Talk:The Zoo

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Gilbert and Sullivan, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Gilbert and Sullivan on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Gilbert and SullivanWikipedia:WikiProject Gilbert and SullivanTemplate:WikiProject Gilbert and SullivanGilbert and Sullivan articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Production/Genesis

Shouldn't the last paragraph of the Production section go into the Genesis section? (The paragraph beginning "It was once believed that Sullivan had re-used a good deal more of The Zoo....) It has little to do with production, I think. Or, if not the production section, wouldn't it be better under the discussion of the re-discovery of The Zoo? Ssilvers 22:58, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to suggest a way to re-organize it. But that paragraph follows directly from the preceding one, which explains the one passage in The Zoo that Sullivan did reuse. If we just move the paragraph, it loses its lead-in. Marc Shepherd 20:19, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK, that makes sense. Leave it as it stands. Ssilvers 22:13, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A wandering minstrel?

I've just removed the following:

By 1885, he almost certainly had abandoned any further hopes of re-staging it, as "I loved her fondly" — the same tune that he had nearly used in Trial by Jury and did use in The Zoo — was adapted for use in part of "A wand'ring minstrel I" in The Mikado.

There is no citation for this and it seems unlikely - I assume someone put it in on account of the passing and fairly slight resemblance between the opening bars of the two numbers. At best this is surely an unconscious reminiscence - as Sullivan himself said in another context, he only had eight notes to choose from. Can anyone produce an authoritative source? Wilus (talk) 16:14, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's correct. I'll hunt down the reference this weekend. Probably it's in Jacobs. -- Ssilvers (talk) 16:37, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's not in Jacobs. I see there is now a website reference so I suppose it has to stand. Just goes to show you can prove anything from the internet. I remain unconvinced - there is a slight resemblance between the opening bars, but as the Lord Chancellor said, it isn't evidence. Plenty of work has been done on Sullivan's methods of working (see Jacobs for a start) and no-one has suggested as far as I know that he ever composed in this way. When he re-used material he re-used it wholesale, tearing out the relevant pages from the old score and sticking them in the new one (see Thespis). I'd like to see a source from a recognised authority. Wilus (talk) 10:34, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that relying on an offhand comment in the Discography is not the most reliable evidence. I have taken out the statement, as you suggest, and added some detail in a footnote. If I come up with a better reference, I might reinstate the assertion. Thanks for raising the issue. Best regards, -- Ssilvers (talk) 13:57, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No problem! Your solution seems very satisfactory. I suspect the statement in Hughes, misunderstood or misremembered, was the origin of the notion.Wilus (talk) 16:49, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]