Wikipedia:Peer review/Nixon in China (opera)/archive1

Nixon in China (opera)

This peer review discussion has been closed.
.

Nixon in China is an important 20th century opera, celebrating an event which (briefly) galvanised the world and raised Nixon to an unprecedented level of international regard – just four months before the Watergate break-in. The opera is more about the personalities, American and Chinese, than the event itself. The rather odd score, not to everyone's taste, is a blend of minimalism and Western classicism, spiced by frequent pop references. The opera has been well received in Europe as well as in North America, but so far the Chinese have resisted putting it on. Comments, please, on all aspects. Brianboulton (talk) 22:35, 30 March 2011 (UTC) (This expansion is a joint project of myself and User:Wehwalt)

RHM22 comments: This article is very well written, and I don't have much to comment on, but here a few things that I noticed:

Historical Background:

Maybe you should reference or reword the first sentence, where it says that Nixon was a militant anti-communist. While I know that Nixon was a big opponent of Communism, I've never heard of him being militant.

Productions:

The piece opened in conjunction with the annual meeting of the Music Critics Association, guaranteeing what the Houston Chronicle described as a "very discriminating audience". I think this should have a reference, since it's a direct quote.

Adams conducted the original cast in the French premiere, at the Maison de la Culture di Bobigny, Paris, on 14 December 1991. I believe that this should use the American date format, seeing as how the opera was written by an American on an American subject. I know the sentence itself is referring to an event that took place in France, but I still think it should use the American date style.

Music:

The internal opera is followed by a monologue, "I am the wife of Mao Tse-tung" in which Chiang Ch'ing, Mao's wife, rails against counterrevolutionary elements in full coloratura soprano mode which culminates in a high D, appropriate for a character who in real life was a former actress given to self-dramatization. I would change the section where it says that it was appropriate as she was an actress. This strikes me as a little POV or interperetatory. Just my opinion, though, so just leave it as is you like it.

The music of the final, surreal act is sentimental and contemplative This is another section that seems slightly POV, but that may be opera terminology, so disregard if I'm wrong on that.

That's it. Like I said, the article is already very well written. I think FA will be easy on this.-RHM22 (talk) 13:41, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for these comments. I have Americanised the date, and rewritten the "sentimental and contemplative" phrasing, as this was too loose a paraphrase of the source. You are probably right re the interpretive nature of the comment about Madame Mao's career as an actress; I don't remember writing this, so I think it's Wehwalt's. The other points are his, too, so I'll let him respond. Brianboulton (talk) 20:39, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

The Mrs. Mao comment is effectively straight from the source. I will change "militant" to "leading", though I really don't see the problem. I will add the ref.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:04, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

As it is not an online quote, I have added the source material as a quote to the reference re Madame Mao in order to show that I am accurately reproducing the source. I am becoming increasingly confused about the way WP:NPOV is being interpreted these days. People are not robots; they have personalities, and it is not POV to say so in a dispassionate way.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:35, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

I don't find the language personally objectionable, but I have no doubt that others probably would. While it's true that she was an actress, who's to say that it was appropriate? Even if it is appropriate, it's not really relevant. Either way, if that's what the reference says, why not just quote from that instead of asserting it yourself? That way, the point gets across without the editor having to interpret it. As for the other stuff, it may not be POV since you're discussing an opera, a subject that I know little about. If those are simply opera terms, then of course it's fine to leave them as is. The reason for my mentioning the Nixon thing was that "militant anti-communist" implies violence towards communists, at least to me.-RHM22 (talk) 16:02, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm uncertain that "militant" implies "military", but I've changed the word. If you go into the footnote now on the Mrs. Mao thing, I've typed in the quote from the source. Your suggestion about quoting directly is a good one, too.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:19, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Comments by 4meter4

Overall this is an excellent article, and I only have a few suggestions.

Historical background

• I would suggest giving the exact dates of Richard Nixon's seven days in China, Feb. 21-27, 1972.

Inception

• It might be good to briefly mention the events from Nixon's visit to China which the creative team chose to dramatize. This would be a good segway into the synopsis.

