Talk:Le droit d'aînesse

Francis Chassaigne?

Is there any information about this composer? Is the name correct? --Klein zach 05:49, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to be spelled correctly: [1]. Piano music with his name in big letters: [2]. More piano music: [3]. Sources say that he wrote: Deux Mauvaises Bonnes, Le Bouquet de Violettes, Les Noces Improvisées, Jeanne la sabotière and Actéon et le centaure, and that he was born in 1850. He appears to have died in 1922. See also [4] and [5]. Here is a photo: [6]. -- Ssilvers (talk) 06:41, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Do you speak French?: [7]. There seems to have been an article about him in Issue N° 101 of Opérette [8]. -- Ssilvers (talk) 06:11, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Those links only establish is that the name is spelt correctly. There are no biographical details about him. Is he notable? He should be - given that his works were published - and yet he seems to be a blank. --Klein zach 06:58, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't be in a hurry to write an article about him. French Wikipedia doesn't have an article on him. -- Ssilvers (talk) 07:10, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reliability of this article?

We only have one reference (Amadeus) for this work. All the other material is about the English version and that is based on unreliable web sources. It's not clear how the original work Le droit d'aînesse relates to English adaptation Falka. Perhaps they should be regarded as separate works, but we have so little information that we can't tell. The synopsis appears to be a paraphrase of the one in 'Old and Sold Antiques Digest'. All things considered this is pretty unimpressive. --Klein zach 13:38, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's not in very good shape at all. But I've looked around and managed to find enough proper sources to be able to fix this over the next few days. Amazingly, despite the very poor sources used, the article is actually pretty reliable, barring some minor changes which Farnie may have made to the plot. The cast list for the original production is correct, but the editor who expanded it merely stated the source in their edit summary [9], rather than referencing it in the article. The source can found here. It's a review in Les Annales du Théâtre et de la Musique 1884. I also found a review in Le Ménestrel. The synopsis is indeed paraphrased from 'Old and Sold Antiques Digest' but that in turn was copied from a public domain source here. So there are no copyvio problems, fortunately. It just requires more accurate attribution. I also found enough biographical information on Chassaigne to create a basic stub, which I'll also do when I fix this article up. Voceditenore (talk) 17:52, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Voceditenore. BTW, it would make no sense to split the original and English-language versions into two articles. What purpose would be served by making our readers click back and forth between two articles about the two versions of this work? Indeed, the French original was a failure and will never merit more than a stub. It was only Farnie's version that became successful and was widely toured throughout the world. This is English Wikipedia - why are we afraid to give proper weight to successful English-language versions of operettas? It would make more sense to give the character names in the English-language version, and the London cast list should be featured at least as prominently as the French cast. Best regards, -- Ssilvers (talk) 18:41, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ssilvers: How do we know the first performance was a failure? After all it was performed in Paris at the Théâtre des Nouveautés with a cast of famous singers. (N.B. Credit to Voceditenore for making some progress with this.) --Klein zach 06:13, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would tend to agree. I suspect that readers will be interested in both versions and will expect to have both conveniently to hand. As there is no issue of length, why split?--Wehwalt (talk) 18:57, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I also agree on both counts. If properly written and structured there's no need for two articles. They'd be counterproductive. This is an analogous situation to operas which have significantly revised versions and both premiere casts are given, which in this case they certainly should be. You can find an example at Don Carlos. Alternatively, if the names and descriptions of the characters are significantly different, there could be a separate role table in the English adaptation section. And the fact that it has more successful English version should be mentioned in the lede, with the name of the English version also bolded. Voceditenore (talk) 19:13, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The default position, I think, is that all of the versions of a work are described in one article, unless it becomes too lengthy, which is clearly not the case here. I could imagine a situation where the English version was so thoroughly rewritten that it was, for all intents and purposes, no longer the same work. But right now, no one is saying that. As noted above, nobody disputes that the multiple versions of Don Carlos belong in one article. At the opposite pole, The Contrabandista and The Chieftain are separate articles, even though they share the same composer, the same librettist, and almost the same first act. (Their second acts are totally different.) But those two articles, which were originally one, were split only after it became clear that the content was too unwieldy for one article. Marc Shepherd (talk) 20:35, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Voceditenore, the original London cast is listed here: Adams, A dictionary of the drama. Most of the roles are the same, but some are spelled differently, so the table should probably have two more columns. -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:56, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It makes no sense to me to have two articles. Best to keep all the information here in the one article. Jack1956 (talk) 21:03, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think the best solution is to re-name the article after the more successful English version, but keep information about all the productions in the same article. Roscelese (talk) 00:39, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree: That's how we had named this article originally. It was renamed on 5 August 2008. -- Ssilvers (talk) 00:41, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like the best way forward. I also support this suggestion. Jack1956 (talk) 11:21, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Re-structure

