say a tune is a hornpipe, or is in the style of Wagner, does that constitute original research? While you footnote the paragraphs where those claims occur, it isambiguous whether the footnote refers to the entire paragraph or only to the last statement of the paragraph. However, I consider the issue moot. I believe that identifying a hornpipe or Wagnerian style does not constitute original research. I mean, if someone else can hear it, anyone can hear it.

  3. It is broad in coverage. It certainly covers everything there is to cover about Arthur Sullivan in a general encyclopedia article, and then some. It is, in fact, longer by far than the recommended length for Wikipedia articles (see Wikipedia:Article size). Article length is not a criterion for good articles; if you try to get FA status for this article, someone will probably ding you on this. I personally don't agree that Wikipedia articles longer than 60 or so KB should be broken up into subarticles (yours is about 80KB). Articles should be as long as they have to be. But reviewers are not supposed to argue with guidelines in their reviews, so I will shut up on this point.

  4. It is neutral. You may think, how is it possible to be biased or argumentative about a topic as arcane as this? Well, just so you should know, I almost had a little edit war over a section of the article on the Große Fuge. In fact, I always thought that the music of Sullivan was vapid and insipid - in fact, that that was part of its charm in the operettas, while his classical works were quite rightly ignored. Reading your article has inspired me to seek out and listen again to Sullivan's symphony, and maybe some other stuff. All of which is simply to say that, in theory, you could have been non-neutral about Sullivan, I suppose. But you weren't.

  5. Stable. Yes, it is stable.

  6. Illustrated. The picture of Fanny Ronalds - where is it from? It is certainly in the public domain, but I would be curious to see more attribution than you included. Also, the photo of the Sullivan bust is really terrible. I have copied it to my computer and photoshopped it a bit, so you can see the features. I will upload it later.

So, by the power invested in me by absolutely nobody, I am passing this article as a GA. --Ravpapa 10:31, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Some referencing issues

The following parts of the article are missing references:

  • "But the new work was not a big hit, and Sullivan collaborated on operas only with Gilbert for the next 15 years."
  • The entire section of Ruddygore
  • The paragraph after Ruddygore
  • More needed in the first paragraph of 1.4
  • Second paragraph is unsourced (1.4)
  • Last sentence, 3rd paragraph of 1.4 unsourced.
  • 1.5 needs refs at the ends of paragraphs.
  • 1.6 needs a ref on the first paragraph
  • First paragraph of 2.1 needs one.
  • The last sentences of the final three paragraphs in 2.3 need refs.
  • Second paragraph of 3.5
  • Last sentence of second-to-last paragraph in 3.5
  • Last sentence of first paragraph of 3.6
  • Paragraphs 4 and 6 of 3.6

That looks like all of them. Good luck finding them all.Mitch32(UP) 14:17, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

We never did this, did we? Well, I'll go over it with a fine toothed come in a moment =) Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 14:48, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

London Gazette

Whilst searching the London Gazette for the official records of Sullivan's state honours, I noticed that the search results (along with some false positives) also include a number of mentions of when Sullivan's music was used (or composed) for Royal occasions. I don't know if any are worth a mention here, maybe the specially composed piece for the opening of the Royal Albert Hall, so I thought I'd just note them here. David Underdown (talk) 14:42, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Hello. I tried to look at these links, but they made my head hurt. Why don't you write a proposed sentence and put it here with the reference, and then we can discuss whether it ought to be inserted in the (already too long) article. Thanks! -- Ssilvers (talk) 15:49, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
Boils down to:
  • "No. 25773". The London Gazette. 5 January 1888., ode composed for the opening of the Imperial Institute (I was wrong when I mentioned the Royal Albert Hall above, I was confused by the mention of what later became the Royal Choral Society).
Thanks. What ode is this referring to? Is it already mentioned somewhere else in the article? If so, we can just add the mention of the Imperial Institute performance. Was it a royal commission? If it was not performed again, I doubt it is notable. But maybe it should be mentioned in the Imperial Institute article, if it's not there already.
  • "No. 25586". The London Gazette. 13 May 1886., an ode "Welcome, welcome, with one voice" for the opening of the Colonial and Indian Exhibition 1886.
See above. Was this used again anywhere? Not sure it's notable....
Thanks for this research, but it is still hard to decide whether any of it is worth adding to the article. Sorry not to be able to help you flesh out this research, but I'm terribly swamped with work. All the best, -- Ssilvers (talk) 16:27, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

