Talk:La rondine

the poor man's La traviata

Sometimes, critics write silly things. No reason to put them on wikipedia. --Al Pereira (talk) 03:21, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Especially when the critic is not a reviewer of composition, but of performance. OPERA's reviewers do seem to compete for the most flippant dismissive comments and this is a typical example. I agree it should go. almost-instinct 11:20, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"La rondine" production at the Met, Dec 2008

Having changed the assertion that the Met's production will be the same as the one in San Francisco last Nov/Dec and added that the Met's website states that a new production will be directed by Nicolas Joel (ref. 6), I checked the Royal Opera House archives on line and found that their joint production with Toulouse was directed in London by the same person.....

Of course, that doesn't mean that it is the same production, but.... does anyone know for certain? Viva-Verdi (talk) 17:43, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it's definitely the same production. I've updated and clarified the "Modern production history" section. I've also removed the bit about how the Met production will be broadcast in HD on January 10th. Encylopedia articles are not newsletters about coming events. The time to add that information is after the HD broadcasts take place. Voceditenore (talk) 18:37, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The synopsis

Is this too long and detailed? almost-instinct 11:35, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is too long. But rather than changing it, it would be useful to add an additional plot precis before the full synopsis. Something of about 50 words that lays out the essence of the plot. If you don't know the plot already, it's hard to find it from this long account. Pennycent (talk) 15:23, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not only was it too long and detailed it was a virtually verbatim copy from http://opera.stanford.edu/Puccini/LaRondine/synopsis.html where it is marked "Copyright Kelly McDonald, 1998". I've removed it as a copyright violation and replaced it with a very brief summary. Other editors, please expand it as appropriate but without resorting to plagiarism. Voceditenore (talk) 19:13, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've now added some more detail to the synopsis. I'm also wondering whether the Alternative Ending section at the end of Act III should be moved to Modern Performance History? Although Puccini sketched this alternative ending, in which Magda drowns herself, he never completed it or gave an indication that he wished he had picked it. So it's perhaps misleading to include it in the main synopsis? OperaBalletRose (talk) 17:03, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There is some sense in moving the alternative ending section, although some explanation is needed for clarification. Any sources on how this ending came about? Viva-Verdi (talk) 10:09, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Marta Domingo's 1995 version is mentioned on a number of websites, but I've been unable to find any print sources for it. Looking at Julian Budden's 2002 biography of Puccini, it seems likely that the Domingo version is based on the third version by Puccini (1921), in which the letter from Ruggero's mother is replaced by an anonymous telegram revealing Magda's past, prompting Ruggero to leave Magda. However, the ending added by Domingo, in which Magda kills herself, is not present in any of Puccini's three completed versions. I'd therefore suggest clarifying the Modern Performance History section - using the Budden biography as reference - and moving the text about the Domingo version here, if that sounds OK? OperaBalletRose (talk) 17:39, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]