Talk:L'Africaine

France Low‑importance

	France portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject France, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of France on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.FranceWikipedia:WikiProject FranceTemplate:WikiProject FranceFrance articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Opera

This article falls within the scope of WikiProject Opera, a group writing and editing Wikipedia articles on operas, opera terminology, opera composers and librettists, singers, designers, directors and managers, companies and houses, publications and recordings. The project discussion page is a place to talk about issues and exchange ideas. New members are welcome!OperaWikipedia:WikiProject OperaTemplate:WikiProject OperaOpera articles

L'Africaine or L'africaine?

I never know with French capitalisation. We use A in the title, but a in the lede. French WP has A. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 20:04, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In French, the first noun of any title is always capitalized. Stendhal’s novel was published as "Le Rouge et le noir" ("red" capitalized, but "black" lowercase). It is "Le Prophète." In Italian, this is different. The Italian version is known as "Il profeta."

Unfriendly behavior

The last user who edited this page has shown unfriendly behavior by not respecting the rules of WP (templates at the bottom of the page) and be disregarding the minimal respect toward others who work here. Please seek first first consensus, before you chance the placement and the size of images. There is NO CONSENSUS about removing the portrait of the first singer of the title role, Mrs. Marie Sasse and then even hiding it in a somehow professional looking "-dead ext. link; std layout; +Commonscat & IMSLP; 1 Sasse image is sufficient; link tweaks." I consider this behavior RUDE maybe even MEAN and I kindly ask you to stop it. Please do not declare something a standard (what is just your personal will - as you also do constantly in German WP). Please do this changes openly and not hidden under several other things and PLEASE DISCUSS them in advance.--Meister und Margarita (talk) 04:48, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There is most definitely no consensus to position the traditional opera templates, like {{Meyerbeer operas}}, at the bottom of a page, much less a Wikipedia rule. It takes some chutzpah to make such radical changes to a page without any consultation, in fact against Wikipedia:WikiProject Opera/Article guidelines and long standing and universal practice for opera articles, and then accusing others of lack of seeking consensus. Attempting to attribute malicious intent based on my detailed edit summary is just laughable. Note that an image of Sasse is still present in the article. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 10:50, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on L'Africaine. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:20, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Title

An editor has sought to undertake extensive revisions on the basis that "the work is called "Vasco de Gama." Ultimately, the Wiki title for the work will have to be changed to that title." "Vasco de Gama" may have been Meyerbeer's manuscript title of the uncompleted work (although the editor has not provided citations for this), but the work is known generally as "L'Africaine" in the edition in which it has been consistently performed. I can see no justification for the statement that the wikititle needs to be changed. Nor do we have any comments from other authorities on the status or value of the edition which the editor is so keen to promote. In the absence of such information there seems no need to advance the manuscript title (and version) over the one which has been traditionally heard in opera houses and recorded. We can't it seems to me, in the absence of any evidence, second guess what Meyerbeer's final thoughts might have been (or how completed he considered the score to be at the time of his death). --Smerus (talk) 10:21, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) I heard a performance of "L'Africaine – Vasco da Gama", understanding (from spoken introduction) that there was never a fixed score but (generally in his operas) much more music than ever could be performed one night, which was usually sifted during rehearsals with the compeser present, but he was too ill to do it for this work. Which leaves us with ambiguous info. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:37, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Before we entertain any thoughts of changing the title or role names, we need sources. Sources that confirm Selk's (the 2018 editor) work, and more importantly, secondary musicology sources that review or even mention them, or even a performance of that edition. That Vasco de Gama is an alternative title was already mentioned in the article, as was the 2013 production of Schläder's edition in Chemnitz. Opera Frankfurt (see above) refers to the work as L'Africaine in all its artists' profiles, and Frankfurt and Chemnitz use the form Vasco da Gama, not Vasco de Gama. All that needs to be done in this article is to request sources for Selk's work. Speaking of which: where does he get Yorico from? -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 12:30, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) I agree that changing the article title would be very inappropriate. The work is overwhelmingly known as L'Africaine in performances, recordings, and scholarly sources. Ditto the notion that Vasco de Gama is somehow the "definitive" title. We need a reliable secondary source for that. At most create Vasco de Gama (opera) as a redirect to L'Africaine and bold it in the lede. The changes to the role table were also terribly confusing and completely contrary to the contemporary reviews of the premiere where the relevant characters are called "Nélusko" (not "Yoriko") and "Sélika" (not "Sélica"). See the review in Le Ménestrel. Also, although Jürgen Selk is the editor-in-chief of the Giacomo Meyerbeer Werkausgabe published by Ricordi, according to Ricordi the actual "critical edition" of the score was edited Jürgen Schläder [1]. See also this 2015 New York Times review. Also the cast list of the Deutsche Oper Berlin production using Jürgen Schläder's revision of the score but keeping the original role names. Ditto the first recording using this revised score (reviewed by Gramophone and performed by Chemnitz Opera). At most, there could be footnotes in the role table listing the character names in the revised score, but that would require someone actually seeing a copy of that new score. None of the recent productions using that score use those character names. Voceditenore (talk) 13:14, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Moreover, all the recent productions using Schläder's edition seem to use the 'traditional' names for the roles (see e.g. here). So no evidence that the so-called 'original' names are taking over.--Smerus (talk) 18:22, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

