Talk:Ballad opera

20th century Ballad Operas

I actually got hold of some recording of 20th century "ballad operas" to confirm this, but the term as applied to these works either has nothing whatever to do with the 18th century genre - or is based on a misapprehension. (Mind you this has nothing to do with how "good" they are - in fact they are definitely at least "interesting").

Perhaps we need another article to cover 20th century "ballad operas"??? --(Soundofmusicals 23:07, 31 January 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Balance in the article

I appreciate the intentions of bringing out the racy origins of ballad opera, but unfortunately the predominance of this tone in this article makes it difficult to give a balanced treatment of the long development of English light opera, not all of which was as bitingly satirical as the examples you have given. Does the format of spoken dialogue and sung ballad in 18th century stage drama belong under this name, or is that simply something else which is not to be classed as 'ballad opera'? Dr Steven Plunkett 13:58, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Of course not all light opera in English is "ballad opera" - in fact Shield's "Rosina" - almost the only other light English language eighteenth century opera I can think of off hand that is still occasionally staged - is definitely NOT a ballad opera at all, is it? Apart from being MUCH more "operatic" it lacks many of the defining features of the ballad opera. While still "light", it is quite a different kettle of fish. In a "balanced treatment of the long development of English light opera" surely the ballad opera is just one of a number of different genres?

That seems to have been the rationale behind this article long before I edited it! -- Soundofmusicals 13:20, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I've had a look at the article itself, just to make the distinction a little clearer. Among other things, I've cut the reference to Dibdin, Arne etc. - as I can find no reference to any specific ballad opera any of these gentlemen wrote (this bit was not a contribution of mine). -- Soundofmusicals 16:04, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well Dr, Plunkett - someone else has actually done what you suggested! And without consulting me or looking at the discussion either! The worst of it is that his article cannot just be thrown out as a person aberration, because some respectable musical historians take a similar vague, careless view of what a "ballad opera" actually is (one suspects that the topic is outside their immediate area of interest and they can't be bothered). I have told him what I think (nicely, I hope) - and invited him to write another article making it clear that a ballad opera, and what is sometimes carelessly called a ballad opera is something rather different. Soundofmusicals 04:05, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ballad Opera rewrite

Your reworking of this article, in the opinion of this old pedant (whose first degree, incidentally, was in musical history) widens the definition of "Ballad Opera" to near meaninglessness, and throws out a fair bit of baby with the bathwater. Still, this wide and highly vague definition of a very specific genre does exist in otherwise generally accurate and very highly reputable references, and is far from being just your creation, so I suppose we might as well live with it.

Might I humbly suggest, on the other hand, that you might like to perform yet another drastic rewrite, distinguishing a little more clearly between the original genre (as in the article as I originally left it - and its much more gentle contemporary, with (mostly) specially composed music, non-satiric themes, and pastoral rather than criminal characters. (I.E. different in practically every respect except chronology!!).

Perhaps even a opening line something like "the term Ballad Opera is used to refer to a form of highly satirical 18th century stage presentation, and also to a form of eighteenth and nineteenth century light opera with music, often also called a "pastoral". Come to think of it - the Beggar's opera was at one stage described an a "Newgate Pastoral" by its author!!

have fun. -- Soundofmusicals 02:38, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I think you are being a bit pedantic, (as, no doubt, am I). I put in the references to the pastoral side ('Love in a Village', etc.) because the article as I found it gave the impression that all ballad operas were about low-life and that they were generally attacked and suppressed, which was I think extremely misleading (to say the least). Whether you (or I) like it or not, the term 'ballad opera' is used by those around us to cover both of these types. We can't be Humpty-Dumpty in WP ('When I use a word, it means what I want it to mean'). The essence of both types was that their music consisted of strophic settings of simple tunes in English, interspersed with spoken episodes, on stories of everyday folk. Whether such tunes were 'written' or 'borrowed', was in those days, as you will know, often a debatable point, and perhaps not really relevant - the point was (for their largely bourgeois audiences) that they were definitely not Italian arias.

You rightly point out that 'this wide and highly vague definition of a very specific genre does exist in otherwise generally accurate and very highly reputable references' - and the point of WP is not to redefine consensus - indeed 'original research', including attempts at redefining the consensus, is specifically excluded from WP's remit (seeWikipedia:Original research). If therefore you can cite a source that argues that the the term 'ballad opera' should be restricted in the way you suggest, by all means edit the article to cite it. But don't let it override the wider, accepted, definition. In the meantime I am posting this exchange on Talk:Ballad opera so that others can express an opinion on it should they wish.--Smerus 07:46, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

O.K. I have done it myself!!

I have tried my very best to keep well away from the spirit of the mindless reversion - while getting the original article largely reinstated! You additional information is nicely worked in, I hope.

