Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Orpheus in the Underworld/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Laser brain via FACBot (talk) 5 June 2019 [1].

Orpheus in the Underworld[edit]

Nominator(s): Tim riley talk 20:01, 14 May 2019 (UTC) [reply]

More disgraceful goings-on, I'm afraid. Orpheus in the Underworld was Jacques Offenbach's first full-length comic opera, and caused something of a scandal because of its cheeky satire of the Second French Empire and the Graeco-Roman classics. But the music and zany plot carry all before them, and the opera is still produced here, there and everywhere. Offenbach wrote dozens more comic operas, but this is the locus classicus, and I hope the article does it justice. Over to you for comment, fellow editors. – Tim riley talk

  • Support I had my say at the peer review, and my comments were addressed. An enjoyable read.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:29, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I say! That was quick. Thank you, Wehwalt, for support here and your valuable input at PR. Before the PR I wasn't quite convinced the article was ready for FAC, but thanks to you and the other reviewers and the improvements you have suggested I am emboldened. Tim riley talk 20:37, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for that point. I thought hard about this when starting my overhaul. I agree that following WP:Commonname means leaving the article's title in English – a Google analysis shows the English title getting three times as many hits as the French. (Within the article I've followed the main sources written in English – Faris, Gammond, Gänzl, Lamb, Selenick, Traubner – and used the original title as they all do.) – Tim riley talk 09:39, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Another happy camper from the peer review. A further read-through shows it has been improved further since. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 11:54, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you, SchroCat, for your support here and your input at PR. I'm much obliged. Tim riley talk 13:40, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support with Minor Brass Quibble: and I'm sorry I didn't get round to saying this at PR. Under "Music > Editions" we have this: The 1858 version of Orphée aux enfers is scored for [...] two trumpets/cornets. I'd love this to be clearer. Do you mean that it was really scored for one or the other instrument, or for both doubling, or four players non-doubling? (Fantastically unlikely, that last.) I don't have the score but on a quick look at the only credible-looking parts on IMSLP it seems to me that it is two cornets – these are labelled Pistons in the parts, as in "Cornet a Pistons". I'd like to claim that I have incredibly strong and reliable professional instincts telling me that it must be two cornets; unfortunately, I don't got those ... would you accept instead my weak and unreliable professional instincts telling me that it must be two cornets? Sorry, I know it sounds terribly nitpicky but it's just Reading Rong™ for me. Anyway, I'm supporting regardless so, whilst it would be nice to sort this out, it is not a showstopper. Thanks and best to all DBaK (talk) 12:16, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nothing wrong with being nitpicky, especially at FAC. Yes, Offenbach (like Sullivan after him) wrote for two cornets, but the cornet parts are now almost always played on trumpets (not always an advantage as trumpets can be too dominating). I'll go and clarify this. Thank you very much for the support here. Tim riley talk 13:40, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you! Yes, I am well aware of the modern substitutions, due to my misspent, ah, leesure time, but I am very happy that it is now correct here, and I love your explanatory footnote. Cheers DBaK (talk) 15:17, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support An entertaining read, particularly enjoyed the illustrations. Have you considered a picture (or DVD screenshot) of a modern production? All around great article! Grey Wanderer (talk) 17:48, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for that support. I'd love to add a modern picture, but I haven't found one that is acceptable under Wikipedia's strict rules on copyright. Tim riley talk 18:13, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Dudley[edit]

