Talk:List of prominent operas/Archive 4

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5

Proposed model annotation

Here is my proposed model for annotations:

Don Giovanni (1787): a dramma giocoso (a form of opera with both comic and tragic moods) by Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart to an Italian libretto by Lorenzo da Ponte. Mozart’s treatment of the legend of the Spanish serial womanizer Don Juan is one of the most popular and frequently performed of all operas.

I also suggest we list the operas alphabetically by work rather than composer. Comments? - Kleinzach 13:03, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

The model for annotations is fine, but I see nothing wrong with continuing to list by composer. Moreschi 15:06, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Like the annotations, not sure why list by work? I like it by composer, but for no compelling reason. Mak (talk) 16:12, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
On second thought, perhaps the annotation is a bit much. Perhaps work name, year, composer, possibly librettist (I never care about librettists but I probably should) and strongest reason for it being "important". so:
Don Giovanni (1787) by Mozart to a libretto by Lorenzo da Ponte is one of the most popular and frequently performed of all operas.
But you could convince me otherwise. Also, I don't see a reason for the year to be linked. Mak (talk) 16:19, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
It's difficult to say why an opera is important in one sentence, so I prefer having two. However we might shorten it by removing the (9 word) genre explanation. As for the year link - this is usually (over?) done on WP, no? - Kleinzach 19:47, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

There's something to be said for listing the operas chronologically, which would make sense once we add in the Historical works. It depends on what we think readers might want to use the list for (the $64,000 question!). Otherwise I'd go with listing by composer. No need to list librettists. Short citations are best. --GuillaumeTell 17:14, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

I like the idea of listing chronologically, perhaps with sections for Baroque etc. I assume the page is there to answer the beginner's question of what are the main. most important operas. Arranging by date/period would make the list easier to use. - Kleinzach 17:26, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
I also think a chronological listing would be good. In terms of the annotation, I interpret your example as having both a very brief synopsis and an explanation of importance. I don't mind more than one sentence to adequately explain the work's place on the list, however I think a synopsis is better left to the article. And yes, dates are over-linked, but according to the Manual of style dates should pretty much only be linked when they are a full date (day, month, year) in order to avoid style wars. Mak (talk) 20:22, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
Good. I think we are very close to a meeting of minds on this. It will take a further process of editing to turn this into a finished article. It may be a good idea to regard all decisions at this stage as provisional. I hope we can be clear about where we are going and maintain a common purpose. From that perspective it may be better to press ahead and then let other people evaluate what we have done with the article. - Kleinzach 22:07, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Operas to add?

I'd also like to suggest some additions:

Gershwin: Porgy and Bess

Lehar: The Merry Widow

Meyerbeer: Les Huguenots

Offenbach: Orpheus in the Underworld

  • Nay Moreschi 15:04, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Nay La Belle Helene would be a better choice among Offenbach's satirical operas --GuillaumeTell 16:43, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Aye to La belle Helene instead of Orpheus in the Underworld. - Kleinzach 20:16, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Schoenberg: Moses und Aron

  • This one doesn't have an article as yet, so Nay. Moreschi 15:04, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
That's 'cause I deleted it as a copyvio. 'Cause I'm a jerk. All the more reason to have it on the list, so someone writes it. Mak (talk) 16:11, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

R Strauss: Arabella

Sullivan: The Mikado

  • Nay. I love G and S and The Mikado, but "Important"? Moreschi 15:04, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
Surely one of their operettas should be important enough? Perhaps The Pirates of Penzance? Mak (talk) 16:11, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
I second that, but would vote for HMS Pinafore, also a masterpiece of operatic parody, but more of a pioneer than The Pirates--GuillaumeTell 16:43, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Aye to HMS Pinafore' instead of The Mikado. - Kleinzach 20:16, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Aye to Pinafore. Mak (talk) 20:22, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Weill: Die Dreigroschenoper

  • Nay Moreschi 15:04, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Aye, though I think I'd prefer Mahagonny --GuillaumeTell 16:43, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Please register an aye or a nay! - Kleinzach 13:37, 24 June 2006 (UTC)


--Prokofiev The Fiery Angel? Atavi 16:41, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Timescale

May I reiterate that I can't see why all this should be proceeding at the pace of an express-train. Some people have other things to do and may not be watching this page anyway. A note on the Project's Talk page would be good, and a deadline of week or so for those interested to register votes would also be good. --GuillaumeTell 16:48, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