I can't currently find the title of the ode that was eprformed at the Imperial Institute, I know I have seen it mentioned somewhere at some point, but I've looked through all the likely places and nothing doing. Probably the individual performances are not notable, but it provides an overally indication of his standing with the Establishment, so might be worth a passing mention. David Underdown (talk) 16:43, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

We do say already that he was friendly with the Prince, and that the queen commissioned certain works. Search the article for the words prince, duke and queen, and then you'll be able to see what is missing. I'm happy to add something if you think it's notable and if we can attach references that support the new info. All the best, -- Ssilvers (talk) 17:16, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Terminology and Classification Issues

In particular the use of the term "opera" to include all of Sullivan's musical stage works that amounts to wishful thinking. Technically, the Savoy "operas" are operetta due to the use of spoken dialog rather than recitative in the view of many. That might seem like a music snob's quibble but can anyone, apart from Sullivan devotees, really consider a slight musical comedy work such as Cox and Box, or any similar light burlesque, an opera? Sullivan wrote at least one grand opera, Ivanhoe, and it does no favor to the article to pump up Sullivan's output to 23 operas when maybe half of them are of a scale worthy of that term and invites misleading comparisons with composers, such as Verdi, Donizetti, etc who were prolific in even greater number in the genre of full scale grand opera. The article should distinguish the scale and format of Sullivan's musical stage works more clearly. As written today, it reflects a sort of English Euro-envy of musical culture as distinguished opera in England took a long nap from Purcell and Handel until fully revived by Benjamin Britten.

For what it is worth, I regard the Savoy operas not as opera or operetta but as the beginning of a really respectable and intelligent musical theater more akin to the best of later American Broadway theater rather than poor cousins to the great (in scale,weight and vocal power required if not actual merit in some cases) operas of the European tradition. Lorenz Hart regarded them that light regarding Gilbert as a master worthy of study. What they lack in operatic weight they make up and surpass in literary brilliance and comedic edge. But they are not Rigoletto or even Barber of Seville in musical terms even if Sullivan's music borrows from and sometimes satirizes its European counterparts. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jszigeti (talk • contribs) 23:21, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the message. The article states, more than once, that Sullivan's only grand opera is Ivanhoe and that the rest are comic operas. See the "note on terminology" at the top of this page, which notes that the authors called their joint works "operas" (a "nautical opera", a "piratical opera", a "fairy opera" a "Japanese opera", an "original comic opera", etc.). They wished to distinguish their pieces from Continental operetta. The participants of the Gillbert and Sullivan project have agreed to honor the authors' wishes in our terminology, and our WP:Consensus is also supported by virtually all of the writers who have written scholarly books about G&S, including Stedman, Jacobs, Ainger, Bradley, Allen, etc. (see the list of references at the bottom of the article). All the best, -- Ssilvers (talk) 03:58, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Large batch of quotations added and now deleted

Very interesting batch of quotations recently added, but they seriously disrupt the balance of this article (which has been rated as a Good Article on the Wikipedia scale.) I have deleted accordingly, but I hope the editor in question will consider adding them, suitably referenced, to Wikiquote, where they will be eminently suitable. 217.207.222.178 (talk) 21:48, 15 January 2011 (UTC) Apologies - I was inadvertently not logged in. Tim riley (talk) 21:52, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Tim riley. These quotations would be appropriate in Wikiquote rather than here. This article is already rather long, so new additions should be restricted to only the most important facts about Sullivan and his music. Best regards, -- Ssilvers (talk) 22:06, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
Looking again at the batch of quotations, I think they are really excellent, and mostly little-known. If the original contributor doesn't put them into Wikiquote, I propose to do so myself. They are too good to lose, though inappropriate for the Wikipedia article. Tim riley (talk) 14:07, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

{{cleanup}}

I put a {{cleanup}} tag on the article because of excessive use of cquotes (should only be used for pull quotes, see WP:MOSQUOTE). This may seem trivial, but on my monitor/browser there is a fairly huge gap of whitespace around the quote beginning "As regards music...". There are other formatting issues as well, for example the quotes are kinda long... Ling.Nut (talk) 05:29, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

NB, this has been resolved. -- Ssilvers (talk) 23:57, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Featured Article

Should it be nominated?----occono (talk) 21:14, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

No. It's got great content, but I think it needs some brushing up before going to FA. I was going to wait until I had made more progress on the various Gilbert and Sullivan operas. Feel free to give me any comments you have on it, though! -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:58, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
I have none, really, I just came to it randomly and I was impressed. But if you plan to nominate it later then no worries.----occono (talk) 22:04, October 2010 (UTC)

In the event that it should be nominated or considered for FA, here are a few points I noted on a pass through of most of the article.