  • The images are brilliant.
  • Thank you (and thanks to the Bibliothèque nationale de France, too). Tim riley talk 14:30, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "It continues to be revived in the 21st century and remains the most often produced of his operas." This sounds a bit awkward to me. How about "It is his most frequently performed opera and continues to be revived in the 21st century."
  • "In the last decade of the 19th century the Paris cabarets the Moulin Rouge and Folies Bergère adopted the "Galop infernal" from the culminating scene of the opera as the music to accompany the can-can, with which the tune became, and has remained, widely associated in the public mind in France and abroad." I found this difficult to follow at first. Maybe "In the last decade of the 19th century the Paris cabarets the Moulin Rouge and Folies Bergère adopted the music from the "Galop infernal" from the culminating scene of the opera to accompany the can-can and ever since then the tune has been popularly associated with the dance."
  • "because the actors, who could not tire the public, were themselves exhausted". You have given the French original, but should you not also spell out that it is your translation?
    Happy to do so, but I can't think how and where to add that fact. I don't fancy adding "Translation by Tim riley" – it would look big-headed and show-off, and still less do I fancy adding it nine times (there being that many of my translations during the article). Any thoughts? Throughout I have made a rule of footnoting the original French versions of all translations made by me; where I have quoted someone else's published translation I have not sought to quote the French originals. Tim riley talk 14:30, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think this needs a ruling from a higher authority such as Ian. My view is that you need to be immodest and add a note "All translations from the French which are otherwise unattributed are by Tim Riley". Dudley Miles (talk) 15:20, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Good idea. This can't be the first time the question has come up, and there must surely be a precedent. Can't find anything in the MoS, but then one seldom can, I find. Tim riley talk 16:21, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't see that it's necessary. When we write a plot summary, we don't say "synopsis by so-and-so". Similarly, the translation could be modified by multiple editors over time. -- Ssilvers (talk) 18:33, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • But Tim has said synopsis by so-and-so by citing it to Crémieux etc. Translation should be similarly referenced. Dudley Miles (talk) 18:44, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think plot summaries should have a cited source. Tim riley talk 19:11, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Tim riley: Laying out @MOS:PLOTSOURCE, the plot summary for a work, on a page about that work, does not need to be sourced with in-line citations, as it is generally assumed that the work itself is the primary source for the plot summary; in full recognition of the fact that this is of no help whatsoever :) ——SerialNumber54129 07:04, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "However, editors are encouraged to add sourcing if possible, as this helps discourage original research" I try to follow this. Tim riley talk 08:12, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't remember this coming up before but I might check around for precedents if there's nothing in MOS... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:48, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you, Ian. As I read the MoS (MOS:FOREIGNQUOTE} it doesn't specify that D-I-Y translations should be attributed – only that the original words should also be quoted – to make the translation verifiable, I assume – which is done here. But if you can throw any further light on the matter from your experience with earlier FACs it would be most helpful. Tim riley talk 08:12, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Offenbach expanded it further, adding new ballets" Would not "ballet sequences" - as you describe them below - be clearer? Also you refer to "new" ballets but you have not previously said that there were any.
  • "Aristée enters. He is in reality Pluton (Pluto)" "Aristée enters disguised as a shepherd"?
  • Thank you for these, Dudley. Very useful indeed. I look forward to more. Tim riley talk 14:30, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "displaying, in Faris's analysis, many of his own hallmarks" I am not sure what "own" is doing here. It sounds as if it means Faris's hallmarks.
  • I've changed to "personal": I'm seeking to contrast them with the parodies of other composers' styles mentioned just before. Tim riley talk 19:09, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Schipperges, Thomas. "Jacques Offenbach's Galop infernal from Orphée aux enfers. A Musical Analysis" I see that you have also translated from German. (What a horribly talented person you are!) You have translated the title of the article but you did not translate French titles. You need to be consistent on this.
