Talk:Tosca/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Moved from User talk:Wehwalt

Since FAC can refer to the Colombian Air Force, would you be so kind as to let me know, and everyone else, how Kerman's critical "opinion" belongs in the lead of the article? What does "FAC" mean [1] in relation to keeping Kerman's "opinion" in the lead? And are you talking about the hyphens, or Kerman's opinion? Please understand that I don't object that Kerman's "opinion" should be included in the article, only that his opinion hardly belongs in the lead of the article. Would like to know your opinion on the matter. Dr. Dan (talk) 04:14, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

While I thought it was inserted during the Featured Article Candidate stage of article development, I see it was not. However, that does not justify your summary removal of it on the ground you stated. Why not give the article the respect it is due and open a discussion on the article talk page?--Wehwalt (talk) 09:29, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

I have no intention of altering the article (or, more to the point, I could do so with a bit of work, but not on a Saturday afternoon) but can I point out one or two things about Kerman, Shaw and Britten.

• Note 63 correctly says "Kerman, p.205". But in the References section, it says "Kerman, Joseph (2005) Opera as Drama. What? Click on the Kerman link and the book is described as 1956/1988, and click on the "Opera as Drama" link and that takes you to p.205 of a Google Books digitisation of the 1988 revised edition. FWIW, the "shabby little shocker" remark undoubtedly appeared in the original 1956 edition - there's a reference to this in Osborne's book below, same page.

• The online link is to the 2005 second paperback printing of the 1988 edition of Kernan's book. See p. iv of the link. Brianboulton (talk) 18:48, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

• OK, but it gives a misleading impression that Kerman's words were written in 2005 when they actually date back to 1956, which is nearly 50 years earlier. A "cite book" template (or whatever is the current WP norm) would give a more accurate publication date. --GuillaumeTell 21:32, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

• Can we put "revised edition" (if it was) as part of the bibliography entry, or if not, perhaps a paren (reprint of 19xx edition)?--Wehwalt (talk) 21:39, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

• User:Sparafucil's ref to Shaw's remarks on the play was sourced from La_Tosca#Reception - "clumsily constructed, empty-headed turnip ghost of a cheap shocker", but ref 36 there only refers to Evan Baker's recent programme-note for a SFO production. The source of the quote can be found in a (rather badly) digitised book -London Music in 1888-89: As Heard by Corno Di Bassetto - though it seems, AFAICS, that Shaw probably saw the play in 1890.

• What is the problem? Kernan made the comment, it is correctly attributed to him. The fact that Shaw may have referred to the play in similar terms is neither here nor there. Kernan does not use quote marks, or refer to Shaw. There is no action needed here. Brianboulton (talk) 18:48, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

• Britten. I'm dubious about the relevance of the Britten quote: Tosca ref 64 takes us to Charles Osborne's 1990 book, which I have. Osborne on p.143 says "Benjamin Britten wrote of becoming 'sickened by the cheapness and emptiness' of Puccini's music", but his footnote, which sources Britten's remark to the February 1951 issue of Opera magazine, goes on to say "Britten was specifically referring to La Bohème, but the context makes it clear that his comment is intended to apply to Puccini's music generally." Saying "sickened by the cheapness and emptiness" of Puccini's music - assuming that Osborne's stuff about the context is to be believed - is not, IMNSHO, anywhere near describing Tosca specifically as a shabby little shocker.