I've re-structured this article to have a brief lede followed by separate sections for each version. I have more material to expand the French version a bit, but even so, I think a paragraph under each version summarizing the basics of the background, reception, and performance history is sufficient for now. I also suggest separate role tables under each version for clarity. I have no access to the source for the premiere cast of Falka. So someone else will need to do the role/premiere cast table for that version. Note that the original vocal score for Falka gives the Governor's name as "Kolback" (as in the French version), but later descriptions give it as "Folbach". I've added a footnote re this discrepancy which needs to be checked. I've also made a few other corrections, e.g. the mistranslation of "regia" in Almanacco Amadeus. In Italian "regia" refers to the stage director not the conductor. Hence Jules Brasseur was not the conductor of the Paris premiere. "Dirige" or "direttore" refers to the conductor. The synopsis is organized as common to both but makes explicit that it is based on the Falka version. Comments? Questions? Brickbats? Voceditenore (talk) 23:38, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Voceditenore, the original London cast is listed here: Adams, A dictionary of the drama. Are you sure that the vocal score you have located is the "original" one? I don't see the date on it, and it seems that the internet archive folks were just guessing at the date in their heading "1880", 3 years before the French premiere. It seems that the actual production was, instead, based on the text reflected in the score listed under External Links. -- Ssilvers (talk) 00:21, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Google Books can behave differently in different locations. I'm in London and all I see when I click on your link for A dictionary of the drama is a page for the book saying "No preview". Having said that, I've realized that the source used for the synopsis, was actually:

Hubbard, L. W. (ed.). The American History and Encyclopedia of Music, Vol. II Operas (1908) pp. 159-162. London: Irving Squire

That source also uses "Folbach". My own theory is that the one using Kolback was published before the premiere and that at sometime before the opening night, the name of Kolback was changed. But there's no place for theories on WP.;-) So, I've amended the footnote to merely note the one exception and used Folbach in the synopsis. Anyhow, since I can't access the book you linked, someone else will still have to do the roles/premiere cast table for Falka. Voceditenore (talk) 01:25, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ah! Google Books is afraid of British copyright law. Adams says:

Falka. A comic opera in three acts, libretto by H. B. Farnie (after Leterrier and Vanloo), music by F. Chassaigne, first performed at the Comedy Theatre, London, on October 29, 1883, with Miss Violet Cameron in the title-part. Miss Wadman as Edwige, Miss L. Uenschel as Alexina, Miss Verc Carew as Konrad, Harry Paulton as Folbach, H. Ashley as Tancred, L. Kelleher as Arthur, W. S. Penley as Pelican, and W. II. Hamilton as Boleslas. The title part has been played in the provinces by Miss Wadman, Miss Giulia Warwick, and Miss Louise Henschel, and in the United States by Miss Bertha Ricci and Miss Kitty Cheatham. A sequel called Brother Pelican; or, Falka's Baby, a burlesque in two acts, words by A. Rae and W. H. Dragnil, and music by G. Operti, E. Allen, and W. C. Levey, was first performed at the Theatre Koyal, Belfast, February 8, 1894.

However, these names all seem non-notable, except for the ones I already mentioned. Note that Alexina is called Marja in the French libretto, and Konrad (described in the score as "Captain of the Governor's pages") seems to be a new character in the Farnie version. If you look in the score under the plot summary, you will see a list of character names; some of the other minor characters are different from those listed in the French cast list. Also, do you think we should add the info about the sequel? If so, please go ahead. All the best! -- Ssilvers (talk) 05:25, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, great images! I doubt that "Falka's Waltz" is music right "from" the score; I bet it was a dance arrangement based on music in the operetta. So I changed the caption to say that it is "based on" music from the operetta. Dance arrangements of music from operettas were popular because a lot of people had pianos at home and the family would play these things for their own entertainment and could dance to them. -- Ssilvers (talk) 05:55, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Digitized score online

Strange not to find this before, but the whole digitized score - complete with the names of the first cast - is online here. Can we assume that this cast list - from a primary source - is more accurate than the one have at present? There are some discrepancies. --Klein zach 07:31, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]