  • Happily – my German being even rustier than my French – I was only cribbing from the abstract at the top of the article, which is in English. I think I should leave the "in German" tag there though, as most of the article (16 pages of it) is in German, but I'll remove it if you think I ought. Tim riley talk 19:09, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • If your source is an abstract in English then I think you should delete the 'in German' tag. Dudley Miles (talk) 21:58, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Offenbach's music defies all musicological methods". I am not sure what this means - cannot be analysed?
  • I take it to mean can't be analysed by the normal academic methods of musicologists, but I shouldn't like to gloss the comment. Tim riley talk 19:09, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would wikilink "dramaturgy"
  • Done. The MoS discourages links from quotations, but the rule is so widely flouted that I doubt it anyone will object. Tim riley talk 19:09, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Orphée aux enfers was the first of Offenbach's major works to have a chorus." I thought you said that there were no earlier full scale operas due to licensing laws.
  • Indeed I did, but I, and more to the point the experts, would class some of his earlier one-acters as at least as major of some of his less convincing 2- or 3-acters. An English analogy: in the G&S canon I'd call Trial by Jury major, and possibly not The Grand Duke (not a word to any Savoyard). Tim riley talk 19:09, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "By the time of Offenbach's centenary, in 1919, it had become clear that predictions of the ephemerality of his works had been wrong" You cite for this the Times and NY Times 1880 obituaries and Hauger's article on the change in attitude towards Offenbach in English journals between 1880 and 1897. I think you should make clear that the predictions were by English speakers. Also your source says the change came before 1900, not by 1919. Are some of the comments in Hauger's article worth quoting?
  • I'll have a think about this and report back tomorrow. Tim riley talk 19:09, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've revised the opening of this section to reflect critical hostility in France after Offenbach's death as well as sniffy comments from abroad. The opening sentence should, I suppose, strictly be in the previous section, but it seems to sit better where it is, and the narrative flows better, I think. There is much of interest in Hauger's article, but nothing that cries out to be quoted. Tim riley talk 21:16, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Section 'Continental Europe' - to be pedantic this should be 'Continental Europe outside France'.
  • True, but it's a bit of a mouthful, and unless you feel strongly about it I'd prefer the shorter, if less accurate, term: I think its import is clear enough. Tim riley talk 19:09, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Breslau - I would say in Poland.
  • I think it was in Germany, or rather Prussia, in 1859. I'd rather not add "now in Poland" or suchlike: a bit of a diversion, I think. Tim riley talk 19:09, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "(both given in French)". Were the producitons mentioned earlier translations? If so, you should says so.
  • "in a version by J. R. Planché titled Orpheus in the Haymarket" Presumably English language version?
  • "In 2019 ENO announced a new production with an English text by Tom Morris." I prefer ballet to opera but I will have to try to see this.
  • Hmm. In my experience operetta doesn't work well in the Coliseum. Just too huge a theatre, I think, and all the subtlety is lost. Still, one never knows. I shall certainly go, expecting the worst and hoping for the best, and the great Sir Willard is playing Jupiter, and that should be worth seeing and hearing. Tim riley talk 19:09, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "New World" This term does not include Australia. Maybe 'Outside Europe'
  • Well, I'm blest. I've learnt something today. As a wine drinker I certainly include Australia and NZ in "New World". But "Outside Europe" is fine, and done. Tim riley talk 19:09, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Two more German productions were given: December 1863 with Fritze, Knorr, Klein and Frin von Hedemann and December 1866 with Brügmann, Knorr, Klein and Frin Steglich-Fuchs." Where? This is in the New World section.
  • It was in New York. There was an astonishing amount of foreign-language theatre in New York in those days. Melting pot and all that, I suppose. Tim riley talk 19:09, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you, Dudley. I think I've addressed all your points with the one exception, which I'll mull over tonight and report back on. Tim riley talk 19:09, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you, Dudley, both for the support and the very helpful suggestions, above. I shall not lose sight of the question of attributing D-I-Y translations. – Tim riley talk 09:07, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]