• Osborne quotes Kernan and Britten in the same sentence, as examples of negative expressions about the composer and his work. I think Britten's comment is relevant, given his own stature as a composer. If the objection is that Kernan was not "echoing" Britten and that their two comments should be disconnected, that is easily done. Brianboulton (talk) 18:48, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

• Fine - disconnect them, but it seems to me that, since Osborne admits that Britten's comment is not actually about Tosca, it would be more appropriately used in Giacomo Puccini. (Incidentally, Britten did a lot of bad-mouthing of other composers and works - Brahms and Der Rosenkavalier spring immediately to mind.) --GuillaumeTell 21:32, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

I have disconnected Kernan's comment from Britten's. I have also added a note on the original publication date of Kernan's book. Brianboulton (talk) 08:36, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Gosh, I could have rewritten all the notes by now (but I'm a slow worker). Best. --GuillaumeTell 17:53, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm going to give my coeditor on the article a link over here and see what he thinks.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:00, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

(OD) Friends, I do not object to the "opinion" of this relatively unknown and insignificant music critic (in relation to the opera's international standing) being included in the article. Only that it does not belong in the lead and I will therefore remove it again, unless some reasonable rationale is brought forth as to why his opinion is necessary to be placed in the lead of the article. Dr. Dan (talk) 20:19, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

The point being made here is that though Kernan's remark may be included in the article, it shouldn't be in the lead. I disagree; Since its first performance Tosca has divided critical opinion despite its enduring popularity with the punters. This important fact must be reflected in the lead; Kernan's dismissive remark is well known, and is a graphic way to drive home the point that Tosca has critics as well as worshippers. This article went through a lengthy peer review and FAC, involving highly knowledgeable editors, without this point being raised. At present I see no consensus for the change being suggested, merely the personal preference of an individual. If there is a consensus in favour of this change, let us have evidence of it. Brianboulton (talk) 20:54, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Brian. Kerman's quote is the best known criticism of the opera; the informed reader will expect to see it prominently displayed. Your initial edit summary made it clear; you think well of the opera and believe it is prominent. We agree there! But it is important a balance be struck in the article, including in the lede, when it comes to POV.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:57, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, but I disagree that the critic is "well known", let alone his opinion that the opera is "a "shabby little shocker" is famous and well known too. Maybe you'd like to make it famous and well known, but my objection is not about my preference concerning the matter. The claim that "This article went through a lengthy peer review and FAC, involving highly knowledgeable editors, without this point being raised" is neither here nor there. It's being raised now. If it had been raised earlier and and a consensus that it belongs in the lead was agreed upon, I'd back down. Imagine the lead of Lohengrin including a critical opinion of the work by Eduard Hanslick (certainly a more notable figure in the history of music than than Kerman ever will be). Such an opinion might find some merit and belong in the article, but not in the lead. Placing Maria Callas or Tito Gobbi or Ruggero Raimondi might likewise find an appropriate niche in the article, but not in the lead. Not in a good one anyway. As for the somewhat elitist remark regarding an earlier peer review "involving highly knowledgeable editors", please understand that all Wikipedia articles continue to be open to further editing and revision, even by lowly and less knowledgeable editors. That's not the category where I place myself regarding the field of music, Puccini, or "Tosca", but that's a simply fact to consider. What this issue boils down to is this, does Kerman's derogatory "opinion" warrant inclusion in the lead of the Tosca article? Does Kerman's derogatory "opinion" carry enough "weight" to be included in the lead of the article? I'm sure that his remark is carried in some reliable source and therefore shouldn't be denied inclusion somewhere in the article. Just not the lead. Dr. Dan (talk) 21:44, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Why is it relevant that Kerman's opinion is, as you put it, derogatory? Incidentally, can we move this thread to Talk:Tosca? It may be of interest to others who might not see it here.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:46, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

That is a good idea (I suggested in my last edit summary), and plan to do so soon. Probably not today, however. Please understand I respect both Brian's and your opinion concerning this debate, and hold no animosity towards you or anyone else disagreeing with my position. I do think it is undue for the lead, but will respect the ultimate consensus after we discuss it further with others. I'm surprised that you need further elucidation about why the remark, "the opera is a shabby little shocker", is derogatory, but if need be, we can discuss that too after the move. Thanks. Dr. Dan (talk) 22:10, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