According to Steven Huebner in Grove Music Online [2], the working title of the opera at the beginning (1837) was L'Africaine. Meyerbeer and Scribe changed it to Vasco da Gama in 1860. Fétis reinstated the original title after Meyerbeer's death in 1864, when Meyerbeer's widow put Fétis in charge of the production. --Robert.Allen (talk) 01:54, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I might add that very likely Vasco da Gama would be the title in English and German, and Vasco de Gama in French. --Robert.Allen (talk) 02:01, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for improving the article. But I took out the word 'abridged' form the lead. All Meyerbeer's latter operas were 'overwritten' and had chunks cut out during rehearsal etc, so we may assume that M., would have expected cuts to be made - although of course we can't guess which he would or would not have sanctioned. But to say it's an 'abridged version' implies that M. expected it complete.--Smerus (talk) 08:43, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, I agree, good edit. And clearly no definitive edition or title will ever exist. --Robert.Allen (talk) 09:19, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It is all quite complicated, in the Grove article referenced above it says The original libretto was set in Spain during the reign of Philip III and features in the tenor role an obscure naval officer named Fernand, who purchases Sélika in a slave market; he sails for Mexico in Act 3, but a storm drives his ships to the coast of Africa and Sélika’s realm on the Niger river. In the revision Portugal and India became the backdrop and the explorer Vasco da Gama was made the protagonist of the work; the working title was changed from L’Africaine to Vasco da Gama. Fétis changed the title back to L'Africaine as an opera by that name by Meyerbeer had been awaited for years but it makes no sense at all for the revision as Sélika is not from Africa in that version and Africa has nothing to do with the story. So it really ought to be presented as Vasco da Gama but the nonsensical title L'Africaine is how it is known. I intend to expand this article at some point when I have time.Smeat75 (talk) 14:56, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Just remember to cite secondary sources, since original research is in most instances is not allowed. (I guess I was thinking more of User:ScoreForever, when I wrote this.) --Robert.Allen (talk) 19:14, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Smeat75, I've adjusted the titles to the recordings. It is not clear that the 2014 recording is of the latest edition, (as e.g. Nélusko retains his name). The recording therefore seems to represent an earlier version by Schläder of the edition which was published in 2018. So safer I think to talk of the 2014 recording simply as under the title of Vasco de Gama.--Smerus (talk) 10:01, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Couldn't that make it seem that the only difference between the recorded versions is the title? It is actually a recording of "the opera as Meyerbeer left it before Fétis's changes" (review in the Guardian) [3]. I would prefer that to be indicated somehow.Smeat75 (talk) 12:04, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, i've tried again.....Best, --Smerus (talk) 13:55, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox

This is a good example of the limitations of infoboxes. Vasco de Gama is not exactly an alternative name, since it indicates a substantially revised version of the opera, and no versions were approved by the composer, so what can we say. The intro explains it well, but the infobox cannot. --Robert.Allen (talk) 01:45, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Robert.Allen, we shouldn't be mixing versions in the infobox. If we're crediting Meyerbeer and Scribe, we shouldn't also be giving a 1865 premiere. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:48, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

We should follow the title of the article and use the first version, approved by his widow (who apparently owned the rights), and at the time, the only legal published version of the opera, which credits both Meyerebeer and Scribe, so the infobox is correct. --Robert.Allen (talk) 02:01, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't object to crediting Meyerbeer and Scribe; I object to indicating that theirs was the work premiered in 1865. We can restore the previous organization of images if that is a concern. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:28, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A multitude of sources state the first version has words by Scribe and music by Meyerbeer. It is really not possible to dispute it. Yes, it was edited by Fétis (uncredited, as far as I know), but Template:Infobox opera does not have a parameter for editor. --Robert.Allen (talk) 02:57, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the template has limitations. We do not have the option of accurately representing the work's complicated history. However, we do have the option to avoid further misrepresenting things by indicating that the version premiered was the work conceptualized by that pair. After all, just because something can be sourced does not require it to be included, and certainly not in this form. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:06, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

All versions use mostly words by Scribe and music by Meyerbeer. There is absolutely no problem with the infobox as is. In my view, adding the editor would be an error, because Fétis only edited the first version. I don't think he wrote a lot of new words or music. And the premiere was the premiere, regardless of the version used. --Robert.Allen (talk) 03:17, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Fétis edited the version premiered, and as the article explains, negatively so. I've added a clarifying note; if that is unacceptable, we should restore this version pending an RfC. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:16, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I like the explanation, thank you! - We should not use that version because the sidebar needs to be orphaned. Also: we should use an image related to the opera for the top, perhaps the one right here. An image of the composer is the last rescue when nothing about the opera is available. Check out Carmen, for example: no image of the composer. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:15, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It was performed as recently as 2018 using both names together. - The reviewer's last paragraph begins (I shorten a bit): Whether Aficaine or da Gama, it's great music. - Also, his name gives an early hint at the topic, while an anonymous African woman is just that. If it's a problem for you on top, move to other_names. As the composer left many versions of too much music for a night, there will always be different things the audience will get. We could easily add the first librettist in the infobox, but then please also to the lead. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:35, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]