Talk:List of prominent operas/Archive 5

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

Planned revision of this list

As many people are aware, after a lot of hard work List of major opera composers is now a featured list. The next step is to revise this page. Although I don't think we should necessarily be aiming for featured status, the POV issues on this list need to be tackled in the same way as they were on the major opera composers page. In other words, we should take ten or so lists and compare them to create our own "NPOV" catalogue of the most important operas. Preliminary research suggests this will be a much longer list than the other one. Some lists of important operas I have seen run to 100 items. The first thing we should do is to gather lists from books about opera and put them on this page. I'll start the ball rolling below. (NB: each list is likely to have its own biases, but collating them should eliminate most of the idiosyncrasies). --Folantin 15:56, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm working on two lists, gleaned from the "Opera" articles in Grove and Grove Opera, with the hope of getting a better historical perspective, and out of general interest. It's being developed at User:Makemi/Workspace2. Mak (talk) 21:13, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
Considering that the New Grove Dictionary of Opera has around 1800 articles on individual works, I would be curious to know what method you are using to extract a list of so-called important operas. Presumably you are identifying 'key' articles or something similar, but how are you going to do this? - Kleinzach 21:27, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
I mean extracted from the two articles entitled "Opera" in those two works. Mak (talk) 21:44, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree that something now needs to be done here, and that following something like the procedure used for the composers is the way forward, BUT we do need to ensure that any lists that are used have been produced by people who are acknowledged experts in the field, like, say, Lord Harewood, the current editor of Kobbé. What, exactly, are the qualifications of Norman Davies? To me, his list (which, by the way, is actually entitled "The Standard Repertoire of Grand Opera, 1609-1969") is very eccentric. Just looking briefly at the list (and sliding over the expression "Grand Opera"), to say that Orfeo but not Poppea, and anything by A Scarlatti, or, indeed, Lully, is in the "standard repertoire" is pretty odd. Then have a look at Mozart (no Clemenza), Rossini (William Tell but not Cenerentola), Janacek, Strauss, Hindemith (!), Britten, Penderecki ... well, it looks like a list of the author's personal favourites, and is thus no better than my, or your, list of personal favourites. Disgruntled in York, aka GuillaumeTell 22:36, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

P.S. I was just now looking at the list printed in my edition of Davies (1996) rather than the list below. I see that, for example, Poppea and Clemenza (and quite a few other operas) appear below but aren't in the list in my edition. Has the "Standard Repertoire of Grand Opera" changed so much in the last ten years? I see that it still includes those works by Hindemith, though. --GuillaumeTell 22:40, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

If we have enough lists then, in theory, the eccentric choices should cancel themselves out, however I am still not sure I understand our methodology. Source A may list 67 works, whereas Source B may have 93 and source C have 156. How do you compare/relate them? When we revised this list before we did it horse-trading style but with an agreed number of items (I think it was 100). - Kleinzach 23:01, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
Methodology is simple. Only the operas that appear on a majority of the lists are represented on our list, just as at List of major opera composers. The good thing about such a list is that there's something to make everyone unhappy. I agree about the need for reputable sources. Best, Moreschi 23:11, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
I think that Kleinzach's point about the number of operas in each list is important, and, if the lists that are eventually decided upon have wildly differing numbers of entries, then some sort of weighting needs to be applied. May I also say that the older a list is, whether reputable or not, the less reliable it will be for our purposes - so, for example, I would not be happy with whatever the 1911 Britannica might have said. --GuillaumeTell 01:29, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
I don't think we should be worrying too much about the individual eccentricities of our lists. The Davies might have an odd choice of title, but I think almost all the operas which are generally accounted major are on it. The quirky choices tend to get eliminated by the majority voting system (and this time we might be able to confine our choice to those operas which are on every single list). The thing is, we have no idea what the final list will look like using this method. Let's just gather a few lists and see. Obviously, I still think we could probably come up with a more reasonable list ourselves using the "horse trading" method, but after the "incident" there's no way on earth we're going to be allowed to do that and avoid deletion. Any alternative suggestions for how to create this list are welcome of course. --Folantin 10:03, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

I *don't* think we should be requiring every single list: The Davies, for instance, has little care for historical importance. We want historical importance. Indeed, I rather wworry this list could become too narrow if we're not careful to take sufficiently long lists. Adam Cuerden talk 13:46, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

I presume you mean some operas don't make it because they were historically important "firsts" but were never regularly played, are rarely recorded now or their music is simply lost (e.g. Peri's operas, Francesca Caccini's one, Schuetz's "Dafne"). If you can find more satisfying lists, then go right ahead. I'm having trouble locating suitable lists that don't go on forever and ever! But if others are willing to put the work in, I won't stop them. --Folantin 13:55, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
Judging by the discussion so far, I assume a 'lowest common denominator' list is being proposed, i.e. a catalogue of the most popular operas defined by general print sources. I am not necessarily against this, but I think we should be clear about it if this is to be the basis of the list. - Kleinzach 14:06, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

I'd rather use a more inclusive set of information, e.g. operas with individual articles in six out of ten major reference books. But it could be annoying to check. (*grumbles a little too about how the anti-Sullivan prejudice is likely to show in these lists*) Adam Cuerden talk 14:10, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

(Reply to Kleinzach) Well, the plan was to use the same MO we employed for List of major opera composers (although I think five, rather than ten, lists would be sufficient, if they were high quality). But nothing is set in stone so far. Makemi and Moreschi have suggested using Grove as a basis for this list. If you have an alternative suggestion of your own, then you're welcome to give it. I think the important thing is that we have got a discussion started (which explains all the damn edit conflicts I've been having). --Folantin 14:16, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
Makemi explains above that she intends to use the 'Opera' article from Grove rather than the encyclopedia as such. I don't have the article to hand but I assume that the purpose of the article is to define the art form. Frankly, although I am a huge fan of Grove, I don't really see how such a large work can help us here. - Kleinzach 14:44, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

I have a list, but I'm faced with mild confusion about what to do with it: See, it lists the major operas for those with only a few, but leaves out a listing of composers with a lot of major works (It's the Opera entry in the Concise Oxford Dictionary of Music. Should I expand out the gaps with those operas with their own individual entries in it by the named composers, or use a list where Rossini, Rameau, Donizetti, et al are not represented, although named as important opera composers?