GuillaumeTell makes an excellent point. Let's chill for a little Kleinzach. :) Mak (talk) 16:56, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
I have purged/added items above on which we are unanimous and left all the others untouched. I must say getting everybody involved in solving the problem of this article has been most creative, given the history of disagreement on how to deal with this article. - Kleinzach 19:23, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
In reply to GuillaumeTell, I suggest the group of five of us carry on with editing the article but regard the results as provisional. When we have got the format right and a list which is about 90% acceptable to each of us, we can then ask the Opera Project as a whole to comment/vote on the selection as appropriate. How about that? If we ask people to get involved now, I think they will just get confused by the various voting lists we've produced. - Kleinzach 09:14, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

More to be purged/added

  • I'd include an opera by Glinka (probably Ruslan & Ludmilla) - he pioneered Russian opera as we know it.
    Aye. - Kleinzach 17:32, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
  • I'd delete Prince Igor - not often performed outside Russia, and not really famous for anything in particular.
    Keep. Famous for Borodin? - Kleinzach 17:32, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
  • I'd delete Adriana Lecouvreur - can't understand why this is in the list - and Andrea Chenier. Cav & Pag and Puccini are enough Verismo.
    Keep as significant Italian rep. - Kleinzach 17:32, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
  • I'd add Katya Kabanova, IMO the best of Janacek's late operas. If that's too many Janaceks, I'd delete The Cunning Little Vixen.
    Aye to both suggestions. - Kleinzach 17:32, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Exchanged. - Kleinzach 23:43, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Guillaume Tell (probably the first Grand Opera) ought to be in, but I would say that, wouldn't I?
    Aye. - Kleinzach 17:32, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Comments welcome. --GuillaumeTell 17:07, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Agree absolutely to all. Incidentally, the current page seems to me to have a definite pro-Italian opera bias. Could someone please explain to me the importance of Pagliacci and Cavalleria Rusticana? Please excuse my ignorance in this matter. Moreschi 17:29, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
Cavalleria Rusticana is the first verismo opera. Both Cav and Pag are frequently performed as vehicles for star tenors from Caruso to Domingo. - Kleinzach 17:34, 24 June 2006 (UTC)


Merging 'Historically significant operas' into main list?

Shall we merge the 'Historically significant operas' into the main list? Aye or Nay?

  • Aye. - Kleinzach 22:16, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
    Yes (All my Ayes are sold off) --GuillaumeTell 00:17, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
Hmm. (Some ayes are pretty than others.) The list is now merged. - Kleinzach 08:00, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Chronological arrangement

I've rearranged the list chronologically on the basis that there seemed to be a consensus above. I decided to omit the individual Ring operas and just list the first whole cycle at Bayreuth, but otherwise everything that was present when I started should still be there.

Let the annotations start! (We still have some question-marks up above, and, as I did the rearranging, I started to wonder what there is to say about, say, Ballo or Forza. --GuillaumeTell 18:03, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Great to have a chronological list. I suggest we make it even more accessible by breaking it into sections. Two possibilities: (1) Baroque, Classic, Romantic, Modern (or whatever), and (2) by century. I prefer by century as it is unambiguous, but I'd be interested to hear other people's ideas! - Kleinzach 21:54, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
Re operas we think shouldn't be on the list (in GT's case possibly Ballo and Forza, in my case maybe Clemenza and Idomeneo), the best thing would surely be to leave then without annotation. Unadopted operas can then be eliminated later. - Kleinzach 23:31, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Pedantic question

Should it be Foreign title (English title) (Composer name) ? Or what? It doesn't seem very consistent. Mak (talk) 18:14, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

I haven't altered the titles - see the previous version of the article. They follow the titles of the articles, and those follow what it says at Wikipedia:WikiProject Opera#Operas: original vs English translation, amplified by Wikipedia:WikiProject_Opera/English_names (the former needs to be updated to reflect the latter): English title if there is a well-known one, or if the original title is in Russian or an Eastern European or Scandinavian language. Otherwise original title. --GuillaumeTell 20:51, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
It's true that some (original language) titles are followed by translations (e.g. Die Entführung aus dem Serail) and some aren't (e.g. La liberazione di Ruggiero). Likewise some English titles are followed by originals (e.g. The Barber of Seville) and some are not (e.g. The Bartered Bride). I don't think this is a big problem - we are going to have annotations which will mean changes anyway . - Kleinzach 21:47, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Annotations

