Talk:The Threepenny Opera/Archive 2
 | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
WikiProject Theatre
I removed the WikiProject Theatre tag, as this is already being covered by WikiProject Musical Theatre, which is a descendent project of the former. Hopefully this won't be as...interesting...a move as the Opera categorization...--Dereksmootz (talk) 17:52, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
- I've restored the Theatre wikiproject banner, as the work is a major example of epic theatre. DionysosProteus (talk) 15:51, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
Opera - new discussion
After having cleaned up the article today, I now notice this discussion on the talk page. Any consensus of opinions between however many editors does not override the fact that this work is not an opera. In any way or in any form. The music and songs form only a small part of the overall work. It's a musical. The article isn't about the film versions either, so I have removed all of the inappropriate categories. The presiding concern is not to mislead our readers, and to categorise in that way would be to mislead. DionysosProteus (talk) 15:49, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
- (Whenever I make edits of a remotely contentious nature, I try to look at discussion and history pages first; I recommend this to everyone).
- DionysosProteus: "Any consensus of opinions between however many editors does not override the fact that this work is not an opera.'" I beg your pardon? So your assessment overrides the operatic reference works quoted above? I suggest to restore the categories Category:Operas, Category:Operas by Kurt Weill, Category:German-language operas, Category:1928 operas, and the talk page banner {{WikiProject Opera}}. All of these fundamental changes of a major work's characteristics and classification should be discussed with the respective projects, too. Michael Bednarek (talk) 06:08, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
I just stumbled across this discussion and am frankly surprised at the debate here. I am sorry to disagree with my fellow opera project editors but The Threepenny Opera is most certainly not an opera and does not belong under the opera cats. The Threepenny Opera is a musical that parodies opera and operetta. As a parody of opera, the work shares some elements in common with opera while not really ever becoming an opera. The music of the work is certainly closer to that of a musical than an opera and in my opinion should really be classified as the former and not the latter. Further, the work is much more frequently performed by musical theater ensembles and musical theater actors as opposed to productions in opera houses and with opera singers. Music from the The Threepenny Opera is frequently included in published "Musical Theater Antholgies" (I own several that do) and to my knowledge none of the music has ever been published in an "Opera Athology" (of which I have extensive experience/knowledge of being an opera singer and voice teacher). The work is also a staple for college musical theater programs in the United States. Further, I don't think the work's inclusion in Grove is at all significant towards classifying it as an opera. Grove covers numerous musicals and musical theater performers. There are articles on Rodgers and Hammerstein musicals, Julie Andrews, Barbara Cook, etc. I think that Grove's decision not to call it an opera is particularly telling. If it were an opera it would have explicitly said so. A further point to consider is that the work was covered as a musical in PBS's doccumentary Broadway: The American Musical and is certainly an essential work to cover when studying the history of musical theater. Nrswanson (talk) 07:49, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
- If there is a reliable source that says that this is an opera, then we can talk about it, but so far as I can see, no one has provided one. Even the most cursory familiarity with the piece ought to confirm that this is the case. What proportion of the work is straightforward spoken dramatic dialogue? What proportion of the words are sung? In lieu of a source to support such a claim, it doesn't belong in the categories. DionysosProteus (talk) 12:38, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
- Here are seven reliable sources: The Oxford Dictionary of Opera, The New Grove Dictionary of Opera, The Metropolitan Opera Guide to Recorded Opera, The Rough Guide to Opera, The Oxford Illustrated Guide to Opera, the Naxos A-Z of Opera, Who's Who in Opera (a dictionary of operatic characters). Bibliographical details available on request. It's in all of them. I therefore see no reason why it should not be part of the Opera Project as well as the Music Theatre Project. In the twentieth century, there a number of pieces which are difficult to classify, and the boundaries between opera, operetta and musical theatre are not as rigid as some of the comments above imply. Oh, and a note to Nrswanson: Julie Andrews and Barbara Cook do not appear in the New Grove Dictionary of Opera. They may well appear in the New Grove Dictionary of Music and Musicians, however. --GuillaumeTell 11:17, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
- +1: András Batta's Opera (Könemann); quote: "Melodiousness and a refreshing popular tone have secured an unassailable position in the operatic history for this work." (Margareta Saary) -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 12:39, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
- Please indicate the page numbers and preferably a quotation in which the piece is defined as an opera. Michael, the quotation you have provided clearly does not do that. DionysosProteus (talk) 13:36, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
- FCOL — WP:AGF.