By the way, I *do* think we should try and avoid, if possible, using the same sources as we did for List of Major Opera Composers. Ideally, we should be using non-English language works as well. Adam Cuerden talk 14:21, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

A list where Rossini, Rameau, Donizetti, et al are not represented is not a worthwhile list in my book. I'm not really too bothered about incorporating foreign-language sources either. I mean, if you've got them, then fine. But I feel no duty to live up to another of Boisseau's goalpost-changing dodges. We also then open the whole can of worms about which foreign languages to use and possible bias in our selection, because we have nothing in Maltese or Mordvin. This is English Wikipedia, after all, and, judging by what I've seen of foreign versions, I feel we often have higher standards unfairly placed on our shoulders just because we are anglophones and English is the international language. Plus, every troll and vandal on the web seems to have a smattering of English. But that's another story. --Folantin 14:32, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Point. I'll expand out sections. As for the multi-languages: It was a dodge, but there is some merit in it, if we have time. I'm not saying that we should be too worried about it, but it might be good to bring out other aspects of opera in this list that we can't in the opera composers one, and having slightly different source selection criteria might help with this. Adam Cuerden talk 14:44, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

I have a feeling the same key operas will appear in foreign-language lists, especially if we use long English lists. Local variations will simply be wiped out in the comparison anyway. I think Sullivan might not make much of a showing abroad. If you really want to go down this route, the major "operatic languages" are Italian, German, French and Russian and I can translate from all of them (unless it's hideously specialised material). Incidentally, I don't intend to play as big a role in fixing this list as I did in the other. It was an incredible grind and I don't think my eyes can stand that kind of strain again. Luckily, our major problem is no longer with us, so this list should prove a lot more pleasant to revise. --Folantin 14:53, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
I don't mind if there's a reason for leaving him out. I mean, he never premiered in France because some reporter decided to mistranslate I shipped d'ye see as an attack on the French, and the newspaper then republished the inaccurate translation with Gilbert's explanation. It's only when there seems to be snobbery involved, e.g., a demonstrated willingness to include foreign-language operettas like Offenbach, etc (ignoring The Tales of Hoffman out of Offenbach's works, of course) that it gets annoying, because then it's clear it's not just leaving out operetta. List 2's inclusion of The Merry Widow whilst ignoring Sullivan, as you can imagine, STICKS IN MY CRAW. Adam Cuerden talk 16:25, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I suppose it's reasonable to be generous with that one: There's not a huge amount of recordings available (there's several recordings, but only one or at most two are still for sale, as they mostly involved the D'Oyly Carte Opera Company at various years) for any one opera of Sullivan's, so perhaps there wasn't enough material. Adam Cuerden talk 16:32, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't particularly care for The Merry Widow, but it has been performed at the Met and the Vienna Staatsoper (and Covent Garden, too, I shouldn't wonder), unlike anything by Sullivan. And a shortage of recordings wasn't a problem - there was only one recording available of the Argento and Barber operas, among others, when the Guide was published. --GuillaumeTell 17:19, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
Yeomen of the Guard has been performed at Covent Garden, I believe most of Sullivan's works were performed at Vienna. You have no idea what you're talking about, do you? Adam Cuerden talk 20:13, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
Hang on, calm down everyone, please. No need to go batshit over where G+S have or have not been before. While I can understand your frustration, Adam, we don't really need "You have no idea what you're talking about, do you?" - unless it was an ironic send-up of He Who Must Not be Named - in which case it was quite funny. Moreschi 20:18, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

