Talk:Les cloches de Corneville/Archive 1

Archive 1

Copy/paste

Some of the original text (apparently by Ssilvers) is identical to this article by Raymond Walker. This is a potential copyviol so the text in question needs to be removed or rewritten. -- Kleinzach 04:52, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Any material taken from other websites should be rephrased and clearly referenced. At the moment, it seems to me that there is not an identity between the two texts. Which part do you have a problem with? There will always be similarities between synopsis, etc, there are only so many ways of summarising the plot! There are other sources, such as [1]. I've added external links to imdb and ibdb. Not so sure about including French language sites, strictly the WP:MOS says that references should be in English; although google translate does a fair job on them. Kbthompson 09:34, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

It's clearly from Walker: "The storyline is similar to that of ‘La Dame blanche’ and ‘Martha’ " occurs in both texts, also " It survived into the 1940s in Britain" . "this first operetta flows with such melody, strong rhythm and interesting orchestral colour. (Walker) has turned into "Planquette's first full operetta score and has been praised for its fine melodies, strong rhythms, good choral writing and complex orchestral colour " (WP). There is probably more but I haven't checked in detail. -- Kleinzach 10:08, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing this out. I've rephrased and added inline references. -- Ssilvers 14:24, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

English-language sources

French sources are vital for a French work. I'm not sure which part of the WP:MOS you are referring to, but one of the problems we have had with the light opera works articles - in contrast to the serious stuff - is over-reliance on English sources which relate to loose adaptations rather than original works. -- Kleinzach 10:26, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

WP:MOS#Non-English-language sites, but it's not gospel, merely that English language sites are vastly preferable. (see also: WP:EL#Non-English language content). Since the derivative, and I think more popular work had an English libretto, and a considerable English performance history; foreign language sources should be minimised.Kbthompson 13:57, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

The first link doesn't lead anywhere for me. Which paragraph is it in? The second one says "Links to English language content are strongly preferred . . . . It may be appropriate to have a link to a non-English-language site, such as when an official site is unavailable in English . . ." which I think is more or less how the Opera Project works. We use foreign language references when English ones don't exist. This can be the case with these light opera works which are not always covered by the main reference works such as the New Grove Dictionary of Opera. (Incidentally I'd recommend looking at the various Opera Project guideliness which represent a refinement of WP policies on how to handle foreign language material.) -- Kleinzach 23:46, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

On the other matter, I'm sure he's working on it. Kbthompson 13:57, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

English-language versions

It seems to me that where the English-language version of an operetta has an extremely successful run (sometimes considerably longer than the original European run) and numerous revivals, for example in the case of Olivette, The Little Michus, Madame Favart, etc., then there is nothing wrong with giving substantial information about the English-language versions. I certainly agree that the description of the original French, German, etc. versions should be complete, but that information must be provided to Wikipedia by a French or German speaker, or someone who has access to English-language sources about the original versions. Surely we should not fail to add the information about a clearly notable London production simply because it is not the original production. -- Ssilvers 14:22, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Articles on the Mona Lisa, Shakesperian plays, operas or whatever should be about the original works, not copies, not adaptations, not derivative works. They should be written with proper references to authoritative sources, rather than ephemeral and unreliable online sites.

Information on productions and revivals abroad (in this case UK/USA) should be included, but it should not be amplified to mislead the reader into thinking that the composer and librettist played a minor role in the creation of the work. Do we want the reader to think that Andy Warhol painted the Mona Lisa? No. -- Kleinzach 00:10, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

The above remarks seem to me judicious, and the article as it now stands strikes a good balance, me judice, between the Francophone and Anglophone histories and details. Further details of the original cast would be nice, and I'll see what I can find. (Sorry if the four tildes are still not working: Tim Riley scripsit) - Tim Riley 22:21, 11 October 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tim riley (talk • contribs)