- Batta, András (2000). "Weill — The Threepenny Opera". In Sigrid Neef (ed.). Opera. Cologne: Könemann Verlagsgesellschaft. p. 845. ISBN 3-8290-3571-3. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 14:26, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
- Michael, there's no need to cry, out loud or elsewhere. It's not failing to assume good faith to ask for a citation for such a bizarre categorization. Thankyou for the citation, but if the quotation that you have provided is the basis for the attempt to categorise as an opera, it fails to provide the necessary evidence. This is a piece in which the performers sing for only a small proportion of the total performance time. The overwhelming majority of performance time is constituted by spoken dramatic dialogue. It's clearly not a matter of borderline phenomena between the different genres. No doubt it may be adapted as an opera, just as it may be adapted as a film, but that doesn't mean that the piece is an opera. DionysosProteus (talk) 15:13, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
- Here's an opera whithout any singing at all: The Corley Conspiracy; as I said above, opera is a broad church. I suggest to restore the categories I mentioned above.
- Why did you ask for reliable sources? Michael Bednarek (talk) 05:27, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
- I have not a strong view about the Dreigroschenoper being or not an opera, but I fail to understand what's wrong with the quotation given by Michael. If a work is said to have an important position "in the operatic history", then it is either an opera or something so strictly related with opera to call for comparison with it and so, de facto, to fall within the same category. And this is apparently only one of eight sources quoted so far. Goochelaar (talk) 17:26, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
- There is no need to give page numbers. All the works that I cited have the word Opera in the title. Therefore works with entries therein are, ipso facto, operas. And lots of works that we know are operas were not so-called by their librettists or composers, and they are listed in these publications, too. --GuillaumeTell 18:47, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
- Michael, there's no need to cry, out loud or elsewhere. It's not failing to assume good faith to ask for a citation for such a bizarre categorization. Thankyou for the citation, but if the quotation that you have provided is the basis for the attempt to categorise as an opera, it fails to provide the necessary evidence. This is a piece in which the performers sing for only a small proportion of the total performance time. The overwhelming majority of performance time is constituted by spoken dramatic dialogue. It's clearly not a matter of borderline phenomena between the different genres. No doubt it may be adapted as an opera, just as it may be adapted as a film, but that doesn't mean that the piece is an opera. DionysosProteus (talk) 15:13, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
- Please indicate the page numbers and preferably a quotation in which the piece is defined as an opera. Michael, the quotation you have provided clearly does not do that. DionysosProteus (talk) 13:36, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
- +1: András Batta's Opera (Könemann); quote: "Melodiousness and a refreshing popular tone have secured an unassailable position in the operatic history for this work." (Margareta Saary) -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 12:39, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
- Here are seven reliable sources: The Oxford Dictionary of Opera, The New Grove Dictionary of Opera, The Metropolitan Opera Guide to Recorded Opera, The Rough Guide to Opera, The Oxford Illustrated Guide to Opera, the Naxos A-Z of Opera, Who's Who in Opera (a dictionary of operatic characters). Bibliographical details available on request. It's in all of them. I therefore see no reason why it should not be part of the Opera Project as well as the Music Theatre Project. In the twentieth century, there a number of pieces which are difficult to classify, and the boundaries between opera, operetta and musical theatre are not as rigid as some of the comments above imply. Oh, and a note to Nrswanson: Julie Andrews and Barbara Cook do not appear in the New Grove Dictionary of Opera. They may well appear in the New Grove Dictionary of Music and Musicians, however. --GuillaumeTell 11:17, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
This work is of course an opera. It's an opera in its historical context. It's an opera in the context of an encyclopedia - as demonstrated by GuillaumeTell. It is also many other things as well - but that's the nature of an all-embracing art form such as opera. Arguments such as those of DionysosProteus and Nrswanson are based on personal 'points of view' about what opera should be. However this is an encyclopedia that strives for a neutral point of view. The development of opera over the past 400 years has encompassed different genres of music drama, conservative and revolutionary, mainstream and experimental. Weill's work - which is a major one - is simply part of the process. P.S. The work has been recorded with mainline opera singers such as Helge Roswaenge, René Kollo, Helga Dernesch etc. It's currently being performed by Den Nye Opera in Bergen, the Théâtre des Champs-Élysées in Paris etc etc.