More lists

I've added List 2, mostly fairly straight down the line but with an American bias. I understand that it is a companion volume to, and covers almost exactly the same works as "Stories of the Great Operas" (ed Freeman, 1984), which I don't have: Floyd's Susannah was omitted because there was no recording, and Janacek's Vixen was added. --GuillaumeTell 16:06, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Lists 3 and 4 now added. I've put all four lists into a spreadsheet, and can reveal that there are 564 different operas so far, with 101 in all four lists (including Lakmé and Louise, dammit), 67 in three, 135 in two and 261 in one. I am about to start on three more lists - the Naxos A-Z and two "Who's who" books with an index of operas at the back. --GuillaumeTell 02:13, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
I've added the contents of List 5 to my spreadsheet. There are now 673 different operas, of which 96 appear in all five lists, 56 in four, 89 in three, 129 in two and 303 in one. --GuillaumeTell 22:33, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
List 6 added. My spreadsheet says that there are 923 operas represented in the six lists, of which 96 appear in all six, 55 in five, 82 in four, 112 in three, 171 in two and 407 (44% of them) in only one. I am well on with one further list, and I have one more on the horizon. --GuillaumeTell 18:37, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
List 7 added. I now have 1066 operas, of which 95 appear in all seven, 52 in six, 72 in five, 89 in four, 127 in three, 181 in two and 450 (42%) in one. I'll list the ones scoring 7 and 6 under a new heading below later today. It will be interesting to see how many of the ones in the current article aren't in either group. --GuillaumeTell 18:18, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
List 8 added. There are now 1173 operas, with 95 in eight lists, 52 in seven, 63 in six, 82 in five, 101 in four, 136 in three, 184 in two and 460 in one. I have one further list of about 280 operas which I'll add over the weekend. Perhaps then I'll add the operas that are on all except two of the lists to the information below. --GuillaumeTell 22:42, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
List 9 (my last) added, with two extra operas, giving a grand total of 1175. There are now 93 in all nine lists, 49 in eight, 51 in seven, 50 in six, 66 in five, 109 in four, 121 in three, 181 in two and 455 in one. Joyce Bourne (Mrs Michael Kennedy) has bucked the trend somewhat by not including Thais, La Serva Padrona, Rinaldo, Cardillac, The Devils of Loudon, Les Mamelles de Tirésias and Les Indes Galantes, all of which appear in one or other of the lists below. Tomorrow, I'll revise those (now the 9s and 8s) and add the 7s and maybe the 6s. --GuillaumeTell 21:46, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Time to move the lists onto their own page?

This page is now 48 k. How about moving the lists onto their own page? For example onto List of important operas/Lists1? - Kleinzach 12:18, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

That may be a good idea. I think we should put all the lists on a single page though, regardless of the amount of kilobytes involved. Otherwise it might be a pain trying to collate them. --Folantin 12:22, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
Agreed with Folantin. I'm just looking at the Grove article - seeing if it's useful - if so, we should definitely use it. Cheers, Moreschi 12:24, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
What would be ideal is if someone could get their hands on The (New) Grove Book of Operas, which apparently has articles on 250+ operas selected from the main "Grove". My library doesn't have a copy and I can't get to look at the full contents on Amazon. I think it would make a good list. --Folantin 12:32, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
I'll see what I can do. Good idea, that sounds perfect. Cheers, Moreschi 12:34, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

As agreed I have moved the lists to List of important operas/Lists1. - Kleinzach 13:59, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

"It's a collaborative effort by the Opera Project!"

Ok, while I could have discussed this one Kleinzach's talk page, it seems more prevelent to bring it up here. The addition of the above statement to an edit summary. and the attitude it represents it a VERY bad thing. Why? Because, just because a project exists, doesn't mean they have ANY juristiction about what is done to the articles (see WP:OWN for more). I agree that a major reformat should be discussed here first, but Wikipedia's purpose is to INCLUDE anyone who wants to to help, weather or not they want to join some 'project'. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ 12:10, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

You can bicker about the ethics of this all you like, but I will point out that the edit in question was a bad edit, an unnecessary edit - why only 1 section? - and that it was quite correct to revert. Moreschi 12:43, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
I'm not arguing that it was a bad edit, just that the attitude in the edit summary was ALSO bad. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫

A collaborative effort means what it says: that a group of people are in agreement over certain things and that they have each contributed to the article's development and growth. In this case, it is the format of the article. If necessary, a vote of the majority on this (or any other) Talk page can determine what appears there. WP:OWN refers primarily to individual "ownership" of articles, but the statements regarding multiple editors does not altogether apply here if one reads the background to the growth of the Opera Project (e.g. 5 editors need to sign on to certain aspects of the project). Vivaverdi 16:14, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Granted, but even so, the statement rubbed me the wrong way, and seemed to be a case of (possibly) biting the newbies. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ 16:38, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
I'm a member of the Opera Project, so I'll also add my three halfpence. First, I feel that a more diplomatic approach would have been for Kleinsach to engage with you on your talk page rather than just reverting. We need all the help we can get. But, second, the content of the article at present is acknowledged by many (most? all?) interested parties to be unacceptably POV, and work is under way (see discussion at the top of this page) to base it on published lists. So any additions and amendments, as well as much of the current text, will be obliterated within the next few weeks when a bright new sparkling NPOV article will appear as if by magic.
Oh, and I quite like the table format, give or take duplication of links. --GuillaumeTell 16:49, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
Yes, as GuillaumeTell says, this list will be completely revamped anyway in the not too distant future. We should have a debate on formatting once we have the new list of operas. --Folantin 16:56, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm the one who edited the only section of the article. I'm sorry to make you who have developed this article feel unpleasant of the edit. I just wanted to aid the list to be improved and to look good. I think this original edit status looks clumsy and not clearly arranged. Sorry, but no offense. You could've told me that if I input some summary on the missing parts, it would be helpful. But my first language is not english, so I'm afraid of putting incorrect writing usages . Besides, This english wikipedia is the main reference for the opera related articles in Korean Wiki. I thank english wiki a lot and thought the only way to help the opera articles is to make them look tidy. If you want to see how I have done, go see ko:유명 오페라 목록.--Appletrees 19:36, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for this - we all jumped in and assumed that the editor was Melodia without checking the History. It's very flattering to know that we're contributing (albeit indirectly) to Korean Wiki. Your table there looks good (and the Korean language, which I don't know, is really intriguing to look at). Maybe we will ask for your help when we have the new list. And don't worry about your English. --GuillaumeTell 18:55, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

