Talk:Jocelyn (opera)

Capoul's last performance

I've removed the following unreferenced assertion:

Capoul's last performance on stage was also in this role, when he performed it later 1888 in Paris.

It couldn't have been his last performance, although he did sing in the 1888 Paris premiere. Capoul is in the Metropolitan Opera archives as singing Tybalt in Roméo et Juliette and Cassio in Otello in 1891. [1] – Voceditenore (talk) 12:24, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Premiere cast

The official archive of La Monnaie does have Émile Engel in the title role; but there other divergences from the Amadeus list given here. http://carmen.demunt.be/pls/carmen/carmen3.produktievoorstelling?t=1&vid=227716&id=-1&sid=-1 I wonder also if the Legault role is a travesty one. Cg2p0B0u8m (talk) 22:40, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Sequin/Father and the Julie/Montagnard roles were reversed. I've corrected them according to the La Monnaie source as I think that's more likely to be accurate. It would be good to check this, of course. --Klein zach 23:19, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the Monnaie archive ought to be the most accurate (just as with the Metropolitan archive mentioned above); they would have access to all sort of documentary material. They have put some documents on-line – for instance a signed photo of Émile Engel as Mime and various things for Henri Seguin (who appears not to have an accent). Cg2p0B0u8m (talk) 23:10, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Original cast list discrepancies/ La Monnaie, Amadeus etc.

Maybe it's better not to put fact tags on this list, when the sources are given? We can point out discrepancies in notes as necessary. Otherwise if there are still any specific problems, can we discuss them here? In any case, as explained earlier, we assume La Monnaie is more reliable than Amadeus. --Klein zach 00:02, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The 2 given references are in contradiction, so I think de-tagging is premature. Perhaps you will explain your assumption that La Monnaie is more reliable, when the first edition largely agrees with Amadeus? Sparafucil (talk) 01:35, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why not note the discrepancies in footnotes? Or if you have information why go ahead and use it? I don't understand why you are continually questioning the facts rather than trying to set them straight. --Klein zach 01:53, 16 March 2011 (UTC) P.S. In the meantime I have simply removed the voice type and singer as challenged. --Klein zach 01:57, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm questioning your hunches rather than the facts as best can try to establish them. What's to discuss about the glaring inconsistencies? Your edit warring is a waste of our time. Btw, thanks for fixing the opus # on Benjamin Godard. Sparafucil (talk) 02:12, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the information I added and you queried - the exact opposite of edit warring. --Klein zach 03:51, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

IMSLP references

If we are going to refer to IMSLP, can we make sure the references are directly to the right book or volume, if possible with page/section numbers? Vague referencing is difficult to check. --Klein zach 02:03, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The cast list is near the front, as customary. Page two of the vocal score to be more exact. Have fun! Sparafucil (talk) 02:14, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Clean-up tag and other inappropriate edits

I have removed the entirely inappropriate {{cleanup}} tag in the role section. The general discrepancy is already noted in the citations. The specific role/singer should have a footnote with the alternate listed in the other sources. And Sparafucile, will you kindly stop making unencyclopedic "citations", e.g. While the opera itself seems not to have merited an article in Grove Opera, "Berceuse de Jocelyn" get a hit at Oxford Music Online. "Gets a hit" where? In what article? If you don't know, then this sort of commentary belongs on the talk page. Ditto The Berceuse is ubiquitous in cello encore albums. If it's important to note put it in the text, and cite some examples. Voceditenore (talk) 08:16, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It does not serve WP well to put up erroneous information without cautioning readers. If thee is a more appropriate template please advise, or supply it yourself. Sparafucil (talk) 08:37, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Having no template is appropriate. The problem here is not "erroneous information", but incomplete/contradictory sources, which can simply be explained in footnotes. --Klein zach 09:17, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There is a problem here in that the role titles, voice types, and actual performers in the table do not appear to be from a single source, which makes this quite confusing and leads to a lot of contradictions. I would suggest using a single source, preferably perhaps the first edition of the score, p. 2. referencing it as the source, and then note any discrepancies in further footnotes. Note that the use of } in the score cast list seems to indicate that one singer sang two roles, e.g. Un vieillard (old man)/Un pâtre (shepherd) sung by Vinche and L'époux de Julie (Julie's fiance)/Un incroyable (fop, with pretty much the same meaning as muscadin used in Monnaie cast list), sung by Rouver. Note also that the Monnaie lists Franklin as singing Un écolier (a student), while the score and Amadeus lists him as Un geôlier (prison guard) and nowhere in the cast list at the Monnaie is anyone designated as Julie's fiance). I'm inclined to trust that source the least of the three frankly. Voceditenore (talk) 09:57, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Right. I've made a start at it - using multiple sources, but noticing the same problems. If you want to try another approach that's fine. (N.B. WP has articles on Muscadin and Incroyables and Merveilleuses.) --Klein zach 10:38, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is looking better now. I did make one change and reffed it to the score - Vinche as the Shepherd and noting the difference with Casaglia. What a headache;-) - Voceditenore (talk) 11:08, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]