  • Full support, infernally good. Now, what about raising the composer to the same level.....--Smerus (talk) 14:54, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you very much Smerus. Your support is greatly appreciated. I am already on record as signed up to an ascent of Mount Offenbach with you when your other commitments allow. I look forward to it. Tim riley talk 15:01, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

SN54129[edit]

"Tasty Tasty Very Very Tasty. It's Very Tasty".
Forced to omit much of the technical stuff I'm afraid.
Lead and Background/first productions
  • "extensively revised and expanded in a..."—"into a" or "as a"? Tim riley talk 07:53, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Any of the three prepositions would work equally well here, I think. I'm inclined to leave this as drawn. Tim riley talk 07:53, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "He is glad to be rid of his wife, Eurydice, and has to be bullied by Public Opinion into trying to rescue her from the underworld"—for those of us brought up on Quadrophenia ("These ain't blues! Let's do 'is motor!", etc), recast as "He is glad to be rid of his wife, Eurydice, who has been taken to the underworld, but is bullied by Public Opinion into trying to rescue her", perhaps; explaining where she's gone before telling us he has to follow her.
  • Oh, the can-can, I've heard of that. Any reason it's not linked? Unless you're worried that most people have heard of it also might immediately click away... :)
  • Linked. (It was linked earlier, but I must have lost the link when acting on an earlier reviewer's suggestions.) Tim riley talk 07:53, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Perhaps redlink Henri Tayau? Or are members of the Bouffes not equally notable? (Honest question—I found bugger all on him online, but you know your sources)
  • I'd write a brief article on Tayau myself, but there simply is nothing online or in reference books in English. No prospect of an article as far as I can see. Tim riley talk 07:53, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "His shows were lavishly and expensively mounted"—does those mean his productions in general were, or that each individual showing of MitO were?
  • redrawn
  • You might want to open with a sentence briefly explaining exactly who Offenbach was; for example, you mention him having to keep his creditors at bay, but there's been no intimation until then that he had any reason to.
  • "irreverent public ripostes"—gorgeous. But the WP:READER will be slobbering at that; can we have some examples of how they (I imagine, in modern parlance) took the piss? Human interest and all that...and make sure Dank gets one or two of 'em in its TFA blurb  :)
  • The English sources do not elaborate much. Offenbach wrote a letter to Le Figaro in macaronic prose, mixing German and French, but though this was possibly the height of cheek in 1859 I doubt if your putative slobberer will find the fact especially enlivening. Tim riley talk 07:53, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "for that theatre"—I wonder if this is necessary? The theatre has been mentioned only a few words earlier, and there's no harm in removing a minor repetition.
  • I think the words are necessary to make it clear that it broke records for that theatre, and not the theatre in general. Tim riley talk 07:53, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

<interlude>

Editions / overture & galop
  • "The Offenbach Edition Keck"—is that the name, or could it be "Keck's edition"?
  • The name of Keck's edition is indeed the Offenbach Edition Keck. Tim riley talk 07:53, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Bizarre that the Orphée aux enfers doesn't have it's own article, considering it contains what must be one of the most famous pieces of music in the world (for a few minutes anyway).I do believe SchroCat used it as his Nokia ring tone. And finally, a link to the can-can! It might otherwise have encouragé les poilus, eh?  :)

<interlude>

  • "Thinly disguised satire of the régime of Napoleon III"—baldly, how? This could do with some context. Bearing in mind I above suggested a few lines on Offenbach himself under "Background", I now suggest a short opening paragraph to the section which describes Offenbach's life until now and the social/political context; viz, why only a decade after the 1848 revolutions was he the target of popular disdain. Probably only need to be a few lines to set the scene.
  • The sources do not really elaborate. I can well imagine why Jupiter was seen as a sly dig at Napoleon III – head of a régime noted more for show than for moral rectitude – but that would be OR. And as I have said in the text, the critics at the time either didn't think it was political satire or (more likely) prudently turned a blind eye to it, but I shouldn't like to go further than that. Tim riley talk 07:53, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • My recollection of the BBC production mentioned is that they were all dressed (or changed into) Second Empire clothes, I think Denis Quilley was made to look quite like Napoleon (III). PS, the Mellers book I mentioned below may help. Cg2p0B0u8m (talk) 13:30, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Your memory does not deceive you: Quilley was got up as Napoleon III briefly (though in Graeco-Roman dress for the main action). The version took some liberties, including a verse for Mars in the Metamorphoses Rondo. Thoroughly enjoyable, though. Tim riley talk 08:43, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Any reason Toko isn't linked?
  • No mention of the word anywhere in the article. Tim riley talk 07:53, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Later, penny having dropped. We don't link capitals, including Tokyo (MoS). Tim riley talk 18:27, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note #2 is interesting and relevant enough to be inline, methinks.
  • I wondered about that, but eventually decided it wasn't central to the main narrative. It is so tempting to throw in interesting titbits like this, but the article already weighs in at 5,300+ words, and it is as well to keep to the essentials, I think. Tim riley talk 07:53, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hope this is helpful Tim riley, and that you are, as ever, keeping well. Take care! ——SerialNumber54129 17:28, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for these points. Addressed as outlined above. Hope reciprocally that you are flourishing. Tim riley talk 07:53, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

some final thoughts[edit]