The 93 operas in all 9 lists

  • Bartok: Duke Bluebeard's Castle
  • Beethoven: Fidelio
  • Bellini: I Puritani, La Sonnambula, Norma
  • Berg: Wozzeck
  • Berlioz: Les Troyens
  • Bizet: Carmen, Les Pêcheurs de Perles
  • Borodin: Prince Igor
  • Britten: Billy Budd, Peter Grimes, The Turn of the Screw
  • Cherubini: Médée
  • Cilea: Adriana Lecouvreur
  • Cimarosa: Il Matrimonio Segreto
  • Debussy: Pelléas et Mélisande
  • Delibes: Lakmé
  • Donizetti: Don Pasquale, L'Elisir d'Amore, Lucia di Lammermoor
  • G Charpentier: Louise
  • Gluck: Orfeo ed Euridice
  • Gounod: Faust, Roméo et Juliette
  • Handel: Giulio Cesare
  • Janacek: Jenufa, Kat'a Kabanova, The Cunning Little Vixen
  • Leoncavallo: Pagliacci
  • Mascagni: Cavalleria Rusticana
  • Massenet: Manon, Werther
  • Meyerbeer: Les Huguenots
  • Monteverdi: L'Incoronazione di Poppea, Orfeo
  • Mozart: Cosi fan Tutte, Die Entführung aus dem Serail, Die Zauberflöte, Don Giovanni, Idomeneo, La Clemenza di Tito, Le Nozze di Figaro
  • Mussorgsky: Boris Godunov
  • Offenbach: Les Contes d'Hoffmann
  • Puccini: La Bohème, Madama Butterfly, Tosca, Turandot
  • Purcell: Dido and Aeneas
  • R Strauss: Arabella, Ariadne auf Naxos, Capriccio, Der Rosenkavalier, Elektra, Salome
  • Ravel: L'Enfant et les Sortilèges, L'Heure Espanol
  • Rimsky-Korsakov: The Golden Cockerel
  • Rossini: La Cenerentola, L'Italiana in Algeri, Semiramide, The Barber of Seville
  • Saint-Saens: Samson et Dalila
  • Schoenberg: Moses und Aron
  • Smetana: The Bartered Bride
  • Stravinsky: The Rake's Progress
  • Tchaikovsky: Eugene Onegin, The Queen of Spades
  • Thomas: Mignon
  • Verdi: Aida, Don Carlos, Falstaff, Il Trovatore, La Forza di Destino, La Traviata, Macbeth, Nabucco, Otello, Rigoletto, Simon Boccanegra, Un Ballo in Maschera
  • Wagner: Das Rheingold, Der Fliegende Hollander, Die Meistersinger von Nürnberg, Die Walküre, Götterdammerung, Lohengrin, Parsifal, Siegfried, Tannhauser, Tristan und Isolde
  • Weber: Der Freischütz

The 49 operas in 8 out of 9 lists

  • Berg: Lulu
  • Berlioz: Beatrice et Benedict
  • Boito: Mefistofele
  • Britten: A Midsummer Night's Dream, Albert Herring, Death in Venice
  • Donizetti: Anna Bolena, La Favorite, La Fille du Régiment
  • Dvorak: Rusalka
  • Flotow: Martha
  • Gershwin: Porgy and Bess
  • Giordano: Andrea Chénier
  • Glinka: Ruslan and Ludmila
  • Gluck: Alceste, Iphigenie en Aulide
  • Handel: Alcina, Orlando, Semele, Serse
  • Humperdinck: Hansel und Gretel
  • J Strauss: Die Fledermaus
  • Janacek: The Makropulos Case
  • Massenet: Thaïs
  • Menotti: Amahl and the Night Visitors
  • Mussorgsky: Khovanshchina
  • Nicolai: Die Lustige Weiber von Windsor
  • Offenbach: Orphee aux enfers
  • Pergolesi: La serva padrona
  • Ponchielli: La Gioconda
  • Poulenc: Dialogues des Carmélites
  • Prokofiev: The Love for Three Oranges, War and Peace
  • Puccini: Gianni Schicchi, Il Tabarro, La Fanciulla del West, Manon Lescaut, Suor Angelica
  • R Strauss: Die Frau ohne Schatten
  • Rameau: Castor et Pollux, Hippolyte et Aricie
  • Rossini: William Tell
  • Shostakovich: Lady Macbeth of Mtsensk/Katerina Ismailova
  • Stravinsky: Oedipus Rex
  • Tippett: The Midsummer Marriage
  • Verdi: Ernani, Luisa Miller
  • Walton: Troilus and Cressida
  • Weill: Aufstieg und Fall der Stadt Mahagonny

Discuss! --GuillaumeTell 18:55, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Discussion

Thanks a lot for all your hard work, GT! I can't add any more lists myself. Maybe we have enough to be going on with already - but we can decide that after Xmas. Gustave Charpentier's Louise, Ambroise Thomas's Mignon and Delibes's Lakmé on every list? I'm still flummoxed. I mean, there's some pretty music in them but...Never mind, WP is based on verifiability not truth, and if our experts say so, so be it. --Folantin 20:07, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