I think you miss my point. You seem to dislike the comment because it is derogatory, whereas you might not dislike it so much if it were praise.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:12, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Not at all. Its derogatory nature is eye catching, but If Kerman's comment was "Tosca is the greatest opera in the world", I would suggest removing it because including it in the lead would be as objectionable for the same reasons that I object to keeping his actual remarks in the lead. Dr. Dan (talk) 22:35, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Footnote: try googling "shabby little shocker". It's a very well-known phrase even if many people will be hazy about who originally coined it. --GuillaumeTell 10:40, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

• Comment. I personally see nothing wrong here. In my opinion the lead is presented in a balanced manner and the quote is presented within a carefully worded context. While Kerman is not a highly well known critic compared to some, that quote is often repeated in opera circles. I say keep things as they are.4meter4 (talk) 16:22, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Hmmm? "While Kerman is not a highly well known critic compared to some, that quote is often repeated in opera circles". What do you mean by "opera circles"? While in college, I worked as an usher at the Lyric Opera of Chicago (got to see this "shabby little shocker" many times and hundred of other operas, sung by many of the great singers of the day). I think I may have seen such "circles", in action, in the foyer sipping cocktails during intermission. From my recollection many of these types (if that's what you mean), would be more interested in the intermission and in such "quotes", than the opera itself. But seriously, the idea that this quote belongs in the lead of this article, because you see nothing wrong with it, or you believe that quote is "often repeated in opera circles" doesn't strike me as a good argument. I'm glad that we agree that Kerman is not particularly notable to begin with. Let me say that if the quote was made by Claudia Cassidy, or an even more notable music critic, it wouldn't belong in the lead either. No objection to it's inclusion in the article's main space, just the lead. Btw, I don't think Spoletta belongs in the the lead either. Dr. Dan (talk) 17:07, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

I still think what I said above. It's a well known quote which is presented in a balanced context. I see no problem with how things currently are and disagree that there is any undo weight in this case. Best.4meter4 (talk) 17:19, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

I still think what I said above too. I'm still curious about what you meant by 'opera circles' as well? Dr. Dan (talk) 17:25, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Opera circles: people who know about opera. My point was that the quote is a well-known one, even if it isn't well-known to you. --GuillaumeTell 17:31, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

I gather you consider yourself a person who knows about opera. Part of "opera circles". My point is that the quote is not well known, nor "famous". Nor, is Kerman. Actually I consider myself knowledgeable about opera and other forms of music. And I've come across the quote before, so "even if it isn't well-known to you", doesn't apply to me. If you insist of somehow including that Tosca has had its critics in the lead, I do not object to that. I also do not object to including Kerman or his dismissive "opinion" within the article. Just not in the lead. I also hope that the "Ho,hum" (in your last edit summary) isn't meant to be "dismissive" either. Btw, love some of these usernames. Is there a Wozzeck in the house? Dr. Dan (talk) 17:57, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

• If getting an article featured on the main page results in these sorts of discussions, I sincerely hope that Tosca is the last ever opera article to achieve feature status. Sincerely. Francesco Malipiero (talk) 18:27, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Actually the fact that Tosca made it to the main page had the benefit of allowing people that do not belong to opera circles to express their opinion as to how the article can be improved in relation to certain guidelines. It also allowed me know that one of your cat's name is Figaro. Not sure if he's named after this guy or the other famous operatic characters bearing the name. Due to the other one being named Pelléas, I suspect the latter. Dr. Dan (talk) 18:39, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

This illustrates exactly what I mean. I welcome everybody to contribute to any article in WP. What I meant was: stick with the subject at hand (which you did with your first sentence), but do no get personal (the rest of yr reply). This goes for all contributors. And, by the way: as you might have guessed from the fact that my best friends are two cats, I do not belong to any circle. Francesco Malipiero (talk) 19:21, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Didn't mean to get personal about your cats, only to bring some levity into a discussion that was beginning to border on latent hostility, couched in a somewhat snobbish and elitist atmosphere. I'm glad that you welcome divergent opinions, but the remark "If getting an article featured on the main page results in these sorts of discussions, I sincerely hope that Tosca is the last ever opera article to achieve feature status", seems to contradict your sincere welcoming attitude. Dr. Dan (talk) 20:39, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

