Jump to content

Talk:The Bartered Bride/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Move to The Bartered Bride

The Battered Bawd

Yes, this is the Terrance MacNally name of the opera in New York City.

Versions

Isnt "definative version" a little POV, lacking a reference? In any case, there should be a description of the changes, such as spoken dialogue vs. recitativo and, iirc, order of some scenes. Sparafucil 06:13, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Please provide some evidence that any of the three prior versions of the work present even a slight challenge to the "definitive" version in either performance or recording frequency, critical appraisal, or public affection before being so quick with the POV claim. If the work is virtually always performed and recorded in the form of the supposedly "definitive" version, then perhaps the designation is not POV at all, but rather accurate and appropriate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.123.181.188 (talk) 05:23, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

I think it's the "Dance of the Comedians" that provides an early theme for the cartoon Road Runner. Should it be mentioned as a reference? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.147.28.1 (talk) 14:11, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Inspiration

Some works of art are "inspired" and have a neat story behind them. Did this happen with this opera? NancyHeise talk 15:22, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

since 1861, Bedřich Smetana wanted to create the "Czech opera". (It was during the Czech National Revival when people looked for typicaly czech things, they wanted to rebuild the czech culture, some of them wanted to avoid the German/Austrian influence and create Czech state and everybody wanted to prove that Czech nation is as good as others.) He get the libretto by K.Sabina for the opera Braniboři v Čechách (The Brandenburgers in Bohemia) but the libretto was badly written and the opera wasn´t as goog as Smetana wanted. So after he finished Braniboři v Čechách, he started to compose new opera - Prodaná nevěsta - Bartered Bride. It is situated in countryside - people believed that the countryside played an influental role in the national culture. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jane.a11 (talk • contribs) 17:47, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Expansion

This article will be substantially expanded over the next few weeks, with a view to a possible Featured Article nomination. The order in which sections are expanded may be a bit odd, so the article will look strange for a while. Please bear with me. Also, non-PD images are being replaced. The expanded article will go to peer review when ready; meantime any suggestions, comments etc on the developing article will be most welcome. Brianboulton (talk) 15:55, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Good stuff under "Performances" old and new, but we should eventually stick with the premiere info being included in the lede paragraph and a separate section (per Wikiproject: Opera policy) under "Performance history". Viva-Verdi (talk) 00:04, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
The lead (as yet unexpanded) has to be a summary of the whole article, per WP:LEAD. The Opera Project provides guidelines, not rules; I am generally following the pattern of Agrippina (opera), which I helped to FA status a couple of months ago. Brianboulton (talk) 08:52, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:WikiProject_Opera/Article_styles_and_formats for agreed-upon format of articles. Viva-Verdi (talk) 14:09, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

I can't see any reason for including the German names of the characters in the table of roles. This isn't German Wikipedia, where it might be appropriate. Comments? --GuillaumeTell 00:47, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
Seems okay to me since the opera at least used to be performed as much in German as in Czech. A good number of the available recordings and even a recent video are in the German version. Markhh (talk) 04:03, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
Looking at it again, I've changed my mind. Suggest that the German names be removed, if others agree. This info can be found elsewhere as it relates to specific performances or recordings. Markhh (talk) 05:53, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
I would tentatively support removal of the German names. They were in the original (non-expanded) version of the article, and I simply left them there. If a good reason for showing them emerges, we can always restore them. Brianboulton (talk) 21:30, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
Right! I'll get rid of them. Some of them date back to very early versions of this article. --GuillaumeTell 00:04, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
Done. I'm dubious about "Principal, Master of ceremonies". This character is the leader of the so-called comedians, i.e. a circus troupe. Some further investigation into the best English translation of his role and those of the other "comedians" is needed. --GuillaumeTell 00:16, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
In the 1909 Ditson English translation of the libretto he is called the "Ringmaster". Unless you are able to offer a better suggestion (feel free), I say let's call him that. Brianboulton (talk) 18:28, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

OK. I have completed the expansion and am nominating the article for WP:Peer Review Brianboulton (talk) 21:24, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Sound file

The sound file of the Overture is up for deletion on the grounds that it will not be in the public domain until the end of 2011, that being the 70th anniversary of the death of the conductor Hamilton Harty. See here. If anyone feels able to challenge the deletion request would they please speak up. Or if anyone knows of an indisputably PD version, that would be even better. Brianboulton (talk) 18:37, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

The above matter is now resolved, the deletion threat removed. The soundfile in question is licensed PD, and I will restore it to the article. Thanks to Shoemaker's Holiday and Jappalang for clearing this up. Brianboulton (talk) 08:39, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Opera/Assessment

Someone just upgraded this article to B-class. That's fine, but shouldn't it be an A? Markhh (talk) 00:38, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

In a few days it'll be a FA, so nevermind! :D OboeCrack (talk) 16:25, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Location of "Performance history" section

WikiProject Opera has created an outline format for its articles which is followed by every single opera article of any substance where such infomration is available.