I think I can get hold of the Grove list Folantin mentioned above and add that pretty easily - seven is fine, but 8 can't hurt. Apart from which, it looks good! Perhaps we only do those that come up on all the lists? That's NPOV enough. Then begins the annotating and citing work - but I can do that pretty well and quickly with Grove and some other stuff. Cheers, Moreschi Deletion! 20:33, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
Out of interest, I've had a look at the list that currently occupies the List of important operas page. There are 113 operas there (counting The Ring as four). Of those, 75 are on all seven of our lists, 24 on six, 4 on five, 1 on four, 4 on three, 1 on two, 1 on one, and 3 on none. Unsurprisingly, many of those that appear on few or no lists are from either end of the chronological spectrum. The 20 operas that are on all seven lists but don't appear on the current page are: Bizet's La Sonnambula and I Puritani, Bizet's Pêcheurs de Perles, Britten's Turn of the Screw, G Charpentier's Louise, Cherubini's Médée, Cimarosa's Il matrimonio segreto, Delibes's Lakmé, Gounod's Roméo et Juliette, Janacek's Cunning Little Vixen, Massenet's Thaïs, Pergolesi's La serva padrona, Ravel's L'enfant et les sortilèges and L'heure espagnole, Strauss's Arabella and Capriccio, Rimsky-Korsakov's Golden Cockerel, Rossini's Italiana in Algeri and Semiramide and Thomas's Mignon.
Although it will bump up the length of the article a bit, I myself feel that, as things stand, we need to include the 6s as well as the 7s (147 operas altogether). We'd still lose fourteen from the current list, and I wonder if there's some way in which we can squeeze in the historically important pre-Monteverdi operas? Maybe in a linked but separate short list with references from Grove and suchlike? Season's greetings to all. --GuillaumeTell 19:11, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
Yes, I agree we should include the 6s as well as the 7s. It's only right that there should be more items on this list than there are on Major Opera Composers (after all, Mozart wrote at least 7 important operas, Wagner 10 and so on). I'd also agree we need another list at the bottom of the page for significant "firsts" in opera history. As the first ever opera, Peri's "Dafne" is definitely important. It's only the loss of its music that prevents its appearing in those opera book lists. Schuetz's "Dafne" is the same (first German opera). We also need Francesca Caccini's piece as the first opera by a woman composer, plus some other works... to be decided after Christmas.--Folantin 19:29, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
Just a note to say that I've been whiling away the hours going through the Oxford Dictionary of Opera. It has articles (some quite short) on 664 operas, and, like all the other lists, has its biases (for example, I noticed more entries than elsewhere for works by Jommelli, Respighi, Pizzetti, Mehul, Reyer). (Oh, and Ivanhoe is there but nothing else by Sullivan, though he has a composer entry.) Anyway, the important thing is that I've checked all the 7s and 6s listed above, and the OxDic has entries for all of them - so no change at the top of the table. --GuillaumeTell 18:25, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

The 51 operas in 7 out of 9 lists

  • Balfe: The Bohemian Girl
  • Bellini: Il pirata, I Capuleti e i Montecchi
  • Berlioz: Benvenuto Cellini
  • Birtwistle: The Mask of Orpheus
  • Britten: The Rape of Lucretia
  • Cavalli: La Calisto
  • Chabrier: L'etoile
  • Delius: A Village Romeo and Juliet
  • Donizetti: Maria Stuarda
  • Gay/Pepusch: The Beggar's Opera
  • Glinka: A Life for the Tsar
  • Gluck: Armide, Iphigenie en Tauride
  • Halévy: La Juive
  • Handel: Agrippina, Rinaldo
  • Haydn: Il mondo della luna
  • Henze: The Bassarids
  • Hindemith: Cardillac, Mathis der Maler
  • Janacek: From the House of the Dead
  • Lehar: Die Lustige Witwe
  • Ligeti: Le Grand Macabre
  • Menotti: The Medium, The Consul
  • Messiaen: Saint François d'Assise
  • Monteverdi: Il Ritorno d'Ulisse
  • Offenbach: La belle Hélène
  • Penderecki: The Devils of Loudun
  • Pfitzner: Palestrina
  • Poulenc: Les Mamelles de Tirésias, La Voix Humaine
  • Prokofiev: The Fiery Angel
  • Puccini: La Rondine
  • Rameau: Les Indes galantes
  • Rossini: Otello, La Gazza ladra, Le Comte Ory
  • Schoenberg: Erwartung
  • Spontini: La vestale
  • Strauss R: Intermezzo
  • Szymanowski: King Roger
  • Thomas: Hamlet
  • Tippett: King Priam
  • Verdi: I Vespri Siciliani
  • Wagner: Rienzi
  • Weber: Euryanthe, Oberon
  • Weill: Die Dreigroschenoper
  • Zimmermann BA: Die Soldaten

--GuillaumeTell 16:48, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

The 50 operas in 6 out of 9 lists

  • Adams: Nixon in China
  • Auber: Fra Diavolo
  • Barber: Vanessa, Antony and Cleopatra
  • Berlioz: La damnation de Faust
  • Birtwistle: Punch and Judy, Gawain
  • Britten: Paul Bunyan, Gloriana
  • Busoni: Doktor Faust
  • Catalani: La Wally
  • Cornelius: Der Barbier von Baghdad
  • Davies, P Maxwell: The Lighthouse
  • Donizetti: Lucrezia Borgia, Roberto Devereux
  • Falla: La vida breve
  • Glass: Akhnaten
  • Gounod: Mireille
  • Handel: Acis & Galatea, Tamerlano, Rodelinda, Ariodante
  • Henze: Elegy for Young Lovers
  • Janacek: The Adventures of Mr Broucek
  • Korngold: Die Tote Stadt
  • Krenek: Jonny spielt auf
  • Lortzing: Der Wildschütz
  • Marschner: Hans Heiling
  • Massenet: Hérodiade, Cendrillon, Don Quichotte
  • Meyerbeer: L'africaine
  • Mozart: Mitridate, re di Ponto, La finta giardiniera
  • Purcell: The Fairy Queen
  • Rimsky-Korsakov: Snow Maiden
  • Rossini: Tancredi, Il turco in Italia, Mosè/Moise, La donna del lago
  • Schreker: Der ferne Klang
  • Shostakovich: The Nose
  • Strauss J: Der Zigeunerbaron
  • Stravinsky: Le Rossignol
  • Vaughan Williams: Hugh the Drover, Riders to the Sea
  • Verdi: I Lombardi, Stiffelio
  • Wolf-Ferrari: Il segreto di Susanna
  • Zemlinsky: Der Zwerg —The preceding unsigned comment was added by GuillaumeTell (talk • contribs) 17:04, 7 January 2007 (UTC).