Reception

• Of possible interest among the original reviewers would be Joseph McLellan's review in The Washington Post, part of which is available for free here. He actually predicted the opera would become a classic and heralded the work for ushering in a new era of opera.

Performances

• You may wish to mention the UK premiere at the Edinburgh Festival in 1988 (this briefly mentions it).
• Also, their was a concert performance of NIC in London in 1998 at the Barbican Centre (see here), so the 2000 ENO production was really just the first staged production in London.
• This may be OR, but it seems to me that the 2000 ENO production set off a flurry of revivals held during the last decade. The opera wasn't staged for most of the 1990s, although there were a few concert performances. After ENO, the opera was staged by many companies.
• It might be of interest that the Portland Opera production was actually put together in conjunction with the Opera Theatre of Saint Louis (where it premiered in 2004 [1]), and in conjunction with the Houston Grand Opera and Minnesota Opera (2005)(see here) and by Opera Colorado which performed it at the National Performing Arts Convention and recorded the opera (2008, see here).
• Other recent US productions include Opera Boston (2004, see here), Chicago Opera Theatre (2006, see here), Long Beach Opera (2010, see here)
• This article gives a very interesting perspective on the opera during a time when it hadn't been performed in several years following the LA production, with the exception of a mounting by the Jacobs School of Music. It might be good to note that the opera was not staged in the 1990s in the U.S. after the 1990 LA production except at IU. I'm pretty sure no professional stagings were given in the US from 1991-2003, although there were a few concert performances.
• A few international performances that could be mentioned would be the German premiere at the Frankfurt Opera (1992), the Australian premiere at the Adelaide Festival (1992), and the Canadian premiere by the Vancouver Opera (2010, see here).

Recordings

• The original recording won a Grammy Award (see here).
• I know that the Met did a live broadcast of their production earlier this year. Would this count as a recording? Usuallly a DVD release follows these.

Well that's all I can think of for now. I realize not all of the performance stuff will be used, I just thought it important to recognize the dead span of the 1990s, the importance of the 2000 ENO production, and the flurry of activity over the last decade. Great work as usual you two.4meter4 (talk) 20:09, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for these comments. On Productions, I have slipped in a reference to the 1988 Edinburgh Festival performance, and have drawn attention to the hiatus of the 1990s. I realise that we could bring in more details on productions, but the section has to be kept within limits and it's looking pretty long now. On Recordings, the Grammy award is already mentioned. If/when the Met performance is issued as a DVD, we can add the details. I'll let Wehwalt have first look at your other points. Brianboulton (talk) 21:24, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

I think that the exact dates of the visit really doesn't help the reader, who is there for information on the opera; this isn't that article. Yes, we could say that they had a banquet, and Pat Nixon toured the city, and they went to see a performance at the Great Hall of the People, but I think the images we have included better illustrate that point. I concur with BB on the question of the productions, we need to be choosy with an eye to the future. Fortunately, unlike my recent R&H efforts, there is much to choose from. Yes, the Met did a Saturday afternoon broadcast, but frankly, that's almost expected, the Met does one every Saturday during the season. It isn't worth noting.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:51, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

From Tim riley – First comments. More to come

• In the lead, "any work about Nixon would be a satire on the former president, whom he did not like" is puzzling – it is not obvious that disliking someone would put you off satirising him. I infer from the main text that he felt mere satire was not strong enough, but this is not clear from the lead.
• President as a job title – i.e. "the president" as opposed to President Nixon: consistency needed in u.l.c. – I'd lower case it, myself, but one or t'other, please. And, later Chairman, too, ditto.
• Chairman Mao and Chou En-lai – at first mentions a brief job description would help the reader
• Inception
  • By now the explanation that Nixon was the US president is superfluous
  • "thus the expectant chorus which begins the work" – I believe "that" rather than "which" is the prevalent US form here (and Fowler agrees over here too)
• Synopsis
  • Well done on handling the Peking/Beijing business so smoothly.
  • Pat Nixon needs a link
  • "She is enchanted by a model elephant—the symbol of the party her husband leads" – this is rather cryptic to anyone not familiar with US party politics. I wonder if a footnote rather than the parenthesis might be better, explaining the elephant and donkey symbols in a sentence or two rather than trying to cram the explanation into a few words within the narrative.
  • "This depiction of the downfall of a cruel and unscrupulous landlord's agent (played by Kissinger)" – eh? Henry Kissinger is depicted as acting in the cast of the Peking Opera? (I haven't seen the show, and I am struggling to keep up.)
  • "as they lie in their respective beds" – I see what you mean, and no better wording leaps to mind, but this is an odd-looking phrase. Perhaps the adjective could just be jettisoned?