"Balance . . . between the Francophone and Anglophone histories and details" is irrelevant. This article is entitled Les cloches de Corneville and it should be about Les cloches de Corneville - a work by Planquette, Clairville and Gabet. You could argue that the performance history should be balanced in its coverage of French and foreign productions - but unfortunately it's not. There are only 29 words about French productions. Also, the Musical numbers section should really list the originals (with literal translations in English in parentheses). If you want to write an article about an adaptation or derivative work, that's absolutely fine. You can start a new article and develop it separately under the title of the adaptation. That way there are no constraints. If you don't understand any French that may well be the best way to go. -- Kleinzach 00:34, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't think that's quite right. I shouldn't like to see articles on, e.g. Die Zauberflöte fragmented into The Magic Flute, Il flauto magico, La Flûte enchantée etc on the grounds that translations are no longer the words of Schikaneder. But of course if you care to add any useful information about the original (or subsequent) French production history that would be very helpful and constructive. Tim Riley (sorry - my automatic signature is definitely not working - very odd!) Tim Riley 05:41, 12 October 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tim riley (talk • contribs)

No, no, you misunderstand what I wrote. We are talking about adaptations not translations. (Mainstream operas were almost never adapted - I can't think of any examples where works were reorganized and reorchestrated, role names changed, the text rewritten etc.)

I don't have access to the main sources for this article hence I haven't added much. If you can get hold of the Grove article (probably by Andrew Lamb) and other relevant works such as Traubner's book on Operetta (1983) you will have a more solid basis for developing this article than you'll get by using third-hand internet material.

You sign with four tildes (Spanish diacritic marks), one after another without spaces, (~~~~). -- Kleinzach 07:03, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Should we really ignore things like the Merry Widow obsession in the early 1900's London, and such things, just because they were versions presented in English? Is the English version of the musical Les Miserables non-notable because it's adapted from the French version? What about all the Viennese operettas translated into English, with additional songs, around 1910? We can and should include and describe both, where both are notable, according to their notability. 129.215.149.97 15:03, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Hmm. What is the point of these rhetorical questions? No one is suggesting that anything should be ignored. Please read the discussion. -- Kleinzach 23:40, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree with User:129.215.149.97. I don't think it is a good idea to split operetta articles just because an English language version achieved notability (often much more notability than the original European versions). To leave a stub for the original version and move all the information about the English language versions to new articles makes it harder to understand the history of the works. Many of these pieces were played worldwide, and the composer achieved fame through the foreign productions. I also note that the English language versions often left the original score untouched and/or were prepared with the participation or approval of the composer, so I don't think that Kleinzach's arguments above are apposite. If any editors wish to add more information about the original productions, then please do so. -- Ssilvers 15:56, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

This misrepresents my views - and also marks a change in yours! Splitting adaptations from originals - something you yourself have recommended elsewhere - is justifiable if they are significantly different works. This problem - of articles which concentrate on adaptations rather than original works - was created by Anglo-American-centric contributors who created unbalanced, POV articles without using authoritative sources. That is why the information on the actual, original works is so thin. -- Kleinzach 00:19, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't see any fundamental problem. To my mind, the original and adaptions are linked entities and can be easily dealt with in one article - in separate sections, with the weight of writing reflecting the relative importance of the works. I wouldn't deny this work's French origin, but equally don't see adaptions as being entirely separate entities. Kbthompson 16:50, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

WP articles must be WP:NPOV. If the original French, German work is written up including English adaptations in the same article, that article must be balanced. We can't have articles with performance histories that concentrate exclusively on England and America, with English singers listed as role creators, lists of musical numbers taken from adaptations instead of the originals, references only to tertiary online English and American sources, that omit details of recordings if they are not in English etc. -- Kleinzach 00:39, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Excellent! We seem to be, as the lawyers say, ad idem on this. Straightforward translations such as this should be included in the article on the original work whereas observably adapted versions - e.g. W S Gilbert's revamping of Donizetti or Oscar Hammerstein's assault on Bizet - need their own articles. (The Grove piece on Les Cloches is not by the admirable Andrew Lamb, but by Kurt Gänzl; it deals with Paris and London productions very even-handedly)18:09, 12 October 2007 (UTC) (Tim Riley again. My tildes are in vain) - Tim Riley 18:09, 12 October 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tim riley (talk • contribs)

I rather doubt the ad idem. There are some confused ideas here. However in my case I agree with the statement, "Straightforward translations such as this should be included in the article on the original work whereas observably adapted versions . . . need their own articles." with the proviso that the information on adaptations should be reasonably substantial to justify a separate article.

I'm pleased to see you found Gänzl (sometimes the print and online versions have different authors). I hope you can use it to give the article a thorough check -- Kleinzach 00:56, 13 October 2007 (UTC)