More discussion

Well, unless Makemi or Moreschi or Adam Cuerden or anyone else has any more lists to add (and I'll be happy to spreadsheet them and update the above "n out of m lists" lists if so), we need to decide where our cut-off point has to come.

Working on the information that we currently have, I believe that we must include more than just the operas that appear in all nine lists. "All nine" includes some selections that are baffling to some (most?) of us (see discussions above and in the Archives) because they are hardly ever performed today, even in non-English-speaking countries - but we can't omit them. I believe that they are there simply because they were popular when Gustav Kobbé compiled his Complete Opera Book before 1919, and all subsequent lists are, at one or several removes, based on his selection, but there you go. "8 out of 9" includes some composers who don't appear in "all nine", notably Dvorak, Gershwin, Glinka, Humperdinck, Menotti, Poulenc, Prokofiev, Rameau, Shostakovich, Tippett and Weill, but also some more of the questionable Kobbé stuff (The Bohemian Girl, etc.). "7 out of 9" even includes some living composers (Birtwistle, Henze, Penderecki) and some extra ones from the C20, plus extra early works such as The Beggar's Opera and one each by Cavalli and Haydn. "6 out of 9" gives us Adams, Glass, Maxwell Davies, Korngold, Krenek, Schreker - but also Vaughan Williams and some distinctly minor works of Mozart. For those interested, the top score for any opera by Peri, Lully, Scarlatti and M-A Charpentier is, respectively, 4, 3, 3 and 2, and for Sullivan, 4.

The amount of work involved in mounting a new list depends on how much (if any) annotation is done. There are 93 "all 9 operas" (fewer than the current number); "8+9" = 142; "7+8+9" = 193; "6+7+8+9" = 243. So - pending the arrival of any new lists - where do we make the cut? 9? 8? 7? 6? I think I'd go for 7, myself. I'd accept a consensus at 8, but not at 9. --GuillaumeTell 17:48, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, but I'm going to play the Boisseau here and bring up the loathful problem of POV. We only have, when you think about, three numbers that are NPOV: either we take everyone who appears on any of the list, so 1; or we do what we did at List of major opera composers and go with minimanl majority, so that's 5; or we do only those on all the lists, so that's 9.
Personally, I think we should go for 5: there is precendent for it and don't worry about having a lot of annotations to do, as I can wiz them all off pretty quickly with Grove Online. Cheers, Moreschi Deletion! 17:57, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
OK, if 5 scares off the POV warriors then choose that. I don't think we necessarily need annotation on a list this long. --Folantin 18:04, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
I'll be happy to annotate and cite the whole lot. It would be nice if this made FL as well. I need another big project to keep me out of trouble, anyway. Cheers, Moreschi Deletion! 18:13, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
5 is fine by me (that'll be 309 operas keeping you out of trouble). I'll wait for a day or two to see if there's a consensus. --GuillaumeTell 18:26, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Fine by me. Congrats to both you and Folantin for compiling the lists. Cheers, Moreschi Deletion! 20:05, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

I'll add my congrats and approval to going with the 5. Vivaverdi 20:16, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
I think GT deserves the lion's share of the credit for endangering his eyesight compiling seven of these lists. Hats off to him. --Folantin 22:02, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

The new list

I've been working on the new list (operas appearing in 5 or more of our lists), and the result can be found at User:GuillaumeTell/List of important operas. I hope I've got the correct links for all of them now. Moreschi has volunteered to do the annotations, so the question is whether he does them in situ or whether we overwrite the present list with the new one as is - plus the detail about how we arrived at it - and then he annotates that.

One or two questions occur to me. Should we include the place where the opera premiered, as we do in the existing list? I'm not sure that it adds anything very useful. (Incidentally, I've re-dated Moses und Aron and possibly another opera or two (I forget) which were premiered long after they were written, so that they're listed under the approximate final date of composition - M&A looked rather odd in the 1950+ section.)

I've broken the list up into more sections, mostly just over a screenful. Do we need to break it up some more? The final section is the longest, I think.

Should we turn the list into a table, as suggested by User:Appletrees up above?

Is the title of the list still the best one?