I have added an annotation for Don Giovanni (modified from above). I have noted the language of the opera (which I think should be included) and also the name of the librettist (which may be of limited interest in many cases, but significant here). I hope we can be flexible about content. Different operas can be described in different ways. - Kleinzach 22:15, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Just a note to say that, because this is a list (albeit selective) of important operas, it is imperative that an annotation should say why the opera is important, rather than just describing it. --GuillaumeTell 00:05, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Layout

The 'A heading' is now '1787 (Prague)' with the opera entry itself indented. This seems awkward to me giving undue prominence to the premiere city over the title of the opera, e.g.

  • 1790 (Vienna)
  • Così fan tutte (Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart)

Can we change this to:

  • Così fan tutte (Vienna 1790) blah blah blah . . .

Kleinzach 22:15, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

My view is that if we are doing this in chronological order, then the date must be the first data element, otherwise it isn't clear why the operas are arranged in the order that they are (and, no, not everyone will read what it says at the top). I agree, however, that the premiere city looks a bit too prominent. So let's put it all in one string thus:
Or, of course, we could omit the premiere city entirely.
BTW, when there is more than one opera for the same year, I checked to see which came first. Peter Grimes and War and Peace was a tie, though the date that really counts as the premiere of the latter is a matter for discussion!. --GuillaumeTell 00:31, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
Yes, the one string format above is good, though perhaps working the composers' name into the body text? Giving the city is worthwhile, I think. Any other opinions? Can we adopt this? - Kleinzach 08:57, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
Per Kleinzach, it'd be nice to have the composer outside of parentheses. Otherwise we'll have things like:
How about:
Fireplace 19:54, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
I agree but that brings us back to the point Makemi made about English translations. We only have four of them now. Can we delete them? I think that will make the page look better. - Kleinzach 20:08, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
I've deleted them. I think there were six, actually. I'm now going to make a start on the one-stringing operation. --GuillaumeTell 21:18, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Work in progress template?

Incidentally, we probably ought to put some sort of "work-in-progress" template on the article, lest someone complain about its semi - completed state or dig up the list entirely (if such a thing exists). It's all looking much better than it was. Moreschi 15:39, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Not sure one exists. Have you seen an example? - Kleinzach 18:11, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
I've seen one for translations-in-progress, but not for something like this. It hardly matters, but if such a thing does exist or can be created then it probably would be useful. Moreschi 19:59, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Purge round three

I propose we also remove:

Reason - in all cases - obscurity. (Sant'Alessio doesn't have an article of course.) - Kleinzach 19:16, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

First of all, Amahl isn't at all obscure, as any American opera-lover will tell you. Second, all of these were in the "historical" category when the list was of Famous Operas, and they all have reasons for being listed as Important, unlike most of the rest (at present). I can't see that "first opera composed by a woman" is worth bothering with, but the reasons for listing the others do still seem to me to be valid. (And isn't the Landi called Il Sant'Alessio? That's what it says in the Oxford Dictionary of Opera. As for it not having an article, it would be very easy to create one by using the two paras of the Landi article which deals with the opera - which, BTW, also makes a very good case for this work to be considered Important.) --GuillaumeTell 21:24, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
Correct me if I am wrong, but I don't think any Menotti has been done by a major American company in recent years except The Consul (which Washington Opera did in 2001). Regarding Sant'Alessio, that's the title in Grove (Margaret Murata). If you want to make the case for its importance, that will be great! - Kleinzach 22:20, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
And correct me if I am wrong, but I believe that Amahl can be found somewhere on American TV every Christmas. The case for Sant'Alessio has already been made, and I will sort out its article (in both senses) tomorrow. --GuillaumeTell 23:57, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
Fair enough. If Amahl is that popular then we should include it. But what about The Old Maid and the Thief? We currently have 2 Menottis and no Henze, Messaien, Dallapiccola, Tippett, Barber, Bernstein, Stockhausen etc. - Kleinzach 08:49, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