That was not exactly a helpful remark Dr. Dan. Please assume good faith, quit the insulting off topic personal commentary on other editors, and stick to the topic at hand. Accusing other editors of being elitist snobs, questioning their motives, and in general phrasing your remarks in a way that seems designed to offend is hardly going to strengthen support for your point of view.4meter4 (talk) 20:55, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

You're right, and I apologize for my shortcomings. Hope you've read everyone's remarks thoroughly (and edit summaries). Best. Dr. Dan (talk) 21:08, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Apology accepted. I don't feel the need to comment on anyone else's remarks at present. Let's just all try and move foreword with a more pleasant form of discussion.4meter4 (talk) 21:19, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

• Having read the entire article again for the umptieth time (especially the lead) it is my opinion that the Kerman quote should be a footnote, illustrating the dismissive comments made by some critics.Francesco Malipiero (talk) 22:57, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

• Footnotes are often unread and are a way of burying information. My position is unchanged from above, when I argued (1) that Tosca has always attracted adverse critical opinion in spite of its popularity with audiences; (2) this significant fact should be included in the lead; and (3) Kernan's well known remark is a graphic way of making the point clear, whether he is considered "distinguished" or not. On a positive note, I am pleased that the article has attracted some well-informed interest and some vigorous discussion. However, at this point there does not, in my view, exist any clear consensus for change. Brianboulton (talk) 19:02, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree in substance with Brianboulton. A main part of the history of Tosca is that there has been a divide between critics, who pan the plot, and the public, among whom the opera has enjoyed great popularity. We stress that in the lede. Very often a quotation is worth a thousand words of analysis, and in a lede, we are to be pithy. Kerman's comment, very likely the most famous quotation about Tosca extant, illustrates that divide quite well.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:15, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Here We Go Again

Wehwalt, maybe I went about it in a way that was not to your liking (removing "shabby little shocker), but a few questions. Is Kerman's "opinion" worthy of being placed in the lead? Is he [2] well known? Is the quote "famous"? With all due respect, I suggest placing his shabby little opinion (a mere footnote, if even that) somewhere else within the article but not in the lead. Thanks. Dr. Dan (talk) 03:22, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

We had this discussion. You did not gain consensus for your point of view. You are free to try to achieve consensus.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:23, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

You could try answering some of the questions. That might help us achieve consensus, or perhaps I might back down, if there is a reasonable explanation. As an afterthought, the line "While critics have frequently dismissed the opera as a facile melodrama with confusions of plot", I could ask for a citation for that statement, but I'd rather not spoil and cheapen the lead any more than it is at the moment. What critics? How frequently? And specifically, did these critics "dismiss" Tosca as a facile melodrama with confusions of plot? Critics? Plural? Who?

What really gets me is the underhanded dig stating that while critics have frequently blah, blah, blah..."the power of its score and the inventiveness of its orchestration have been widely acknowledged." Can a viewpoint get anymore weasely than that? Dr. Dan (talk) 03:38, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