Should we prioritise writing stubs for the thirty-odd operas that are red-linked? --GuillaumeTell 19:00, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

  • I'm happy to do most of the stubs if Moreschi wants to concentrate on writing the annotations (maybe I'll help out there too). I'll think over the rest of the questions. --Folantin 19:09, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
    • I think it important that we get the new NPOV list up as soon as possible with an explanation as to how we arrived at it, along the lines of that at List of major opera composers. Once that's done I will be happy to do the annotations if Folantin fills in the stubs, but I'll do a bit of both. If where the opera premiered is vital for some reason, I'll include it in the annotations, but I agree that it doesn't add much. Your breaking-up looks fine to me at the moment. I think we can defer a decision about possible doing it in tabular form until later: that isn't the most urgent thing. Lastly, the title: I think it's fine. If List of major opera composers was alright for WP:FL, then the current one should be as well. Congrats to GT on the hard work with putting the list together. Cheers, Moreschi Deletion! 19:51, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
      • Most encouraging - thanks, both. Subject to further comments, I'll sort out an introduction à la the composers list, add the bib details for the lists included, and should be able to put the result up on Monday - unless anyone else wants to do it first (I'm off early to London for the La fille du régiment matinée tomorrow and won't be back till late). --GuillaumeTell 21:07, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
        • Lucky bastard, why haven't I got tickets for that? I'm down for Orlando in February and The Tempest in March, which should be fun anyway. The Donizetti got great reviews, I really ought to go. Moreschi Deletion! 21:12, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
          • Get down there before 10am and a day ticket could be yours! --GuillaumeTell 22:57, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

All done, and only a day late (and La Fille was excellent, thank you, which is more than I can say for GNER). At the bottom, I've only listed those that appeared in all lists. Let the annotations and stub-creations commence! --GuillaumeTell 22:12, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Amazing...

I'm amazed at all the work you few have done in getting this list up to snuff. If only WP had more editors who'd have such dedication to doing things right like this (yeah right, I know. Hell, I'm not one). ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ 12:45, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

FLC?

Bah. Bunch of Sullivan-hating bastards are opera critics. Wrote one of the most performed works in the world, but he's too lower-class and popular to be included. Ah, well. Have to state things as they are, not how they ought. Shall we put this up for FLC? Adam Cuerden talk 12:59, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Hold your horses. I'm still turning the red links blue and Moreschi is still doing the annotations. Give it a month maybe, then we should have done all the finetuning. --Folantin 13:03, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
Yep, will need a bit longer. The annotations will take a while, there are over 300 hundred and I'm still crunching through. Thanks to Melodia for the praise and most of all to GT for doing all the work putting this together. Now, off to get those Handel's and Rameau's done. Yeah, I know, it sucks about Sullivan. Mind you, there are a few oddities: Fairy-Queen is only a semi-opera and Semele was certainly an oratorio to start with. Oh well, not our fault. Cheers, Moreschi Deletion! 14:14, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

The appearance of "Notes" on this list of operas

In order to avoid an excessively long list of repetitive citations (e.g. 1 - Grove, 2- Grove, 3 - Grove, etc), I'm reworking with a Wiki system which shows the source referenced plus a list of a,b,c,d etc. alongside it.

For an example, look at the Maria Callas#References article where we have dozens of repeated references to the same work or video or whatever.

Any comments are welcomed. Viva-Verdi 01:44, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

I've made these changes to make the Notes section far more compact. However, as far as I know, it is not possible to have the page numbers appear in the notes themselves, but they do appear after the number in the actual entry. Viva-Verdi 16:50, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
I'm undecided as to the virtues of this. Firstly, the number of cites for Grove is going to be over a hundred by the end, so that list of letters in the Notes section will go sideways until we've got big-time spacing problems. Secondly, the page numbers thing is a mess. The cites to Viking and Orrey in particular are not so fantastic unless you get the page number. At the moment you have to click down to get the cite and then go back up to get the page number. What is more, I'm working from Grove Online, so that needs to be made clear. Personally, I think that repetitive citing is actually better than this revision, which is somewhat confused. Moreschi Deletion! 17:00, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
Each of the Grove cites really does need to be a bit more specific - a page number, or at the very least a more specific formulation, such as "Article on this opera in Grove" or "Grove article on the composer" (or a "cite web" reference, which I think can be got from the online Grove) - rather than just "Grove", which I feel is likely to generate criticism if/when the article is put up for FL status. Good work on annotations and stubs so far, though! --GuillaumeTell 18:48, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
"rather than just "Grove" ": Indeed. This method cites the entire source and we can even put the ISBN in there too, although it is all referenced in detail at the bottom
I don't know how far over the "aa", "ab", "ac" etc will spread, but assume that they will wrap on sevral lines if necessary. This has got to be a darn sight better than seeing 100+ (by your estimate) "Grove" refs go on and on down the page for ever......
I have to assume that should anyone need to obtain a particular reference, it won't kill them to scross down. Who is going to keep bouncng back and forth?
So these page numbers are from the ONLINE site? You're right: that should be made clear. But is that available to everyone without having to pay? I thought not. Viva-Verdi 18:56, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

:::SO WHERE IS THE BLOODY CONSENSUS TO REVERT THE NOTES TO THE ORIGINAL LAYOUT?? Viva-Verdi 20:16, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

I made a few changes. First of all, I've made it clear that the Grove cites are coming from Online, which means that I have to use their citing format that they proscribe. Secondly, FL reviewers will chew us up if we are giving page numbers and they are not appearing in the references. For the Grove cites, what I will do is include the names of the people who actually wrote the Grove articles into the cites: as its from online, page numbers don't apply. But when we can give page numbers, we must - so that's the Orrey cites, the Viking ones, the Oxford Illustrated ones, probably about half by the end - and we must use a citing format that allows us to cite these page numbers properly. If we don't, we can forget about FL. Moreschi Deletion! 20:23, 19 January 2007 (UTC)


There is nothing more absurd than seeing 319 bloody "Notes", most of which are simply repitiions of previoyus ones (So and so, in Grove). The last time that I proposed a more rational a,b,c system (and made those chasges) THEY WERE REVERTED WITHOUT ANY CONSENSUS, SO I AM NOT WASTING MY TIME ON THIS PROJECT AGAIN ONLY TO FIND THAT THEY ARE REMOVED by some censorial bastard.
Count me OUT of this opera group. Viva-Verdi 02:34, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
I was investigating exactly why Viva-Verdi (talk · contribs) blanked his talk and user pages when I came across this discussion. The answer to all of your citation problems is very, very simple; use the citation templates and the format set up in WP:FOOT that are already set up for you. There's no reason to go and re-invent the wheel and cause angst here. Just two cents from someone who hasn't even seen this article before. Have a great day! —Elipongo (Talk|contribs) 02:55, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Additional?