• • I've dealt with the synopsis issues. In the synopsis, "Pat Nixon" is a character, not the real person, so I don't think a link is appropriate. I have reworded the elephant sentence, hopefully avoiding the need for a footnote. I have clarified re Kissinger's role in "The Red Detachment of Women". I prefer to keep "respective" beds if that's OK. Brianboulton (talk) 22:37, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

• • • I think referring to Mao and Chou as "Chinese Chairman" and "Chinese Premier" is all that is needed for purposes of this article. I'll play with the other things.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:51, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
• Productions
  • "Prior to" - as opposed to before?
  • "copy of the libretto, however Nixon's staff" – stronger punctuation mark than a comma needed here
  • "originating Pat Nixon" – looks odd (a US/UK thing?) – I wondered if just "singing" or "playing" would possibly read more smoothly here
  • "the Los Angeles Times" – weird italicisation
  • "Sellars implemented supertitles" – authorised? approved? – or did he actually implement them?
  • Metropolitan Opera – link at first mention
  • "The ENO production, based on the original Houston designs…" you have "Metropolitan" five times in 70 words. A bit of creative variation would be desirable here, I think
  • Canadian production: consistency wanted between past and present tenses
  • "The opera has not yet been presented in China" – I have no constructive suggestion, but this important sentence should not be tacked on as an irrelevant afterthought to the Canadian production.

• • I am only partly responsible for the prose here, but I've endeavoured to address the issues you raise. I think I've covered everything. Brianboulton (talk) 22:37, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

• Reception
  • "Davis' forecast of the opera's likely fate was not generally realized" – Do you need the adverb? It either was or wasn't
  • "Although the work was not performed in London until 13 years after its premiere, Tempo's critic Robert Stein responded to ENO's 2000 production enthusiastically" – the logic of this is not clear – why is it important to Stein's view that there was a 13 year gap?
  • Not a comment on your prose, but Erica Jeal's prose is ludicrous – how can anything be all-too-welcome? Pray ignore this bullet point – I'm just expostulating before getting back to the point at issue
  • "unusual settings for the operas he has staged" – neutral can go too far, chaps! "Unorthodox" perhaps, if you wish to be kind to Sellars. ( I can think of other adjectives.)

• • As above, I'm the coauthor of this section, but I've done the fixes. I've removed the "Davis' forecast..." sentence, as it reads like editorial comment. I've otherwise followed your lead, though I can't do much about Jeal's prose. I've left my colleague Wehwalt to pick up on the lead and Inception points. Brianboulton (talk) 22:50, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Second batch to follow. Tim riley (talk) 20:21, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

When there is a single officeholder who is head of state or government, and the person mentioned is the incumbent at the time, I have no problem with capitalizing "President" or "Prime Minister" and do it routinely in my political articles. (in other words, Nixon is "the President" when the events of 1972 are being talked about, but when he is invited to the premiere, he is "the former president". Same goes with Mao. Should I change all the Elizabeth II refs to "the queen"? I'll look at the others more closely.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:10, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

The Guardian would answer yes to your question about the queen. It also uses the form " the lord chancellor" which looks odd to me. The WP MoS is singularly ambiguous on what to do in such cases, and I think as long as one is internally consistent either "the Chairman" or "the chairman" will wash. Your logic is unimpeachable as to serving and former presidents. Tim riley (talk) 12:57, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

I think that it is more American practice to refer to the incumbent Prez as "the President", signifying that he is the Head Honcho, the Big Cheese, the Buck Stopper, etc.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:55, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

One note, I personally changed the instances of "Met" to "Metropolitan" or "Metropolitan Operea" to avoid what seemed to be an informal abbreviation. If either the other reviewers or authors prefer the abbreviated form, I'm sure that it would be fine.-RHM22 (talk) 20:41, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

I won't revert, but I think "Met" has wide enough currency to be acceptable. Live from the Met, for example.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:00, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Promised second batch of comments: on resuming my read-through I find I have little to raise in the music and refs sections.