Perhaps I might also ask for eyes on another Brecht article revised by DionysosProteus? This is The Baden-Baden Lesson on Consent - a reworking of the Hindemith Lehrstück article. IMO it also fails the NPOV test. --Kleinzach 02:19, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
- I haven't kept up with this conversation since I posted my original comment so a few points. First to GuilliaumeTell, I use Grove music online and not printed sources so I appologize for making any errors on what is and is not included in the Grove Dictionary of Opera. It is sometimes difficult to tell on the Grove internet database what articles comes from which book. A second note, Grove does not call the work an opera but a "play with music". Likewise its list of works by Kurt Weill does not use the word opera for Die Dreigroschenoper. It does, however, use operetta and opera to describe other works in the list making its absence from Die Dreigroschenoper significant. From this standpoint, I don't think Grove designates this work as an opera. I haven't seen the other references you have used, but my suspicion is that, although they might include the work, they probably haven't designated the work as an opera. Can you point to a source where it explicitly says the The Threepenny Opera is an opera. If you can't than saying it is an opera is original research. To Kleinzach, I am aware that opera is a broad church. However, I have yet to see a source that The Threepenny Opera is an opera. I have seen numerous sources refering to it as a musical. I don't think it is a POV push to ask for verifiable sources. Nrswanson (talk) 21:48, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
- Two points here:
- First, Grove does not call the work "a play with music". Grove simply reproduces the description given to it by the librettist and/or the composer. If you look up, say, Gluck's Iphigénie en Tauride in Grove, you will see that it is described as a "tragédie", and there are countless other examples where the word "opera" isn't used and yet it is accepted that the work is actually an opera.
- Second, whatever the librettist and composer called it, numerous reference works such as those that I've cited, all of which are about opera and have the word "Opera" in their titles quite clearly regard it as an opera, otherwise they wouldn't have included it, would they?
- --GuillaumeTell 22:48, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
- To put this in context: Weill was one of a group of important 1920s composers radically differentiating their work from pre-WWI forms, but they were not the first revolutionaries in music/opera history. If we reject The Threepenny Opera, what is next? Wagner's Bühnenfestspiel (a k a The Ring)? --Kleinzach 23:57, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
- Two points here:
- I think that is a rather outragous statement that is not at all balanced Kleinzach. First of all, Wagner's works were designated by himself as operas which is not the case with this particular work by Weill. Indeed, Weill himself consistantly referred to the work as a play with music believing that, unlike in opera, his music was in service and support to the dialogue and not the main feature of the work which was Brecht's script. (see his letter to the journal “Anbruch”, January 1929 and his letter to a theater in Switzerland, January 31, 1949) Further, Wagner's works are a staple of opera houses and opera companies whereas The Threepenny Opera has for the most part been performed at regular non-opera theatres both in the United States and in Europe; although in its early days in Europe it certainly was performed in theatres that were known for operetta. I personally think performance practice should be taken into account. This is a regularly performed work but not by opera companies. Second, if you open up any book on Theatre History you will read that The Threepenny Opera was essential part of the revolution in Epic Theatre which had very little to do with opera and a lot more to do with straight drama and musicals. The Threepenny Opera has been credited by numerous authors as transformative to the world of musical theatre and regular theatre (i.e. composers, playwrites, etc.) both in Europe and the United States. Indeed, the theatre banner does belong here for the revolutionary nature of Brecht's writing which could arguably be said to have had more influence than Weill's music as it basically was the first successful epic play. The influence of this work could therefore be realistically described as more influential on theatre and musical theatre than in the world of opera. For further information see:
- History of the Theatre by Oscar G. Brockett and Franklin J. Hildy
- The Theatre: A Concise History by Phyllis Hartnoll and Enoch Brater
- The History of the Musical by Richard Fawkes and Kim Criswell
- Musical Theatre: A History by John Kenrick
- As for the work's inclusion in opera resources I am not sure what to think. These works don't explicitly call it an opera but their inclusion does seem to indicate a possible designation of one. (note to GuillaumeTell, Iphigénie en Tauride is called an opera under Gluck's list of works so that was a bad example) Other sources, however, consider the work a musical, and many theatre history sources call it a play with music and treat it more as a play in the epic theatre genre when viewing it in the context of theatre history.Nrswanson (talk) 19:10, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
