Talk:La finta semplice

Misrepresentation of the lack of performance in Vienna

"When the opera was finished, the performers apparently disliked it,[1]"

This is a pretty wishy-washy description, and one that does not exactly correspond to the facts. It is too evasive, as is often the case on Wikipedia, to protect the lack of research and accurate knowledge by the editors.

This is not how Hermann Abert describes the problems that arose in his big book "W.A. MOZART" (1919, transl. 2007). Cliff Eisen, who edited the translation in 2007, does not dispute Abert's description.

It was the jealousy of other composers, who started circulating the story that the opera had not been written by a 12-year old, but by his father. Gluck was in town, and Leopold wondered whether he was also part of the intrigue against young Mozart.

The impresario, Affligio, an independent contractor, who made the final decisions, alone in charge of the theater and the performance, became influenced by the gossip and started worrying about a negative outcome. He found reasons to delay the performance. Things dragged on, and the artists started worrying about the bad feedback if the opera was a flop. Everybody's reputation was at stake, including that of the Salzburg archbishop, whose employees the Mozarts were. Affligio even threatened, if the work got to first night, to make sure the opening would be a fiasco. Leopold could not take the risk, and withdrew, but wrote a bitter letter of complaint to the Emperor. This may have alienated Maria Theresa even more.

It finally cost him the chance of getting a position in Milan after his successful performances of Mitridate, Ascanio, and Lucio Silla. Instead of a court-appointed opera composer, Mozart remained a free-lance opera writer all his life. --ROO BOOKAROO (talk) 21:51, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Rather than write all this out here, why not incorporate it into the article along with appropriate refs? Note the date of last revision: nothing has been done for years... DO IT!! Viva-Verdi (talk) 00:26, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I did, but it is an enormous demand on my time, and I find it unrewarding and wasteful to fight with young editors who have no knowledge of the historical facts, no knowledge of the opera itself, have never read all the scholarly books written about this opera, and simply glance quickly at a couple of books, or whatever summaries they can find online. This is not professional, and whenever you have deep insider's knowledge of a subject, you simply cannot trust anything written by those young editors. It is not worth your time fighting with them. Anybody who wants a better description of La Finta Semplice would get more extensive information by reading the writings of Hermann Abert and Cliff Eisen, and going to the reviews and comments published on Amazon concerning the various recordings of this opera on CDs and DVDs. My own Amazon review and comments on the Leopold Hager's Orfeo/Brilliant recording of this opera in Jan. 1983 are 13,900 words long.--ROO BOOKAROO (talk) 10:55, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

TO VIVA-VERDI: Look, I am not touching the article as of today, August 11, 2014. See what it says in the lead paragraph:

" La Finta Semplice is an opera buffa in three acts for soloists and orchestra, composed in 1769 by then 12-year-old Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart."

Now, this is what concerns me about the knowledge of the young editors. First of all, in 1769, Mozart was already 13 (born on Jan. 27, 1756), not 12.

Moreover, the whole world of Mozart scholarship knows that the score of La Finta Semplice was written by young Mozart during his visit to Vienna from Jan. 10, 1768 to the end of Dec. 1768. The score by young Mozart was completed and presented to Affligio in summer 1768.

So starting a full encyclopedic article on La Finta Semplice by stating that this opera was "composed in 1769" is to me simply bewildering. This shows no expertise in scholarship of any kind. I am not the one to correct such false information, that has figured in this article presumably for a very long time, without ANY of the young editors taking notice and reacting.
All this is mind-boggling. Nothing can be taken at face value in a Wikipedia article, but everything has to be checked with outside experts who are indubitably knowledgeable about the subject, and have spent their adult lives dealing with the subject.
Using a "printed" reference, which is the only standard of Wikipedia editors, is no guarantee of accuracy or reliability. It may be enough for popular presentations to readers who know nothing about the subject, like all young students who pirate Wikipedia for their school essays or papers, but it is simply not enough for scholarly purposes.
Look at the editors' use of the biography of Pietro Melograni as a basic reference. This is a populist writer who has no special expertise on Mozart, and whose book reads in many parts as a novelization of the information he's gleaned in the existing literature. Many of his sentences are pure speculations invented in his brain calculated to construct a pulsating scenario of assumed causes and motivations only to impress and interest the ignorant reader. And in that he succeeds all right.