I think both Liberazione and Amahl should stay. I do think that the first opera by a woman is important, it is also the first opera published by a woman, just five years after the first opera published, and was long believed to be the first opera performed outside of Italy (haven't been able to find the arguments on that one, but it's interesting, and very important to the history of opera if true). In addition it is the first opera to use a compositional scheme where groups of characters have their own modes/hexachords, which is pretty cool. It's obscure because it's an early-seventeenth century opera by a woman. Which is also a large part of why it's important (it's also an opera by someone who performed in the first opera ever, which I think is also important). Now, IMHO, Amahl is not obscure, and may not be done by the big companies, but according to operabase it is being performed around the world. I think perhaps it is mostly done by smaller companies, or by amateur groups, but I don't think smaller-scale operas should be excluded from the list. I think if this is a list of important operas "obscurity" shouldn't exclude something, because an opera may be obscure or rarely performed, but still pivotal to the history of opera or art music. Mak (talk) 23:06, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Good. Then would it be possible to add a couple of sentences per item to that effect on the article? By the way, I see you contributed to the Peri Euridice - why are we not listing Dafne? Any particular reason? Should we list it? - Kleinzach 23:39, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Dafne and Euridice

Re:Dafne - we should probably list it, but as far as I know there is very very little information available about it (I haven't looked very hard). I'll try to add a better annotations to those two soon, and I'll see what I can find on Dafne. Mak (talk) 01:38, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

From reading Grove (and WP!) my impression is that Dafne is more fragmentary and Euridice less, however it does seem to be acknowledged that Dafne is an opera (and the first one). Is it worth listing both? (After all we don't have a huge number of early operas.) Or just one of them? This is more your field than mine! - Kleinzach 08:49, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Sections

The chronological list is looking great and getting better all the time - thanks to the annotaters! But to be properly reader-friendly IMO it needs sections. How about: The 17th century, The 18th century or alternatively 1600 - 1700, 1701 - 1800, etc. ?

Some books have thematic periods (e.g. The Rough Guide to Opera with The Birth of Opera: Monteverdi to Purcell, Baroque:Vivaldi to Handel etc.) but this is accomplished by arranging by composer chronologically, thereby avoiding the (inconvenient) overlaps (e.g. Verdi extending into verismo etc.). Any thoughts on this? - Kleinzach 10:03, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Sections, definitely. I'd prefer the "1600 - 1700" format. And I don't want to go back to listing by composer. --GuillaumeTell 10:37, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
I've done this - and invite comments on how it looks. - Kleinzach 11:03, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
I like the current version. One byproduct is that it gives the reader an instant visual picture about which time periods were the most prolific for important operas. This could have wound up misleading (if, say, we had a bunch of "first opera to appear on television" entries that overshadowed the late 19th century), but I think it's about right as is. Fireplace 15:21, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
I'm somewhat late in catching up with this List, but I think that the overall layout now looks excellent.
Vivaverdi 18:39, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the kind words. Please feel free to contribute more notes on individual operas! - Kleinzach 19:54, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Rameau

I feel that Rameau ought to be represented here. Which is his most important opera? --GuillaumeTell 21:49, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

I wrote the list below before I saw your question. Anyway there is my answer! - Kleinzach 21:57, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

More suggestions

My feeling is that the list still needs some additions at either end, so here are my suggestions:

Lully: Armide

We clearly need something by Lully, so I'll say yes. Mak (talk) 22:53, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
Added. - Kleinzach 00:44, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Rameau: Les Indes galantes

Yes, if this is his most important. --GuillaumeTell 23:38, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
Difficult question because he wrote both opera-ballets and tragedies en musique. If an opera-ballet is acceptable Les Indes galantes should be OK. If not, it may be Hippolyte et Aricie (no article) or Dardanus (not much there). - Kleinzach 00:30, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
We need something or other by Rameau, so yes. Mak (talk) 22:53, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
Added. - Kleinzach 00:44, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Pepusch: The Beggar's Opera

No. --GuillaumeTell 23:38, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
Perhaps, interesting example of using traditional songs in a pretty literal way, involved some important personalities of the time, political statement, etc. It needs a better article, but I think it has a place here, especially because of its role in Augustan drama. Mak (talk) 22:53, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
The article is entirely about the drama not the music. Perhaps we should review this later if the article is improved? - Kleinzach 00:59, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

and

Schoenberg: Moses und Aron (now a stub)

Yes. --GuillaumeTell 23:38, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
Added. I believe we had agreement about this earlier anyway. - Kleinzach 09:29, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
Ditto to Kleinzach. Mak (talk) 22:53, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Messaien: Saint-François d'Assise