- I think that is a rather outragous statement that is not at all balanced Kleinzach. First of all, Wagner's works were designated by himself as operas which is not the case with this particular work by Weill. Indeed, Weill himself consistantly referred to the work as a play with music believing that, unlike in opera, his music was in service and support to the dialogue and not the main feature of the work which was Brecht's script. (see his letter to the journal “Anbruch”, January 1929 and his letter to a theater in Switzerland, January 31, 1949) Further, Wagner's works are a staple of opera houses and opera companies whereas The Threepenny Opera has for the most part been performed at regular non-opera theatres both in the United States and in Europe; although in its early days in Europe it certainly was performed in theatres that were known for operetta. I personally think performance practice should be taken into account. This is a regularly performed work but not by opera companies. Second, if you open up any book on Theatre History you will read that The Threepenny Opera was essential part of the revolution in Epic Theatre which had very little to do with opera and a lot more to do with straight drama and musicals. The Threepenny Opera has been credited by numerous authors as transformative to the world of musical theatre and regular theatre (i.e. composers, playwrites, etc.) both in Europe and the United States. Indeed, the theatre banner does belong here for the revolutionary nature of Brecht's writing which could arguably be said to have had more influence than Weill's music as it basically was the first successful epic play. The influence of this work could therefore be realistically described as more influential on theatre and musical theatre than in the world of opera. For further information see:
- "Gluck's list of works"? What's that? The List of operas by Gluck, derived from Opera Grove, has "tragédie" for Iph en T, and quite a few of the rest of his operas aren't designated as operas, either. --GuillaumeTell 22:19, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
- At least on Grove Music Online his works are organized under broad topics. Iph en T is listed under List of operas on his works page. (talk) 22:21, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
- I'm not sure what's left to discuss here. Don't the article's categories since this edit reflect how the work straddles the genres? Michael Bednarek (talk) 04:01, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
- I am aware of the edit but I disagree with it. I find it telling that authors writing indepth analyses of the work do not call it an opera. However, I am not going to get into an edit war over it since I am in the minority. I just wanted to make sure you all had thought it through completely. If this issue comes up again, which it might, I will support the removal of the opera cats unless a source explicity designating it as an opera is found (i.e. not just being included in an opera reference book but having the actual article on the work talking about it in relation to opera and opera history).Nrswanson (talk) 16:56, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
- Do you also wish to remove 'Opera cats' from the other 1,000-odd works listed in The opera corpus which are not specifically designated as operas? --Kleinzach 01:04, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
- Once again Kleinzach you are resorting to gross exageration. Somehow I doubt that there are that many works in the opera corpus that are not designated as operas. I doubt that there are even a small fraction of that number. (Yes they may use terms like "dramma giocoso", "tragédie lyrique", etc. but such terms are defined as a "genre of opera" so they still would be counted as operas.) Anyway, each article should be evaluated individually on the basis of that article's content/sources. I have no intention of doing something so ridiculous as a massive campaign like you are suggesting. All I am asking for in this individual case is a scholarly work that confirms the fact that it is indeed an opera. It really shouldn't be that hard to find a reputable analysis of The Threepenny Opera that confirms that fact given it's importance. If you can't find a source that does than I think the designation is wrong.Nrswanson (talk) 02:10, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
- FCOL. All you have to do is open the books recommended by Michael Bednarek and GuillaumeTell. --Kleinzach 03:17, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
- I have not had the opportunity yet to go to an academic library to take a look at the sources offered above in support of the claim that this piece is an opera. When I've looked at each, I'll respond properly. In the meantime, and for the record, I rely on a source as indisputably objective as the OED to define what "opera" means; by no stretch of the imagination could Threepenny qualify by that. To claim that this work is an opera ought to astonish anyone who has actually experienced it. Such a marginal and eccentric view requires a source that says quite explicitly and unambiguously that the piece is an opera. If the other editors who wish to define it as such are correct, this should not be too hard to find. I'm afraid that its mere presence in any of the reference works with opera in their titles does not constitute such evidence. Where it is a matter of controversy, a definite statement in a source is required for it to appear here. DionysosProteus (talk) 18:01, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
- Two easy questions for you to answer, then:
- If this work is manifestly not an opera, why is it that respected scholars such as Stanley Sadie and John Warrack include entries for it in books entitled "The [xxx] Dictionary of Opera"?