But Cliff Eisen, who updated the bibliography of Abert's monumental book on Mozart, lists about 2,500 sources, over 65 pages of bibliography, which have scholarly value (that is, that can be quoted and deemed trustworthy), but does not include anywhere the name of Melograni, even though his book was published before Cliff Eisen's new edition of Abert's book.
One has to evaluate the quality of expertise of the printed author. All the people I know in the scholarly field feel the same about Wikipedia information. It has to be handled with kid gloves and used at best as a lead towards more reliable info, and checked with recognized experts, not simply printed authors.--ROO BOOKAROO (talk) 08:04, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What is the source for including Philippe Destouches in the lead paragraph?

The lead says: "Mozart composed the music using the model of comedy started by Philippe Destouches with La fausse Agnès, ou le Poète campagnard (1734)." I could not trace any statement by the experts I have been reading about Mozart using a model after this Philippe Destouches" Can the editor who stated this fact inform us of his source?

In Hermann Abert and Cliff Eisen's description of the facts, Mozart used no model whatsoever.
Leopold wanted a libretto, he had the choice between seria and buffa. He noted that the seria singers available in Milan were mediocre, and that the buffa singers were excellent. He chose a buffa libretto. He never mentioned any influence from a Philippe Destouches. He simply went to the established librettist in Vienna, who happened to be Coltellini, who was in the process of replacing Metastasio as a source.
Together they selected a libretto by Goldoni, the master of the commedia del'arte genre. Coltellini modified the libretto a bit, especially Act III. He abandoned some arias, replaced a few with his owns, and in some cases, kept the original Goldoni aria in the scene while adding a new one of his own, with the result that a few scenes ended up with two arias instead of one, as was the norm, usually coming at the end of the scene. In Coltellini's version, a few scenes start with an opening aria.
In all this nobody ever mentioned any Philippe Destouches.
Abert does mention in his book a French opera composer, André Cardinal Destouches, but no connection whatsoever with La Finta Semplice. So, please, where does this mention come from?
So far, I am letting the lead paragraph stand as is for the time being. So, please, editor who finalized the lead paragraph, speak up, and inform us.--ROO BOOKAROO (talk) 13:34, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If there are no answers to my request, I'll rewrite the lead paragraph, which is now incorrect, for a more scholarly introduction to this opera. Destouches and Bampton will go. They are like hair on the soup, right now. No relevance to Mozart and to his opera, and the dramatic event of its non-production.--ROO BOOKAROO (talk) 17:00, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If you look at "View history" and scroll way down, you'll find that this is present from the beginning in 2006/07, so I doubt you'll find the original editor(s) around, if at all. FYI: there is a brief entry in Grove, but no reference to Destouches. Viva-Verdi (talk) 17:51, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Viva-Verdi:
Fortunately you come to the rescue when you are needed.
In this case I'll rewrite the lead to reflect the truth of the situation. I felt very ashamed when reading this lead paragraph. I sensed that anybody knowing anything about this unusual opera would cringe at reading the bizarre information given in the lead paragraph and decide not to proceed any further. I did, because I've made extensive research on this opera, written full reviews on Amazon, and felt sorry for Mozart to be presented in such a shabby and made up fashion. So, thank you for your info and encouragement. --ROO BOOKAROO (talk) 22:49, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Article style and formatting

As I have noted on User Talk:ROO BOOKAROO's talk page, I have reverted his revert of the list of sources which is now back to being in alphabetical order by surname. In addition, I made some other formatting changes throughout the article, using "Act 1" rather that "Act I", etc. Also, we really do not use all caps for an entire sentence, therefore created a sub-heading.

Please refer to the following: Wikipedia:WikiProject Opera/Article styles and formats in determining opera article styles.