Anyway - let me know how you feel about all this. -- Soundofmusicals 07:20, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I feel that what you have done is not quite right, especially in the light of what I have written above. I don't have time to edit the article now as I have work to do, but I will get round to it later.--Smerus 07:52, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Soundofmusicals,

In my rewrite I have sought to maintain WP standards. I have removed opinions, which however strongly you may hold them controvert Wikipedia:Original research. I know how difficult it is to deny oneself - believe me I often do so in my contributions - but there is a difference between a scholarly essay and a WP article, which should be designed to be read by laypeople, not experts. You (and for that matter I) may not agree with Grove and the standard reference books, but however many musical history degrees we can muster between us, they can muster more.

So we should try to avoid the punditry and rhetoric of phrases like 'In retrospect we may wonder...', disquisitions on Handel's financial crises, overstated attack of (or defence from) standard authorities (or Wikipedians) with whom we may personally disagree, reconstructions of what we think audiences may have thought, non-neutral points of view, and so on. I hope you may agree that I have retained all the elements relating to ballad opera itself that you have contributed, which are relevant from a WP point of view. If you want to make a detailed case against the conventional categorisation of ballad opera, there are numerous musical history magazines which would be more appropriate homes for your analysis, where I for one would be most interested to read them.

with best regards --Smerus 19:52, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I reformatted the above discussion to make it easier to see when a comment begins and ends. Please don't use a new line for your signatures, as it makes it harder to figure out who said what. Interesting discussion, by the way. I must agree with Smerus that if you cannot cite WP:RS (reliable sources) for a statement, then you should not change another editor's work. Wikipedia is (increasingly, and aspirationally) based on citation of reliable sources rather than original analysis, however well informed. Also, please note that although there are some references listed at the bottom of the article, it is better to cite sources along the way, so that the reader can tell which assertions come from which sources. Can either of you add any inline citations? Please see WP:CITE and WP:FOOTNOTE for information on how to do this if you are in doubt. Best regards, -- Ssilvers 20:41, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Most references are flawed, and, incidentally, contradict each other. Some of the best of them were written by some testy old pedant hear the end of his life (take Scholes as an example). Still - in the cold hard light of day - fair enough. I concede you couldn't as run Wikipedia that way. The trouble is that it is easy to get into the opposite situation - where someone with next to no background knowledge at all plagarises some second-rate, highly derivitive reference. NOT that that's what's happened here of course, just that there is a balance between taking too much advantage of people's expertise, and ending up with the odd bit of eccentricity, and just summarising or re-wording a source, and ending with something VERY second rate. ANYWAY I think we've got a better article than we would have got otherwise - although there's the odd bit I mildly regret. But this is Wikipedia, and not the collected works of me (alas). Soundofmusicals 00:14, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps there is a reference out there that supports your position (or at least some of your assertions). There's nothing wrong with choosing to cite sources that you really think are the most accurate ones. Usually there is *something* in the library to support positions that good musicians and drama students would necessarily support.... Best regards, -- Ssilvers 03:54, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Continued under new heading below. -- Ssilvers 16:22, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Info from Oxford Illustrated History of Opera

For what it's worth, here's Thomas Bauman writing in the Oxford Illustrated History of Opera: "A flood of imitations and successors followed close on the heels of Gay's opera. The elememts of satire and burlesque remained strong in many of these works, for example several by Henry Fielding, but serious, naive, historical, rustic and patriotic themes also found in the ballad opera a congenial format...After mid-century the English ballad opera began to yield to comic operas with more and more of their music by a single composer. The transition received decisive impetus when John Beard took over Covent Garden in 1760 and began at once to set opera before spoken plays in his repertoire..." Bauman recommends Roger Fiske's English Theatre Music in the Eighteenth Century as the most comprehensive work on this period.

A couple of queries: Thomas D'Urfey couldn't have cashed in on the craze for The Beggar's Opera (1728) since he had died in 1723; and Thomas Dibdin should probably be Charles Dibdin his father? --Folantin 08:12, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for this, these points should be incorporated, the article adjusted as appropriate. I will do it when I have time if no-one else does. D'Urfey - you are right of course, however the WP article on D'Urfey says that 10 of the numbers in 'The Beggar's Opera;' are by him - needs to be checked out.--Smerus 18:54, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think Gay and Pepusch reused ten or so numbers by D'Urfey, probably from his collection of ballads and songs Wit and Mirth, or Pills to Purge Melancholy. More tomorrow. --Folantin 19:03, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rinaldo - the first ballad opera

Rinaldo did not have "racy English dialogue", did not use pre-existent folk ballad tunes, was not a "satirical" story with "lower class, often criminal, characters". It did not represent "eighteenth-century protest against the Italian conquest of the London operatic scene", it represented part of that conquest, as it was "the first Italian opera composed specifically for the London stage". It may well be the source cited does say it was the first ballad opera; but then obviously the author of that source has his own definition of a ballad opera, and it is very different from the one used in this article. If so, that should have been specified, because otherwise the paragraph doesn't make sense. --91.148.159.4 (talk) 14:58, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I cant get hold of the source, but it does seem an odd claim. I have amended it for the time being and provided a source for more common views.--Sabrebd (talk) 16:18, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]