I've been thinking we should have a short extra list at the bottom for important "firsts" which never made the final cut. For example, Peri's "Dafne" as the first ever work in the genre is unarguably an "important opera". Others would include first surviving opera, first German opera, first French opera, first opera by a woman. It would be the equivalent of the "female composers" section we had on the "Major Opera Composer" list. --Folantin 13:47, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Sounds good...can't see any real POV problems in that: obviously, cites as to these operas actually being the first in their genre are easy to come by. Cheers, Moreschi Deletion! 18:06, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
Agreed. Also maybe first surviving opera in countries (e.g. Germany and the USA) where the music of the first opera has been lost. --GuillaumeTell 18:18, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
OK, I've started it off. Feel free to add or edit.--Folantin 18:55, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Dates

We've put Schoenberg's Moses und Aron by date of composition rather than first performance. I think we should do the same for Berlioz's Les Troyens (not given a full premiere until almost a century after the composer's death IIRC) and Janacek's Destiny. --Folantin 09:57, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, I think so. Moreschi Request a recording? 10:11, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
I added the dates at high speed after I'd got the list together and certainly made some mistakes. Destiny definitely needed to be moved. I'm less sure about Les Troyens, which was down as 1863 (when Acts 3 and 4 were premièred and only three years after Berlioz finished composing the whole thing), rather than 1890 when the first three acts were first performed or whenever the whole thing first appeared complete (1957?). 1858, only five years earlier, is when he finished his first version, I think. I'd have been inclined to leave it as is. Otherwise we'll have to start fiddling with dates for operas like War and Peace which had lots of premières, or arguing about operas with substantially revised versions, like Orfeo ed Euridice, or always using the date when the composer finshed (or started!) work. Lots of work and diminishing returns. --GuillaumeTell 10:45, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
I gave "Les Troyens" as 1858 because that's what the chronology in "Oxford Illustrated" does. "Viking" also puts Les T. before "Beatrice et Benedict", which seems right to me. --Folantin 10:58, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

FLC now?

I think is this ready, and we can continue to make further improvements during the fairly lengthy FL candidacy. Any objections if I put this up at FLC? Moreschi Request a recording? 15:08, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Handel: Acis and Galatea

Sorry to be fussy, but this isn't really an opera, in spite of its dramatic story, setting, etc. Handel described it as a "masque", and I don't think the English version was ever performed (in his lifetime at least) in an operatic (staged) manner. --voxclamans 22:18, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Hey, don't blame me. Blame the people who included it in their lists for their inaccuracy :) Cheers, Moreschi Request a recording? 13:47, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Fidelio 1805?

Fidelio had its premiere in 1814. The earlier version of the work, Leonore, was not a success in either of its earlier incarnations (of which 1805 is one). Should Fidelio be listed in 1814? kosboot (talk) 21:00, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Douglas Johnson in the article on Fidelio in Grove, refers to the 1805, 1806 and 1814 works as three 'versions' of the same work. I assume the compiler here took the same view. -- Kleinzach (talk) 11:47, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
The compiler of the list was me (16 January 2007). I took all the dates from the Viking Guide, which I have on CD-ROM and did the whole thing at high speed, making one or two mistakes. This wasn't one of them, since the Guide says:
"PREMIERES: Original three-act version November 20, 1805..."
and that first date is what I used, as for all the entries, except for operas premiered long after their composers' deaths. Otherwise one gets into endless arguments over revised versions of everything from Orfeo ed Euridice to War and Peace. --GuillaumeTell (talk) 12:13, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Criteria for the list

I reviewed the criteria for selection on the list and a few made extremely appropriate additiona to the earlist period based on "The New Grove Dictionary of Opera". All additions were footnoted, and all had links to articles in Wikipédia. I cannot understand why the list should not include "the first genuine opera" (per Grove) Dafne, or Euridice by Peri. - None of his works were listed. - Also "Ercole Armante" is Cavalli greatest work; complex, with 5-part orchestration, 4,6,& 8 voice ensembles, etc. - per Grove. Also NO operas by Lully???????? - - All of these operas have fine recordings available, too. - - The rest of the list looks pretty good (we all have our favorites that are missing) but the omissions I have mentioned are simply shocking. Grove agrees. - - No more comments. I won't be back to this page again. Charvex (talk) 09:45, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Both Dafne and Euridice are included in the "Significant firsts in opera history" section at the bottom, as is Lully's Cadmus et Hermione (on possibly arguable grounds but, yes, we need a Lully opera on the page). Don't get me wrong, I agree with you wholeheartedly about the omissions (I really wanted Charpentier's Médée too, for instance). It is deeply unfair to the Baroque era, which is probably my favourite area of opera, but please blame the sources not me. Believe me, this was the only way we could find of making this comply with WP:NPOV. As I've said elsewhere, this list is neutral because nobody is happy with it. --Folantin (talk) 09:56, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_prominent_operas/Archive_5&oldid=1038763673"