Now we have one editor who wants to see these as "guidelines" only. In that case, who cares about format at all? Why not start with recordings? Or roles?

This needs to be discussed here before further reverts take place. Viva-Verdi (talk) 22:45, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

  • Your first statement is incorrect. Agrippina, one of the few featured opera articles, has the same structure as that chosen for The Bartered Bride. This question of structure was discussed at the peer review of Agrippina, here At the beginning of this discussion Kleinzach writes: "While I don't think all opera titles should invariably follow the same structure..." A short discussion followed, after which Agrippina's structure was amended to what it is now. At the end of the discussion Kleinzach says: "As I said before, each opera is different and we don't need to be inflexible about it". There speaks the voice of reason.
  • As to your second statement, as you can see, the format in question was agreed after discussion at the Agrippina peer review. It is not a single editor's random order of sections without any basis in logic. And, whether you like it or not, the Opera Project format is a guideline, not a law. Trying to impose it on editors without discussion is wholly inappropriate; nor do I think that most project members would wish to do so.
  • You then say "This needs to be discussed here..." Why did you not initiate a discussion before your unilateral action in changing the Bartered Bride section order? You left a link on this page to the Project guidelines on 22 June - why didn't you follow this up with some arguments? Since then, the article has spent a couple of weeks in peer review - why didn't you raise the matter there? You have had lots of opportunities to present your argument in the appropriate forums - why didn't you take them?
  • Finally, do you wish to resolve this matter, or merely to throw a spanner into the Bartered Bride FAC? If the former, I am happy to start afresh with you in a discussion as to why you think there should be no flexibility in the Opera Project guidelines. Other members of the project should be invited to give their points of view; so should editors who have supported the article at FAC in the format in which it was nominated. If there is a consensus for your viewpoint I will defer to it gracefully, that I promise. But there cannot be a pre-emption of the outcome of such a discussion. I therefore request that you revert your most recent edit until the outcome of such discusion is clear. Brianboulton (talk) 00:25, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Moving Reception and performance history up would not strengthen this article's structure. On the contrary, I suggest doing the opposite: let's move that section down, so that it is after Music and before Film adaptation. That way, the order of sections 1 through 7 will be roughly temporal in order: 1 background, 2 how it was written, 3 through 5 the opera itself (it's just like opening night!), 6 reception and performance history, 7 film performance. Temporal order is not always the best order, but it's often a good one, and would make the narrative flow a bit better here. Eubulides (talk) 04:17, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

  • There are valid differences of view as to the best structure for opera articles. However, as this article gained 12 supports, 0 opposes at FAC, and as Agrippina gained 7 supports, 0 opposes with the same structure, I don't think a consensus for change has been established. Brianboulton (talk) 10:18, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Opera Project Guidelines

As a member of the Opera Project, I would like to point out that our styles and_formats page begins with the words (my bolding): "Here are some suggested formats" and indeed they are under a section labeled Guidelines.[1]. I am dismayed that this truly fine article has been subjected to an edit war in the midst of FA review on the false assertion that our suggested format and guidelines are some sort of immutable policy that must be 'enforced'. I am especially disappointed to see the use of CAPITAL letters (i.e. shouting) in edit summaries. That is never acceptable. I would also like to point out to other OP members our Code of Conduct.

As Brian points out above, there is a precedent with Agrippina (opera), where there was a consensus that requirements of featured articles may require some flexibility of format from what is usually (but not required to be) used. The current format of The Bartered Bride was the result of a consensus of many editors, including me. As I said in the FA review:

"An exemplary article, meticulously referenced and beautifully written with just the right balance between detail and flow. The Reception and performance history section should serve as a model for all opera articles!"

Frankly, I prefer the order used here and would suggest that the OP consider changing its guidelines rather than the other way around. But in any case, the format of this article should reflect the consensus of those editors who built it, perfected it, and meticulously reviewed it. That consensus is clear. Voceditenore (talk) 06:03, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree that the Opera project guidelines should be revisited with the experience of the two FAs now under your belt. Clearly these establish the defacto guidelines for the best opera articles on Wikipedia. It also seems to be fairly consistent in structure with the G&S FA articles, particularly H.M.S. Pinafore. BTW, congratulations to Brian and all the people who assisted in bringing another opera article through FA. Let me know next time you do a pre-FA peer review, and I will be happy to comment. Best regards, -- Ssilvers (talk) 19:37, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Revision history

I'm happy to see another Featured opera article, but the section The_Bartered_Bride#Restructure is terribly vague for a FA and confusing in that it's not clear which version is reflected in the synopsis. I'm also a bit disappointed that there's no attempt to describe translations, nor a bibliography of editions. Sparafucil (talk) 21:43, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