- What is your definition of "an opera"?
- --GuillaumeTell 22:43, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
- Two easy questions for you to answer, then:
- You'll have to ask them that. I don't have the OED available to me at present, but will be happy to post its definition of the word "opera" as soon as I do. I recall posting it before on the opera wikiproject, so if you are in a hurry to explore this, you may find it in the archives somewhere. DionysosProteus (talk) 23:25, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
- The OED is a dictionary of the English language. It is concerned with the English language and how that particular language is used. It is not concerned with foreign languages as such, and it doesn't offer technical information. For example if you look up 'gravity' in the OED full edition - which I have just done - you will find the etymology of the word, its various meanings and numerous examples of its use in the literature. What you don't get is a technical explanation of the physics. The same goes for opera - which in any case is more a part of Italian, German and French culture than English. To put it in a nutshell - dictionaries do language, encyclopedias do things.
- P.S. DionysosProteus has reverted The Baden-Baden Lesson on Consent, (formerly the article on Hindemith's Lehrstück) again - removing the performance history section, downgrading the reference to Hindemith's contribution (implying that he only worked on part of the work), and
removing the reference to Hindemith's wish to remove the Clown Scene (properly referenced to Skelton in Grove) which led to the quarrel with Brecht (and the work going into unperformed limbo). Are any other articles on musical works involving Brecht getting similar treatment? --Kleinzach 00:45, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
- P.S. DionysosProteus has reverted The Baden-Baden Lesson on Consent, (formerly the article on Hindemith's Lehrstück) again - removing the performance history section, downgrading the reference to Hindemith's contribution (implying that he only worked on part of the work), and
- P.P.S. DionysosProteus writes: "I haven't had the opportunity to get to an academic library re:Threepenny, but you can be sure that it most certainly won't remain in the opera categories once I have checked sources." see [1]. --Kleinzach 01:48, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
Just a reminder: Opera does not have to be sung through. Carmen has extensive spoken dialogue, as do H.M.S. Pinafore, The Magic Flute, The Tales of Hoffmann, and, in fact, everything in Category:Opéras comiques (by definition). Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 12:17, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
- Kleinzach, not for the first time I find myself having to ask you to stop lying about my actions. Quite what renders you so incapable of truthfully representing an opinion or action with which you disagree is unclear, but whatever it is, keep it to yourself. If you examine the edit history of The Baden-Baden Lesson on Consent and indeed the current version, you will see that I have patently not removed "the reference to Hindemith's wish to remove the Clown Scene (properly referenced to Skelton in Grove)". It's true that you failed to provide a page number for the citation, but it remains in the notes nonetheless. Once again it is clear that you are attempting to dictate how a work is described without any familiarity with the work in question whatsoever. No doubt you keep Grove close at all times and feel that it gives you the right to hold forth on subjects about which you clearly know nothing. It doesn't. A general reference work or other secondary source is useful but is no substitute for knowing the work in question first hand. If you bothered to take the time to become familiar with the work, you would know that it is perfectly accurate to explain that Hindemith provided music for seven of the scenes (and the article states this quite explicitly, it isn't "implied" in any way). I offered detailed explanations for all of the edits I have made, but you have failed to engage with the substance of these arguments. As for that ridiculous piece of sophistry offered above on the use of the OED, in response I will point out that I had just been asked how I defined an "opera". The OED is not an appropriate source for a definition of what an opera is? Since when? It defines the meaning of words. You're suggesting that the word means something different in German? Pray, elucidate. The fact remains that unless you have a source that clearly and explicitly states that Threepenny is an opera, it cannot be described as such here; the claim is an eccentric one, to say the least. As far as