  • The introduction lists several pieces that purport to be "his most critically praised." I have no idea how this was ascertained.
  • In the 1870s section, Sullivan is credited with writing "Onward, Christian Soldiers" twice, in both 1871 and 1872.
  • In general, words like success/successful and profitable/profitably are used excessively and willy-nilly, without much standard or consistency. Most of these ought to be edited out, supported, or replaced with something more descriptive. For instance, the word "success," or variants of it, is used something like 25 times.
  • This is really picayune (but then, FA reviews are supposed to be), but there is no consistent policy within the article as to whether periods and commas appear inside of terminating quotation marks or outside of them.

That's all I have for now. Marc Shepherd (talk) 22:10, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks very much! I have addressed these. -- Ssilvers (talk) 23:58, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

On what scale should Sullivan be evaluated?

One might well say he was one of the few best composers of comic operas and the best British one. In terms of his total output of them he may rank very near the top internationally, although he did not compose the single best one (Mozart's Marriage of Figaro). But was Sullivan a "great" or even a "fine" composer? The article has a section "Musical quotations and parodies." He "often quoted or imitated... themes and passages" by other composers. Those listed in that section, rearranged in alphabetical order, are Arne, Auber, Bach, Michael Balfe, Bellini, Bizet, Chopin, Donizetti, Flotow, Gounod, Handel, Liszt, Mendelssohn, Schubert, Verdi, Wagner, and William Vincent Wallace. A parody of a well-known piece may add musical humor to that of Gilbert's words and so to the enjoyability of the opera as a whole. Outside of comic operas, however, borrowings have less in their favor. Edward Greenfield in "The Gramophone," February 1969, p. 61, wrote that a theme in the slow movement of Sullivan's Irish Symphony is an "outrageous crib" from Schubert's Unfinished Symphony. Several other composers' influences are also heard in the Irish Symphony. So I propose to do some rewriting to praise Sullivan as he deserves.Marlindale (talk) 22:05, 13 August 2014 (UTC)Marlindale (talk) 22:30, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Interesting addition, but removed as not compliant with WP rules. See WP:LEAD (i) 5 paras is too many and (ii) there should be nothing in the lead not in the main text; see also WP:WEASEL, of which the deleted para also fell foul. Tim riley talk 08:09, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
My main concern was the clause saying Sullivan was "regarded as the finest British composer of the 19th century." I think this raised a serious POV issue (regarded by whom?) and was not substantiated in the main article, so I deleted it. I thought that "fine,finer,finest" was not even the right scale on which to evaluate Sullivan, as I said above in this Talk section. But the previous following sentence in the article, "Sullivan's comic opera style...." I thought was fine and had not deleted it, it was deleted inadvertently I think, in good faith, by Tim riley. I plan to put it back. The rest of my added paragraph, on comparison with Elgar etc., I was not comfortable about myself. Why so much about Elgar in the Sullivan article? I don't mind that being deleted. My thought was that as Elgar's Enigma Variations, his by far most appreciated piece, was premiered in 1899, that could provide a possible argument about who was finest in the 19th century, but now I hope we don't need to get into that detail. Now about "unreferenced," I did provide one specific reference, but also I used a technique of highlighting non-standard phrases which gave links to other WP articles. What I take from the reproof is that I will try not to use that method, using it as by general practice only for names of people, institutions, musical pieces, etc. and not for such backhanded references as I did. I think one can see from my other edits as of Brahms and Dvorak articles that I'm generally scrupulous about references. I also plan to make a minor change in the reference to Queen Victoria I added because the monarchy became more constitutional during her era.Marlindale (talk) 20:56, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

[Left]. I removed the statement about Queen Victoria, which is both obvious and not central to Sullivan's LEAD, and replaced it with the statement that when he died, Sullivan was "regarded as Britain's foremost composer". That is amply supported by the text and notes below. -- Ssilvers (talk) 18:07, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

That's for the best, I think. A definite improvement on the recent changes. Tim riley talk 18:55, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
Although I thought I gave strong arguments against "finest," I think "foremost" of that time is a good way to put it. Marlindale (talk) 03:41, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

What did Sullivan die of?