I don't think so. How about Ligeti's Le Grand Macabre?
Antithesis? But in the same league as Messiaen? Quote 'the greatest French composer of the 20th century after Debussy' unquote - and Saint-François is his major work! - Kleinzach
I think yes to Saint-François d'Assise. There was a very well publicized and reviewed new production of this a few years back (SF and...?), and I think "Important because currently making headlines" should count. (Fireplace)
Added. - Kleinzach 00:55, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Henze: Elegy for Young Lovers

No. --GuillaumeTell 23:38, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
Can anyone suggest a better Henze candidate? - Kleinzach 09:29, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Please give these the usual thumbs up/down treatment. - Kleinzach 21:56, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Also please note, the last section now has 8 English operas, 1 French, 1 German and 1 Russian. I would hope we can restore some balance here. - Kleinzach 15:40, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Capitalization

In the squibs for the earlier period operas, the descriptions start with a lower case letter, while later they switch to upper case. Do we want to standardize? Best regards, Ssilvers 22:36, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

A joke perhaps?

The Aida note (by Ssilvers) now reads: A Pharoh's daughter [sic], an enslaved Nubian princess, a love triangle among the pyramids, parades of elephants, horses and camels, and a dramatic story, with music to match, all guarantee an exciting night at the opera.

Hmm. IMO we are providing information here, not advertizing circuses or roadshows! WP is an encyclopedia.

In this case we are explaining why the operas are important. The main point about Aida is that it's much better opera than people realize. Being used (abused?) as a spectacle has not helped it's reputation. It is one of the greatest of all operas, arguably one of Verdi's top three (with Otello and Falstaff). - Kleinzach 08:17, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

I'd agree that a few of the annotations sound like a publicist's blurb, eg. This operetta among operettas has it all: risque situations, practical jokes, mistaken identities, everybody getting thrown in jail, and the ultimate Viennese ball, where everyone and anyone can join in on the musical festivities. for Fledermaus and the sly aside We won't reveal what happens in the Epilogue for Hoffmann. The annotations are meant to explain why the opera is important. --Alexs letterbox 00:37, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
It says at the bottom of the Editing window: "If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly or redistributed by others, do not submit it." So let's edit mercilessly instead of complaining. --GuillaumeTell 10:28, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
Criticism - in the talk pages - is not about complaining, it's about maintaining standards. That is why we have talk pages. In a collaborative enterprise like this it's important to have everybody on board and wanting to go in the same direction. Up to now we have been remarkably successful. (My impression is that this has been the most dynamic of all the arts projects.) I've been disappointed to see the kind of dumbing down that's appeared recently. I hope we can get back to the same high levels that we've been working to for the past three or four months. - Kleinzach 11:00, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
OK. I was thinking of amending the annotation to the Marriage of Figaro, which doesn't seem to me to explain why the opera is important. --GuillaumeTell 21:35, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
Fine. Why not go for it? This is an opera which different people like for different reasons. The note (which I wrote) emphasizes the politics. You may have other ideas, of course. However I hope you will prioritize writing about the operas that you particularly suggested or voted for. - Kleinzach 07:37, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
The operas listed in this section are listed because at least two wikipedians voted "Aye", so they should know why they so voted. I tried to say something more than "popular" or "best loved" or has "famous arias", which is all most of these annotations say. I agree that several of the annotations I wrote are rather "markety", so by all means, go ahead and edit them, or delete them and write them yourselves. Kleinzach has certainly convinced me to stop contributing.
And, by the way, doesn't Verdi seem to be overrepresented on this list (with 12 operas)? Donizetti only has four. Also, I'm curious: Why do you think Aida is greater than Traviata or Rigoletto, for instance? Ssilvers 22:34, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
All of the twelve are in performance today, however, are they all equally important? The same could be said of Puccini. Butterfly is a wonderful opera, but it is important? It was not the first example of its style, it contains relatively few arias/duets, and is not revolutionary musically. Therefore, its importance is only justified by its popularity. The same argument could be made with almost any work. --Alexs letterbox 23:58, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
Different operas are important for different things. Each one of the operas on the list has essential characteristics and we have to capture them in a couple of sentences, providing links (the more the better) for the reader to follow up. (To do this it's important to actually read the article on the opera before writing here.) We should also only write about operas that we really believe in. (The list is less than perfect and it should be possible to eliminate some items that no-one is interested in.)
Re Butterfly, it's a soprano's opera - both soprano dominated and an opera that sopranos really love to sing. Other Puccini have stronger tenor/baritone roles and sometimes more ensemble. There is also the amazingly successful orientalism, only outdone by Turandot. - Kleinzach 07:10, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Monteverdi etc.