pasting my comment from the other article with regard to the opera categories here, you might note that I say as much above: my intention is to check the sources that other editors have offered as evidence that the piece may be called an opera. I expect to find that none of them describe it as such. Having confirmed that, I will remove the inappropriate categories. As I stated in my very first post, our job is not to mislead. I understand that describing this work as an opera is misleading, but others have disagreed and offered evidence for their opinion. I cannot proceed further until I've had the opportunity to examine that evidence. This is a process that you might consider adopting as your own--you might start by examining the sources for The Baden-Baden Lesson. Rather than throwing accusations of subjective-bias and opinions passing as fact, try conducting the discussion with reference to objective sources that we can all go and check for ourselves. DionysosProteus (talk) 12:42, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
Here is a key passage in the entry entitled 'Opera' by Howard Mayer Brown and Bernard Williams in Grove :
The history of opera is inextricably intertwined with the history of spoken drama. Moreover since all operatic works combine music, drama and spectacle, though in varying degrees, all three principal elements should be taken into account in any comprehensive study of the genre . . .
This is on page 671 (to forestall the inevitable micro-questioning of references by DionysosProteus.) P.S. I've corrected my description of the mass reversion of all my edits to The Baden-Baden Lesson on Consent. One detail was put in parentheses with a changed inline reference rather than actually removed. --Kleinzach 00:14, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
- That Threepenny has songs doesn't make it an opera, just as the presence of songs in the vast majority of Brecht's plays doesn't mean they can be called operas, or indeed just as the presence of the crucial dance in A Doll's House doesn't make that play a ballet. Pointing out that the elements of opera may be combined "in varying degrees" doesn't take us any closer to evidence that this musical is an opera, though I am glad to see that you are no longer trying to deny that drama is a constituent element. As detailed on the other article's page, Hindemith provided music for seven of the eleven scenes of the piece in question. DionysosProteus (talk) 15:23, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
Instrumentation
The previous version of this article stated that the score "mandates a fifteen-piece jazz combo" but I am not sure what the basis is for the number 15. The specialized website which I have now cited reports that there were seven players in the original run (a number I've also heard mentioned in a lecture on the opera by a German academic musical authority), and that between them they covered 23 instruments. I understand from people involved in a recent production that doing the score with as few as 7 performers is pretty demanding and that it is more manageable to have a few more hands on deck.Nandt1 (talk) 23:27, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
Notable productions
User:RGH57 has added (her/his only edits) three times a production in Golden, Colorado; I have removed it twice as non-notable, as none of the three entities mentioned have a Wikipedia article. Furthermore, in its current version, the entry is badly formatted; it contravenes at least 4 Wikipedia policies and guidelines. I suggest to remove it. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 07:43, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
Pirate Jenny
Considering that many notable artists have covered this song independent of the stage show(Nina Simone, Ute Lemper, Charlotte Rae, Judy Collins, Bea Arthur) and it's recent involvement with Watchmen, do you think this song deserves its own article? The title currently directs here. "Mack the Knife" has its own page and this possibly the second most famous song from the show. 12.162.122.6 (talk) 15:16, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
- Good reasoning, and I support this idea. As someone will need to create and compose the page, perhaps raising the matter with any of the appropriate projects would expedite its creation. -- Deborahjay (talk) 08:08, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
Jazz Opera Instruments
Though glossed over, Kurt Well's Lider music used instruments that were novel (for orchestral use) at the time.
Use or lack of use of these instruments changes the sound of the performed music. Opera houses generally use the originally prescribed instruments, but musical theatre performance groups generally don't.