• I was going to ask why you didn't give the Gramophone reviewer's name as usual, but I see it is impossible to read the online page that lists the reviewers in the relevant issue, and I admit "J. M." rings no bells.
• A couple of instances of "which-v-that" in the music section; some people (not me) get exercised about such things
• At note 45 should it be "liner" rather than "line"?
• With references to periodicals, you sometimes add the publisher's name and sometimes don't.
• Note 51 doesn't, I think, comply with WP:Say where you got it.

A very fine article, plainly ripe for FAC. I hope you will let me know when you nominate it. Tim riley (talk) 12:57, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

I will make the liner notes change (odd we are still using that term!) and will leave the others for my colleague.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:51, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

I'll wait to see what further comments Brian my have before commenting further. Of course, we speak as one, but there are certain areas in which he has greater expertise and I would not want to make a hasty comment without hearing from him.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:58, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

I have changed "which" to "that", as appropriate, in the Music section. Publishers were shown for Opera News and Tempo; I don't know why, since these are mainstream journals and it is not usual as such to show publishers' names, which I have now deleted for consistency. I have also deleted the former citation [51], since I can't be sure that the site hosting the quotation was doing so accurately or within context. There is a little more work to be done around the citations, e.g. fixing repetitive linking of journal names and a few template issues; I will sort these out over the weekend. Thanks again, Tim, for the time spent on this. Brianboulton (talk) 21:27, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

A couple of comments on the lead/lede (comments on the rest of the article to follow this evening):

• It's a good idea to give the composer's nationality and the language in which the libretto is written. I don't really like "with a libretto by", which sounds as if the librettist is a subsidiary person rather than a collaborator. You could say "composed to a libretto by", but I'd rephrase the first two sentences along the lines of:

  Nixon in China is the first opera by the American composer John Adams. The three-act English language libretto is by Alice Goodman.

• Choreography: poor old Mark Morris doesn't get another mention in the whole article. What did the critics say about his work? Was "The Chairman dances" the only choreographed piece? And has it been permanently deleted? If so, why?
• --GuillaumeTell 17:46, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

"The Chairman Dances" was not a deletion from the opera, that is a common misconception which is not in our article. It's the only separate piece I am aware of. If you mean, is there more choreography in the opera, there most certainly is, the ballet in Act 2 for beginners. On Morris, I looked through the reviews from 1987 and he is barely mentioned, I am afraid. The reviewers spent their time discussing why it was, or was not a great idea to convert the visit into an opera, and how well/badly Adams and Goodman did in adapting it. With a few nods in the direction of Maddalena. I will keep looking though, and perhaps Brian has materials at his fingertips which I lack. As regards the lede, I'd like to hear more discussion of that. Whatever one may think of the practice, we do not celebrate all those great Da Ponte operas for which Mozart supplied the music, if you see what I mean.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:17, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Well, if what you say above about "The Chairman Dances" is correct, which I'm sure it is, why does the "Music" section of the article say: "Missing from the act is the deleted orchestral suite The Chairman Dances, an extended foxtrot that Adams wrote as "a kind of warmup for embarking on the creation of the full opera."? Or am I being dense? --GuillaumeTell 20:19, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Well, this is where we address the tension from different people writing from different sources. That's why peer review is so helpful.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:23, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Wehwalt is right; "The Chairman Dances" is not a deleted scene, it was a separate composition which, as Adams says, he used as a preliminary warming-up exercise. I will alter the text to make this clear. There is a brief choreographed foxtrot in Act 3, as Pat reminisces about the 1930s. I too have struggled to find much critical reference to Morris's work, but am working on this. Brianboulton (talk) 15:42, 4 April 2011 (UTC)