What did Sullivan die of? 67.243.186.3 (talk) 16:05, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

As the article says, heart failure. -- Ssilvers (talk) 18:23, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

A few review comments

I don't think this article will have any trouble at FAC, and I will be happy to support when the time comes. I found a few minor things to note, as follows:

Mendelssohn scholar

  • "Originally intended to spend a year in Leipzig..." - "intending" rather than "intended"?
Well, I think we said "intended" because it was the committee that granted the scholarship that intended it to be one year. Do you still think it ought to be "intending"?
Yes, since it's attached to Sullivan, who seems to be the actor in the sentence. Other words, such as "planning" would do as well. You could possibly recast to make the committee the subject and "intended" the verb, but that seems roundabout. Finetooth (talk) 23:43, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
Redrafted.
  • "Sullivan stayed there for three years" - Delete "there" since "There" starts the next sentence?
Done.
  • "Revised and expanded, it was performed at the Crystal Palace" - I'm not sure whether its formal name is Crystal Palace or The Crystal Palace. If the former, then "the" should not be included in the link; if the latter, then the link should probably include a redirect from the disambiguation page Crystal Palace. Much ado about very little.
Fixed, I think. See if you agree.
Yes. Looks fine. Finetooth (talk) 23:43, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Note 1 opens with a link bump, "The soprano Jenny Lind...". Since the word "soprano" also appears later in the sentence, I think you could safely delete the first instance and link the second to make the link bump go away.
Hmmm. It occurs to me that the sentence was too long. See if you think I fixed it optimally.
Yes, except perhaps "became" instead of "was" in "After Sullivan was the first recipient of the scholarship...". Finetooth (talk) 23:43, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
Done.

Rising composer

  • "In the autumn of 1867, Sullivan travelled with George Grove to Vienna, in search of neglected manuscript scores by Schubert." - Delete the comma after Vienna?
Done.
  • Note 5 says in part, "an early example of critical censure of Sullivan for his accessibility". Maybe add a modifier and say "easy accessibility"?
I think it's probably better as is. I think "accessible" classical music already implies that it is easy to appreciate, understand and enjoy.
OK. Just by way of explanation I'll say that I was reading the text from the peanut gallery point of view and first thought that an accessibility problem meant that critics thought that the work was too highbrow for plebes. Huh? Since I knew this was not true of the comic operas, I re-read the sentence and saw what it meant. Later in the article, the critics' views become quite clear. Finetooth (talk) 23:43, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

1890s

  • "The opera was both a critical failure and did not attract a following, running for only seven weeks." - Delete "both"?
OK, done.
  • "by the Universities of Cambridge (1876) and Oxford (1879)" - Lowercase "universities"?
OK, done.

Leisure and family life

  • "Kate was a chorister who defected to the Comedy Opera Company's rival production of H.M.S. Pinafore where she had the opportunity to play Josephine in 1879." - Insert a comma after Pinafore?
Done!

Knighthood and later years

  • " and in the matter of orchestration our only humorous has let himself run riot" - Is "humorous" the right word in this quotation? A typo maybe?
Tim fixed this.

Other

  • The link checker finds several problems including a small number of dead URLs and missing "subscription required" notes.

That's all I found. Finetooth (talk) 20:25, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Super! Thanks, Finetooth! What do you think, User:Tim riley, do you agree with all of my changes and responses to Finetooth? -- Ssilvers (talk) 04:42, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
You are welcome. I found remarkably few things to note in such a long and complicated article. I added a couple of replies to your replies above. The "humorous" question is still pending, and I thought I should mention that I made one small change yesterday that perhaps should be reverted. It's the cap M on "Nearer, My God, to Thee" in Note 9. I'm seeing it both ways in different texts, and I don't know what logic might apply. Finetooth (talk) 23:43, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
Thanks, again! -- Ssilvers (talk) 00:23, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Arthur_Sullivan/Archive_1&oldid=1181433818"