The New York Times states on several occassions that it was "famously" called "a shabby little shocker". See here. Several books on Tosca decribe it as "famous", including Tosca's Rome: The Play and the Opera in Historical Perspective By Susan Vandiver Nicassio, A night in at the opera: media representations of opera By Jeremy Tambling, Introduction to research in music by Richard Wingell, Masterworks: a musical discovery, Volume 1, Opera magazine, Phantasmagoria: a sociology of opera by David Trevor Evans, and a slew of other books and publications. No offence Dr. Dan, but you're not bringing up any new points and you're really just rehashing an old discussion just because you didn't like the consensus reached. WP:STICK already.4meter4 (talk) 04:07, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Truly, no offense taken, 4meter. Originally I intended to bring forth sources to support my contention as to why this "opinion" did not belong in the lead of this article. I realize now that it would be pointless due to conflicts with consensus beyond any kind of reasonable discussion.. Please understand that despite the "New York Times" Sunday morning magazine's "what to do this weekend reviews" of the subject, including the pithy, "Spelling out aspects of the plot (like having Scarpia masturbate in church as he cries, Tosca, you make me forget God) is perhaps more help than Puccini needs...", and is more help than I need too (maybe Scarpia masturbating in church belongs in the lead also, especially sinced it's sourced by the "New York Times"). As I've mentioned before I worked as an usher at Lyric Opera of Chicago during my college years. Somehow I recall similar types of discussions with gentlemen during intermission at various operas other than Tosca, gentlemen holding their cocktail in their left hand, holding their left elbow with their right hand and lisping how they would much rather be at Carmen tonight, or preferably at Giselle. I had to stifle a yawn, because I had the impression that other than standing around at intermission they'd rather be somewhere else anyway..

The long and short of it is this. Joseph Kerman is well not known. His opinion, and I quote, that Tosca is a "shabby little shocker", is debatable. In any case, it does not belong in the lead. The claim that it is "famous" in "Opera Circles" is nonsense (whatever they are). So the New York Times backs it all of it up and adds that ...having Scarpia masturbate in church as he cries, Tosca, you make me forget God certainly adds luster to that source. Since many of you believe the this information is not undue and should be included in the lead as opposed to somewhere in the main article space (and not particularly prominently), I respectfully bow out. Enjoy. Please forgive my shortcomings. Dr. Dan (talk) 05:36, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Plot synopsis ?

I know I am splitting hairs here, but is it not a bit strange that this Featured Article uses the section title Plot synopsis (which I believe to be tautological), while every other opera article (at least the ones I have consulted) simply has Synopsis. Please forgive me for bringing this up, but I am reluctant to make even the smallest changes to FA-status articles without discussion. --Francesco Malipiero (talk) 15:06, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

I think the word "Plot" under those circumstances is redundant. However, I can't get very excited about it either way.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:11, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

"Plot synopsis" is redundant. I got so excited about it that I changed it to simply Synopsis. ;-) That's the usual title for those sections in opera articles. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 15:41, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Anything, so long as it is not a dispute over Kerman.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:53, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Ah, yes poor Kerman, he came in for a brief drubbing re Tosca in his own article a couple of days ago [3] followed by a similarly brief but even bigger drubbing in Turandot [4]. Voceditenore (talk) 16:06, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Music positioning

I think that we should put the music in context - e.g. in the synopsis. Otherwise, it's decontextualised, and offers little benefit. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 14:24, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

And even if we didn't put in the plot summary, there's obvious better places for it. For instance, Destinn's Vissi d'arte could be next to the discussion of Emmy Destinn's performance of the part. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 14:34, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

You mean instead of a separate listing of the arias, put them in the plot description?--Wehwalt (talk) 15:08, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

I mean the sound files. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 02:30, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

I personally like the current formating. Moving the sound files as you suggest would require removing some of the excellent images in this article (otherwise it would appear too cluttered); something that I would not like to see happen. If it ain't broke don't fix it.4meter4 (talk) 04:24, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

I think what we have now is the best solution under the circumstances. Not saying it is a bad idea, just that taking into account the image placements, it wouldn't work as well the way Adam suggests. Is there any way we can link to the sound file by putting little "listen" symbol next to her name or something similar? Accomplish it without disrupting the images and text?--Wehwalt (talk) 09:01, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Franchetti

An IP altered the stuff about Franchetti in the Background section the other day. It hasn't been reverted but I have no idea whether the alteration is correct or not (and I don't have access to MJP-M's book). The sentence "He has more time than I do." has been altered to "He has more talent than I do." Is this correct or was the IP just being mischievous? (Or do both versions appear in RS?) --GuillaumeTell 17:28, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

The IP is full of it. [5] (page 2).--Wehwalt (talk) 17:34, 8 August 2011 (UTC)