This is the result of consensus from a group of editors of operas, put together over many years. Re: La finta semplice I see no reason why its format (whether American or European or whatever) should depart from the standard of those on all other articles (where substantial ref sources exist) relating to Mozart's operas. If you wish to continue this discussion, please do so here. Viva-Verdi (talk) 19:55, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, Viva-Verdi:
No, I do not accept this mechanical reversal, whatever the mechanical rule is being dictated by somebody.
In the Mozart literature, nobody knows Eisen, Cliff or Abert, Hermann, and neither Sadie, Stanley.
In long Indexes, with hundreds of entries, this reversal may be accepted for quick retrieval.
But even in long biographies, the usage of publishing is to keep the order of names in their natural, accepted form. The reversal is unnecessary, and is contrary to the normal working of the brain.
In a short list of 5 to 10 entries, the reversal makes no sense whatsoever, as the retrieval is immediate.
Applying a mechanical rule without using one's critical brain is ignorance of experimental psychology.
You are the man who accepted to read in the lead paragraph for years that Mozart composed La Finta Semplice in 1769, at the age of 12, without even blanching at the historical incongruity of such a Wikipedia statement, and now you erect yourself as a champion of correctness by giving me grief, wanting to oblige me to mention Eisen, Cliff and Mozart, W.A., contrary to the world's literature on Mozart, just to show what a stickler for correctness you are.
I am sorry, but I am not accepting this robotic, non-thinking practice in this case. You can apply it to all your articles on Verdi, Giuseppe, if you so wish, but in the case of W.A. Mozart, I know my facts.
I am reverting to Cliff Eisen, Hermann Abert, Stanley Sadie, and W.A. Mozart, as they exist in all the world's Mozart literature.

This is another instance of the low-level expertise of the young Wikipedia editors.--ROO BOOKAROO (talk) 20:16, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please refer to almost any other completed Mozart opera article (or indeed, almost any other well-sourced opera article) and you will see that this is a standard format for a quick glace down from a footnote to an author's name and details below, easy to spot in alphabetical order.

As advised, I suggest that you carefully consider the 3-REVERT rule before taking any other action.

Disagreement with me or any other editor is not a reason to continually revert. Consensus needs to be established.

PS: I'm not particularly interested in Mozart's operas, nor have I ever read this article before. It's content does not interest me: its format does. Viva-Verdi (talk) 20:39, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User:ROO BOOKAROO continues to reverts in the Sources section, based on the premise that authors do not use last-name, first-name order in their writing. But we are talking citation styles, not the inclusion of authors' names in the body of the work where using just the last name or both names in order would be fine.

See some examples of standard citation styles commonly used everywhere. All use surname first. Viva-Verdi (talk) 18:08, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I agree with Viva-Verdi in thinking we should follow standard citation practice (as with the style manuals VV cites). Opus33 (talk) 14:22, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Might we step back a bit?

This article strikes me as badly written, with POV issues, in its present state. Would there be support for going back to a more modest version, that of 23 September 2013, and taking it from there? We could selectively plug in various small improvements from the intervening edit history. Opus33 (talk) 19:37, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

+1. The history section is mainly based on the work of Hermann Abert, which is now 100 years old. This in turn uses the correspondence of Mozart's father Leopold as source, which obviously is not neutral. The stated date of the first performance (1 may 1769) has already been identified as erroneous in the NMA (1983!). Large sections of the article are completely off-topic, namely the praise of Abert's work or the chapter about Maria Theresia. --Rodomonte (talk) 10:11, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

+2 I agree with you, Rodomonte. The section "Alienating Empress Maria Theresa" is completely off-topic and full of unattributed random speculation and commentary. The whole section should go, for a start. The rest is pretty bad too. Interestingly, the opera finally did get a performance in Vienna around 1925, albeit not in a famous opera house. It was staged to mark the promotion of the Vienna Music Academy to the Hochschule für Musik. The cast were all graduates of the Academy. There's a brief article about the event in The Musical Times of 1 April 1925, p. 364. It's on JSTOR here (subscription required). Voceditenore (talk) 11:52, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There have been several performances in the 1920's. The first was 1921 in Karlsruhe Die verstellte Einfalt, a german language adaptation by Anton Rudolph. You can find a list of these early productions (including Vienna) in de:La finta semplice#Werkgeschichte. --Rodomonte (talk) 12:52, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think you should just go ahead and re-write, trim, etc. You'd be doing a real opera di bene. Voceditenore (talk) 13:26, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Agree that article be rewritten. Rodomonte has obviously expertise doing that. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 13:31, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, english is not my native language. My main work is in the german wiki. I only make some smaller corrections here when absolutely necessary. But feel free to translate parts of the german article. --Rodomonte (talk) 13:35, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Performance

Just for information: it was performed in English as part of the 1985 Camden Festival at the Bloomsbury Theatre London. 2A04:4A43:415F:E36E:0:0:A69:EE8C (talk) 13:19, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your suggestion, I have managed to find a reference for it. Cg2p0B0u8m (talk) 22:25, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]