Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Opera/Archive 78

Archive 75

Archive 76

Archive 77

Archive 78

Archive 79

Archive 80

→

Archive 85

Archives Table of Contents

Voice types of Operatic Roles

I have constantly come across several instances in the Wikipedia articles on operas containing voice type errors or disputes, particularly when it comes to the use of the term mezzo-soprano. This is because the term did not come about until after opera became popular. When exactly did it come about I am unsure. However, this term has been applied in modern days to describe roles that might have originally been sopranos or even contraltos. When faced with this decision, what is one to do? Should one put both ths historical and modern use? There are some articles, such as those with castratos, that completely only use the historic role determinations. Others, such as "Così fan tutte", have been completely altered to reflect modern veiws on what the voice type should be when choosing a singer. A couple of confrontations surrounding some characters, such as Cherubino and Rosina, who can be played by sopranos and mezzo-sopranos(and for the latter, even a contralto), have arisen as well. The voice types look very inconsistent when terms such as alto, which should never be used for a solo voice as stated in the alto article, are used to describe certain roles. I would like to know the policy for voice types when these issues arise or create one for them.Chrisfa678 (talk) 18:30, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

There are also recent relevant discussions at Talk:The Barber of Seville and Talk:La Cenerentola. Voceditenore (talk) 18:40, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Contralto e mezzo-soprano cataloguing

I have found some mistakes and several inexactitudes in the articles concerning mezzo-soprano and contralto in English Wikipedia and I would like to put the whole matter under discussion.

In my opinion the difference between mezzo-sopranos and contraltos (so as between the other voice types) is not to be looked for in the names given by composers to the parts, or in the singers who will nowadays sing the parts themselves, but in the actual tessitura the parts were originally written in. I happened, for instance, to hear Cecilia Bartoli sing Fiorilla in Il turco in Italia or Maria Callas sing Carmen, which does not however turn Fiorilla into a mezzo-soprano role or Carmen into a soprano one.

If so, it’s rather improper to write, in the article concerning mezzo-soprano, that Isabella of L’italiana in Algeri, Angelina of La cenerentola, Rosina of Il barbiere di Siviglia, Maffio Orsini of Donizetti’s Lucrezia Borgia and the protagonist of Handel’s Giulio Cesare, are mezzo-soprano roles, for all of them possess all the characteristics of the contralto voice (central, as in Isabella’s case, high or mezzo-contralto, as in Angelina and Rosina’s ones, and so on). I think that other roles could on the contrary be catalogued as coloratura mezzo-sopranos (e.g. Isolier in Rossini’s Le Comte Ory or many other Handel roles), but can’t help doubting the real usefulness of all such listing when differences are often so scant that they become hardly appreciable and, eventually, highly personal.

On the other hand, in the catalogue of the article devoted to “contralto”, one can find some roles which had been previously enlisted among mezzo-sopranos (Azucena, Klytemnästra), some others which cannot certainly be considered real contralto roles, such as Maddalena in Verdi’s Rigoletto, Orfeo in Gluck’s Orfeo ed Euridice and maybe Olga in Tchaikovsky’s Eugene Onegin, too. Some of the roles (and only some of them) are also indicated as likely to be sung either by a contralto or a mezzo-soprano, which has by now lost nearly any possible meaning, since it’s nowadays awfully hard to tell mezzo-sopranos and contraltos apart from each other and their repertoire has in fact completely got mixed, so as we can hear a high mezzo-soprano sing deep contralto roles (e.g. Shirley Verrett singing Calbo in Thomas Schippers’s L’assedio di Corinto) and a contralto sing high mezzo-soprano or even soprano parts (e.g. Ewa Podles singing Dorabella in Mozart’s Così fan tutte, or Adalgisa in Bellini’s Norma).

In conclusion, I think we ought to avoid excessively minute cataloguing which tends unavoidably to become arbitrary (e.g. Why on earth distinguish between coloratura and lyric mezzo-sopranos and decide, I wonder how, to set Mozart’s Sesto down as a lyric singer, instead of a coloratura one?) and anyway, I suggest that, just to begin, someone, expert enough for the purpose, should correct catalogue mistakes which are now undoubtedly present in Wikipedia articles, contralto and mezzo-soprano.