I added the two other Monteverdi operas (Ulisse and Poppea). There's no way they should be absent from a list like this, both in terms of musical quality and historical importance. They've fully entered the contemporary repertoire and there are several different versions available on CD and DVD.

I'd also like to put Rameau's first opera Hippolite et Aricie in there. Plus maybe Heinrich Schuetz's "Daphne", as the first German opera, even though the music's now lost. But I'll wait for further comment on those.--Folantin 10:18, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes I am in favour of adding these titles, however it would be helpful if you could add a couple of sentences on each one explaining why they are important, giving links etc. (e.g. similar to the Mozart opera listings). - Kleinzach 15:35, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Done. --Folantin 18:47, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

That's strange, I can't see anything. Did you save your annotations? - Kleinzach 01:36, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

I'd also suggest changing the second Gluck opera from "Alceste" to "Iphigénie en Tauride", usually considered his masterpiece. Also, as for Handel, maybe I'd replace "Serse" with "Rinaldo" (1711), his first London opera, which has been getting a lot of attention recently (plus nearly everybody knows "Lascia ch'io pianga").--Folantin 18:47, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't hold any particular brief for "Alceste", but it is a seminal work in the history of opera, if only for Gluck's famous Preface. Actually, I don't see why we can't have more than two works by Gluck in the list - Verdi has twelve (at present). I'm still intending to annotate a whole lot more operas on the list, but am very busy at the moment, so it won't be till Monday at the earliest that I can give the job my full attention. --GuillaumeTell 21:26, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
I agree: keep Alceste (Gluck) and add Iphigénie en Tauride - but let's have some convincing annotations! Re Serse, everybody also knows 'Ombra mai fu'! How about changing Rodelinda for Rinaldo (opera)? - Kleinzach 01:38, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Three Glucks - fine with me! I'll change "Rodelinda" to "Rinaldo" too and sneak in a reference to Cavalli in the comments on Handel's "Serse". --Folantin 07:20, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

First Zulu Opera?

I feel like it'd be to our benefit to add "Princess Magogo kaDinuzulu", an opera by Mzilikazi Khumalo and Themba Msimnang that is considered the first Zulu opera. I've included a New York Times Reviewfor the benefit of those of you who haven't heard anything about it, whether you agree with the addition or not. --ClarineteBajo 19:45, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

The list here is very short and select. (We have some 500 articles on operas on WP.) If you wish to champion this opera - which is great - then the best way to start would be to write a WP article about it giving all the necessary background information. Good luck. - Kleinzach 01:33, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Operas to add: proposed addition of Thomas Ades' THE TEMPEST

After its London premiere in '04 and now its Santa Fe Opera American premiere, I'd propose it as an addition to the 21st C. list. I've now seen it twice in Santa Fe; shall see it a third time on 10 Aug 06. Am planning an article on it to link to the Thomas Ades page.

Agreement?

Objections?

Etc:?

Vivaverdi 03:29, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

How does it meet the criterion of "important"? Fireplace 03:34, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
It really is far too early to be putting such a recent opera into this list, which has recently been boiled down from a somewhat longer one (with some regrets by practically everyone about particular works). I'd second Kleinzach's suggestion in the section above - write the article first. (I'm not knocking this opera - I enjoyed it when it was on TV, BUT...!) --GuillaumeTell 11:21, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Addressing issues from AFD

I believe Die Fledermaus, Idomeneo and La fanciulla del West need to be rewritten by someone who is more familiar with them than I. --Alexs letterbox 06:49, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