I have checked on Wiki Commons media section and it seems that the cartoon of a garlanded Offenbach as Orpheus, and the Gustave Doré sketch of the finale of the opera (Keck's 'rave') are not available there, which is a shame as they would have been an addition... I wondered if, as the article mentions 'can-can' several times, that it needs a note at the bottom just to say that the only mention of cancan in the picee is when Jupiter speaks it in Olympus in the sense of 'bavardage malveillant'. Lastly, by accident I just discovered a book by Wilfrid Mellers entitled The masks of Orpheus - Seven stages in the story of the European music (Manchester University Press, 1987). I am only dipping in at present, but there is a very pertinent and perceptive section on pages 138 to 142 about the Offenbach work which I recommend and could provide good points for the article. If you are unable to track the book down I can try to add some of the better bits in.Cg2p0B0u8m (talk) 13:24, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know that one of Mellers's books and will order it at the British Library. He knows his stuff, though his prose is apt to be heavy going. Tim riley talk 15:51, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm. Mellers perpetrates numerous errors in his plot summary (and his sociological hypothesising and his prose are both as dire as one might expect from a student of F. R. Leavis) but he makes a couple of good points about the music, which I have added. On the can-can point, it is true that the librettist and composer did not apply the term to the galop, but reviewers did from the outset if I recall correctly from trawling the press coverage. I think the point is sufficiently made that Offenbach called it a galop. Tim riley talk 16:41, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I know I am being awkward what with sending you off on a goose chase after Emeritus Professor Mellers and not liking Hughes and Taraskin, however, in the table of musical numbers, second column, Cybèle, Pomone, Flore, Ceres, are listed for the Rondeau des métamorphoses although they are not up in the cast list. Also Ceres is given with English spelling although other characters have French, and dieux is given with upper case at the end of the table. Apologies if I missed a perfect explanation for this... (Cg2p0B0u8m (talk) 20:55, 25 May 2019 (UTC))[reply]
I took the view that the minor gods are covered by "Gods, goddesses, shepherds, shepherdesses, lictors and spirits in the underworld" at the end of the cast lists, and left that bit as I inherited it, but now you home in on it I agree it is anomalous to mention them by name in the listing for the rondo without mentioning them individually in the dramatis personae. Cybèle and Pomone (3rd couplet) and Flore and Cérès (5th) now added. The full 1874 cast list also listed Thalie, Euterpe, Clio, Polymnie, Euterpe and Érato among others, and so I've added "muses" to the omnium gatherum at the end of the cast list. All your tweaks now duly twuck, I think. Most helpful: many thanks. Tim riley talk 08:31, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I really will shut up now. Cg2p0B0u8m (talk) 20:30, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I've enjoyed and profited from your comments throughout, mon général. Could I ask you to say if you think the article as now revised should be supported for FA? The FAC coordinators will, I think, be glad to know your view. Tim riley talk 21:38, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, of course, in spite of my contributions, it must be worthy of recognition! Thanks again for your hard work. Cg2p0B0u8m (talk) 16:45, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much for that, and for your support and valuable suggestions throughout my overhaul of the article. Tim riley talk 18:46, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Image review - pass[edit]

  • File:Sven-Erik Wikstrom-Elisabeth Soderstrom.jpg requires a USPD tag, regarding which I fear you may struggle. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:18, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I rather suspected as much. This was a legacy of an earlier version and I can quite happily live without it. Deleted. That done, are you happy to sign off the review? I may look for another PD-US-1923-abroad/PD in France image from the ever-wonderful Bibliothèque nationale de France. Thanks very much for doing the review. Tim riley talk 18:00, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
All images are appropriately licensed. Ping me if you do add any further. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:17, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Gog, pinging, having added a replacement image: the cover of an 1876 theatre programme. (Sorry to pester you.) – Tim riley talk 19:02, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It looks fine. The pass stands. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:41, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you so much for reviewing. Tim riley talk 06:49, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sources review[edit]

  • No spotchecks carried out
  • All links to sources are working, according to the external links checker tool
  • Formats
  • Ref 4 is to a JSTOR article and ought to bear the subscription template. See for example ref 106
  • I've omitted the template because JSTOR makes articles as old as this available to all, without charge or subscription.
  • Same applies to ref 109
  • Ditto.
  • Ref 150 has a peculiar date; "3 August 3 1985"
  • Oops! Now corrected.
  • Ref 151 should have the subscription template, per 150
  • Indeed. Done.
  • The article is very extensively referenced and sourced, and the sources appear to meet all the FA criteria for quality and reliability. Brianboulton (talk) 21:06, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you very much, BB, for the review. All points now addressed, I hope satisfactorily. Tim riley talk 09:34, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Orpheus_in_the_Underworld/archive1&oldid=900481228"