I'd say it is perfectly clear which version is reflected by the three-act synopsis; in any event, most of the changes during the restructuring were musical, and had no effect on the story. And in what way is the restructure section "terribly vague"? I don't know what you mean by "describe" translations - do you mean list them? That would be pretty difficult, given the ephemeral nature of many of these translations, but you are welcome to attempt it. Personally I don't think it is necessary, nor do I see this requirement in the Opera Project guidelines, which I have tried—though not slavishly—to follow. Since you raised more or less the same question over Agrippina a few months back, perhaps you should launch a discussion within the Project as to whether the guidelines should be amended to accommodate this point. Brianboulton (talk) 15:17, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
I don't find that section vague at all, nor was it difficult to understand the changes. Since the section makes it clear that the 1869 version had been changed from 2 acts to 3 and since the Synopsis has 3 acts, it's obviously the restrutured version. If the only real change following 1869, i.e. the 1970 final version, was the replacement of dialogue with recitatives, this doesn't impact the synopsis at all. Likewise the Musical Numbers section clearly states that it's from the 1870 version.
I should point out that these are encyclopedia articles, not monographs. I'd be curious to know to what extent The New Grove Encyclopedia of Opera goes into detailed descriptions of the translations for this opera, for example. I suppose a bibliography of the main editions might be useful to a small minority of readers, but it's hardly essential, and there's nothing stopping anyone from listing them. Voceditenore (talk) 16:17, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

I wasnt trying to sound harsh, but the phrase that leaps out at me is "Various numbers, including the drinking song and the new polka, were repositioned". What was the original order? This could easily be incorporated into the list of numbers, and the reception history might say whether and where the earlier versions have been revived. Grove in fact gives a brief but also precise description of the changes before the synopsis.

Large gives a very full account of the changes at each stage. That is why this section is cited to that source. The level of detail you seem to want on this matter is inappropriate for a summary encyclopedia article. I have never seen anything to suggest that the earlier versions of the opera have ever been revived; if you have information on this, please share it with us. Brianboulton (talk) 00:18, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Original publication of the score is also a part of reception, and the article leaves readers in the dark about whether a critical edition has appeared, or whether the cut Esmeralda/comedian duet has ever been printed. Grove online puts this information in the Smetana article.

I have added a footnote, indicating that the cut duet is reproduced in Large's book. Brianboulton (talk) 00:18, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

The Bartered Bride is a special case among mainstays of the repertoire in that it has been more sung in translation than in the original, to go by the discography. Is there a single more or less standard German version? Grove ignores all translations, as well as reception history.

There does not appear to be either a standard German, or standard English version. Brianboulton (talk) 00:18, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject_Opera/Assessment#Quality_scale says of featured articles "No further content additions should be necessary unless new information becomes available." Agrippina at present awaits a critical edition, but much material on The Bartered Bride is just a library trip away. Wouldnt a class A assessment be enough for now? Sparafucil (talk) 23:29, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't think that editors must necessarily follow the instructions of a wikiproject. Crucial are the WP:FACR 1.b: comprehensive: it neglects no major facts or details and places the subject in context; and 1.c: well-researched: it is a thorough and representative survey of the relevant literature on the topic. A FA must not be the final version of the article.--  LYKANTROP  ✉ 08:52, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
I am sure Sparafucil's motives are of the best. However, if he is genuinely concerned that the article is missing important information, since no other editor has indicated support for his view it is incumbent on him to prepare the absent material, reference it, and bring it here for discussion. As, apparently, such information is only a library trip away, this shouldn't be a problem! Brianboulton (talk) 10:02, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Nice try! You did once offer to incorporate my reverted edits to Aggripina once the FA review was over, though. Sparafucil (talk) 08:21, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

It's still on my to-do list! Don't worry, I'll get to it. Brianboulton (talk) 18:57, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

United States premiere

I believe that the article is incorrect in stating that the Met gave the United States premiere. For one, the Met performance archives do not state this fact. Second, amadeusonline.net mentions a much earlier date at the Haymarket Theatre in Chicago dating 20 August 1893. It doesn't say whether or not the Chicago performance was the United States premiere though.Singingdaisies (talk) 17:15, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

The Penguin/Viking Guide says that that Haymarket performance was the US première. Opera Grove says that opera in Chicago before 1910 was always presented by touring companies. I wonder whether Dvorak's presence in Iowa and New York might have had anything to do with that Chicago Bartered Bride? (Googling "Bartered Bride" Chicago 1893 produces more confirmation.) --GuillaumeTell 18:08, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
Thanks GuillaumeTell for taking the time to check. :-) Since you have the best source for the U.S. premiere would you mind correcting the info. That would be much appriciated.Singingdaisies (talk) 18:28, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:The Bartered Bride/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

Firstly, it needs to conform to the Project's guidelines by having the performance reception and history sections appear right after the main intro. paras - but before the synopsis. Viva-Verdi (talk) 00:04, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Last edited at 00:04, 24 July 2009 (UTC). Substituted at 15:56, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:The_Bartered_Bride/Archive_1&oldid=1137227867"