I have re-written Idomeneo, though I am still not convinced it belongs on the list, and simply deleted the Fledermaus. I wonder what is wrong with the La fanciulla del West note? (I wrote it but I would be happy to edit if there is some problem I have overlooked . . .) - Kleinzach 09:52, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
I must confess to being unfamiliar with La faniculla del West (It was a choice between it and Siegfried last time I was in London - no decision). However, your point was "has a better score than many realize", something unverifiable. I made a mistake by listing it with the above as I already removed the offending statement. Sorry. --Alexs letterbox 10:18, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
Good. It seems most of the purple prose is now out which should meet most of the criticisms on the Afd page. - Kleinzach 12:58, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
As now written, the Fanciulla entry says:
Tightly integrated musically, it has fewer extractable highlights than the earlier operas, but is one of Puccini’s best works in the theatre.
One cannot easily tell how much of this is backed up by verifiable sources, and how much is just the personal opinion of a Wikipedia editor. The main Fanciulla article says:
It has less of the "showstopping" highlights that are characteristic of other Puccini operas, but is admired for being far better integrated than his earlier work.
This too, is far less than optimal. It is unclear whether a citable source said that, or if it's just a Wikipedia editor's opinion of what those sources ought to say — "but is admired" are weasel words. Who "admired" it that way? The phrase "one of Puccini's best works in the theatre" seems to have been added just for this article; the main Fanciulla article does not say that.
Although I voted keep, I strongly suspect that a good deal of this list consists simply of editors' opinions. Mind you, I would probably agree with many of those opinions myself, but it's WP:OR to the extent not backed up with sources. Marc Shepherd 14:17, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
It is easy to point out weasel words - more much difficult to eradicate them.
The intention was to have two-sentence annotations explaining what was special about the operas. In most cases, I think this was based on the opera article (which was the case with Fanciulla). It would be possible, though tedious, to show that each text represents an orthodox view of a work. There is a danger here that if the criteria for the text is made stricter and stricter - with every innocuous statement being challenged by an editor - nothing would be written. - Kleinzach 16:18, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
From WP:V: "Sources should also be appropriate to the claims made: outlandish claims beg strong sources." The annotations are not outlandish and usually not challenged (and when they are, they are removed by one of several knowledgeable editors who watch the page). General sources are given. Inline citations are, as a rule, preferable, but given these considerations, adding them should be low on WPO's priority list. Fireplace 16:45, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
This is entirely valid, and I usually let "weasel words" stand if, from my own knowledge or common sense, the statement would be supported by critical consensus. The statement "one of Puccini's best works for the theatre" caught my eye, because not even the main Fanciulla article makes that claim. Puccini completed only six full-length operas that are in the standard repertory, and of those six Fanciulla is one of the less-often performed. So saying "one of the best" really isn't saying much. Marc Shepherd 16:51, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
The AfD says that the title of the list is one of its biggest problems. What if, instead of "important" operas, it is simply a list of operas in the Standard Repertory. Then you don't need to explain why each one is important, which would be more objective. --Ssilvers 17:18, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
We've been round this before. There is no such thing as the Standard Repertory.GuillaumeTell 20:52, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
GuillaumeTell is right. Referring to a standard repertory would only make it more difficult to get any kind of viable page created. - Kleinzach 07:46, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Nice to see that the threat has been lifted. I entirely agree that the article needs improving - but we were still doing that, anyway, weren't we, when the AfD appeared? I'll be happy to help, but will be mostly out of action for the next three weeks.GuillaumeTell 20:13, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Some other Wikipedia examples

I happened to notice yesterday that Jimbo Wales had commented himself on the talk page for List of commercial failures in computer and video gaming. Jimbo doesn't comment in the main namespace very often, so when he comments on an article three times, as he did here, it's worth taking notice.

Jimbo said:

(a) I tend to look with disfavor on such lists in the first place but that (b) if we must have them, we must require that we work from extant lists compiled by others.

He cited with approval two other lists, Films that have been considered the greatest ever and Films considered the worst ever. What is very apparent is that both those lists are rigorously cited. The latter article, for instance, has 61 footnotes, as compared to zero in List of important operas.

Having been here a while, I fully expect someone to say that opera isn't the same thing as video gaming or film. Of course it isn't. However, the criteria that make the video game list bad, and the two film lists good, are well worth observing. In terms of its rigor, this article at present is more like the video game list than the two film lists.

During the AfD discussion, Kleinzach repeatedly mentioned all of the effort that went into the List of important operas. But what is important is not effort, but WP:VER, WP:NPOV, and WP:NOR. I would strongly recommend arriving at concrete criteria that are better than just a consensus of whatever editors happen to be working on the article at present. Marc Shepherd 13:05, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_prominent_operas/Archive_4&oldid=1136950026"