Notably used, not a complete or authoritative list
- Accordion (The Three Penny Opera)
- Portable Organ (The Three Penny Opera, Der Alfstig Und Fall Der Stadt Mahagonny)
- Saxophone (The Three Penny Opera, Der Alfstig Und Fall Der Stadt Mahagonny)
- Banjo (The Three Penny Opera, Der Alfstig Und Fall Der Stadt Mahagonny) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eyreland (talk • contribs) 01:35, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
'Property'
It challenges conventional notions of property...
- — Did we mean property or propriety? Sca (talk) 14:48, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
- "What's picking a lock compared to buying shares? What's breaking into a bank compared to founding one? What's murdering a man compared to employing one?" – Brecht wasn't much concerned with propriety, he was concerned with redistribution of income and wealth, and the emancipation of the working class. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 15:01, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
- It's clearly "propriety" from context. If you want to make it about "property" then you should discuss these other elements in their appropriate place. I notice aside from a brief mention of "offers a Socialist critique of the capitalist world" earlier, there is no other even remotely relevant discussion of the play's socialist elements. -- KarlHallowell (talk) 11:38, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
- It's clear from the above provided quote that Brecht was concerned with property and its distribution. In which context can he possibly be seen as challenging "propriety"? I suggest to restore the previous wording. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 11:09, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
- It's clearly "propriety" from context. If you want to make it about "property" then you should discuss these other elements in their appropriate place. I notice aside from a brief mention of "offers a Socialist critique of the capitalist world" earlier, there is no other even remotely relevant discussion of the play's socialist elements. -- KarlHallowell (talk) 11:38, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
- "What's picking a lock compared to buying shares? What's breaking into a bank compared to founding one? What's murdering a man compared to employing one?" – Brecht wasn't much concerned with propriety, he was concerned with redistribution of income and wealth, and the emancipation of the working class. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 15:01, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
Macheath's name
"Macheath Messer ('Mackie,' or 'Mack the Knife') marries Polly Peachum."
"Macheath Messer" is unsupported. The name indicated for Macheath is simply "Macheath"; no given name is used. He is "Captain Macheath" in The Beggars' Opera, and nothing in Threepenny indicates that "Macheath" is anything but a surname. He is never called "Macheath Messer" in either the German or English versions. The knife is only mentioned in conjunction with the nicknames "Mackie" (German) and "Mack" (English), as "Mackie Messer" or "Mack the Knife". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 139.68.134.1 (talk) 13:30, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
German poster?
The poster seems to be in something related to, but different from, German. What is "Din"? And where is "Der"? -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 23:41, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
- The German text on the poster is Die 3 Groschen=oper. It's made in a peculiar script, Sütterlin, where the letter "e" looks like an "n" and the string "sch" also looks rather different. The linebreak of a word is indicated by "=" instead of "-". -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 05:56, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
- "Peculiar" is an understatement. Thanks. -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 06:52, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
- I note this from Sütterlin: For most people outside Germany, as well as younger Germans, Sütterlin is nearly illegible. -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 06:55, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
Plagiarism
The current synopsis is largely cut-and-pasted from this site:
http://www.threepennyopera.org/storySynopsis.php
Sorry, I don't know the story well enough myself to take a crack at de-plagiarizing it, but hopefully someone else does.VaneWimsey (talk) 22:23, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
- There's been a synopsis here for a long time. Far more likely the other way round, but you'd have to track through the edit history to confirm. • DP • {huh?} 02:16, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
Elisabeth Hauptmann
Elisabeth Hauptmann is currently credited as a co-writer of both the book and the lyrics. I am aware that Brecht based Threepenny off of The Beggar's Opera, and specifically Hauptmann's translation of it, but Beggar's and Threepenny are markedly different works and I have seen nothing outside of this page suggesting that Hauptmann was a co-author with Brecht. Can anyone provide confirmation either way? Thurn&Taxis (talk) 05:13, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
- The published text of the play gives Hauptmann as co-author. Methuen edition, p. 92). It's discussed extensively in secondary sources too. • DP • {huh?} 16:18, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on The Threepenny Opera. 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/20130809000749/http://www.ata-divisions.org/LD/newsletter/2009/2009Source_july3.pdf to http://www.ata-divisions.org/LD/newsletter/2009/2009Source_july3.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).
- If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
- If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:29, 22 March 2017 (UTC)