Jeanambr (talk) 13:30, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

I can't comment on the voice-type articles (except to say that there are some - many? - singers who cannot be pigeon-holed into inflexible fach systems), but, as far as the lists of roles in the articles on operas are concerned, I agree with your conclusion. Attempting to micro-categorise the roles of, say, Angelina and Rosina, or Ramiro and Almaviva, is a waste of everybody's time (except for people who know that they are right about everything and enjoy edit-warring). The former should be described as contralto or mezzo-soprano (not coloratura-contralto or coloratura-mezzo-soprano) and the latter as tenor (not tenore di grazia or whatever), and I'm wondering whether Project members would agree to some rewording of project guidelines to make this clear. --GuillaumeTell 19:09, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Bravo, Jeanambr! These are exactly my feelings about the voice type classifications we currently see in many articles: a) plain wrong; b) way too specific (thus expressing personal opinion); c) reflecting current terminology. Frankly, I'd like to see the voice type in the table of roles reduced to what can be found in the score. Take the above mentioned Così fan tutte and compare it's list of voice types (they are too long to repeat here) with the score at the NMA: soprano, soprano, bass, tenor, soprano, bass. Calling Despina a "soubrette" is an abomination. The opera project should develop detailed guidelines for the use of voice types in the tables of roles; this will prevent many petty and tiring edit wars. Michael Bednarek (talk) 03:24, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Bednarek that it is best to stick with what is in a printed score when listing voice types. In general scores tend to use more generic voice types instead of highly specific fachs, however there are instances where printed scores do specifically list more specific terms and our lists should reflect that. I do have some points of contention with Jeanambr. Current published scores often reflect modern casting practices as opposed to historic practice. In the case of Rosina from The Barber of Seville for example, I have checked three different published scores which all list the role as a mezzo-soprano role. However, history would obviously show the part as originally a contralto one and obviously sopranos have also performed the role with success. In such cases I think it is best to go with what is in a published score (in this case mezzo-soprano and not contralto or soprano) and to give further annotated notes below (properly sourced of course) that could expand upon casting practices with roles like Rosina which are regularly sung by multiple voice types. This would solve the problem of subjectivity while still allowing for discussion and explanation of a complex issue.Nrswanson (talk) 04:26, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Ok I think that is going a little far when you say Cosi is an abomination when they say soubrette. I think it is a little more appropraite because it allows the possibilty of the role being played by a mezzo or a soprano. I think making Dorabella a plain soprano is a little far. We do use that term, mezzo-soprano in modern day voice determination for a reason, you know.Chrisfa678 (talk) 07:49, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Comment & Question: In my view, the use of simply "soubrette" in the Cosi fan tutte role table does a disservice to the reader. The soubrette article spends the first paragraph defining the term as type of role. It then goes into a lengthy and somewhat convoluted discussion of its additional use as a voice type, although I think it is more accurately a voice quality, since both mezzos and sopranos can sing those roles. As such, its use is incongruent with the other terms used in the tables, not helpful to the general reader - i.e. our audience. In general terms, I agree with Michael Bednarek, Guillaume Tell, and Jeanambr about the inappropriateness of the over-cataloguing in the role tables, and the need to stick what is actually printed in currently used scores. There is a place for making finer distinctions and discussing performance practices both past and present, but that should be in separate paragraph either in the Roles section or the Performance history section.

I would be in favour of Michael Bednarek's suggestion that we write more detailed guidelines for the use of voice types in role tables. Is anyone else in favour of it? Or do you want to let sleeping dogs lie? Best, Voceditenore (talk) 12:17, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't think it's an endemic problem that needs to be fixed. For the most part the role tables are done well. However, given some of the recent conflicts perhaps this would be a wise thing to do.Nrswanson (talk) 12:36, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

• Update The majority of members discussing this agreed that over-categorizing of voices in role tables should be avoided. If no one has any further comments on this or on the proposal to actually write it into the article format guidelines by January 26th, I'll archive the discussion. Voceditenore (talk) 14:39, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Archiving - fine, so long as someone does indeed add an appropriate piece to the guidelines. --GuillaumeTell 21:46, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Faust

Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 06:27, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Toréador!

Also, we could probably use members of Wikiproject Opera over at Featured sound candidates. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 01:41, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Paul Danblon

Need article on the composer Paul Danblon. Badagnani (talk) 01:22, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Your wish is granted, although I only made a longish stub. Polymaths bore me.;-). Just out of curiosity, why did you want this article? Best, Voceditenore (talk) 16:07, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Felix Mendelssohn's 200th birthday

Based on Smerus's suggestion above I have decided to try and organize a coordinated effort to acknowledge Felix Mendelssohn's 200th birthday this coming February 3 in some way. Please join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Composers‎. Cheers.Nrswanson (talk) 00:50, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Future portal audio

I'd like to get a bit ahead on this. Sullivan is something I want to do, but he's going to get done anyway. So, one possibility - whether next month or in a couple months, or whatever, might be "French Romantic Operas": Gounod, Bizet, Saint-Saëns, Flotow, Delibes, and so on: Basically, a number of composers I don't think I can get a lot of material on, but which I can certainly get one or two for each, making a decent group.

List of major opera composers is rather light on samples. It'd be really nice if we could fix this. If the whole portal went towards that theme, we could slip sound files into the featured articles, and so on, and have a varied but coherent theme, decently illustrated by sound. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 16:07, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Well I personally would like to feature Handel in April since it is the 250th anniversary of his death.Nrswanson (talk) 19:29, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

I might just be able to do this: Caruso singing Ombra mai fù from Serse; Giuseppe De Luca singing Rinaldo, (Also [1]?) Redferne Hollinshead (What a name!) singing Semele, and a good-quality amateur recording from Agrippina. Shall we run with that? Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 19:50, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Sounds perfect! Of course this is for the April portal so we still have two portals inbetween.Nrswanson (talk) 21:39, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

No, there's only 1 more portal between now and April. The Portal now changes every two months. See also my comments below in Relationship between the Opera Portal and the Opera of the Month. In terms of selecting files for the portal, my own view is that "thematic" considerations should take a back seat to high quality sound and performance. For example, Caruso singing "Ombra mai fu" is a curiosity, but it doesn't exemplify the way Handel intended it to be sung. It's interesting and potentially useful in relation to Caruso but not to the aria itself unless you wanted to compare it with the original version of it. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 11:52, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

It's much easier for me to organise audio with at least a loose theme, since there's huge amounts of things I COULD do at any one time, and a theme gives at least a little focus to the selection. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 16:09, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

• Is the Solomon extract suitable for the Opera Portal? It's an oratorio, and not one of the ones that's ever staged as an opera. It's suitable for the article itself, but I think we should stick to opera sound files for the portal. Voceditenore (talk) 19:22, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

• Sorry, it's somewhat hard to tell which of Handel's oratorios are performed as operas and which aren't, since I'm afraid I'm really not an expert on him. We can lose that one - I have the other things I listed. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 19:31, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

• No worries. I think you should add it to Samson (Handel) though.Nrswanson (talk) 20:49, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

• Sorry, why? Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 21:50, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Because that is the article on the oratorio which that music comes from. It would greatly enhance the quality of that article.Nrswanson (talk) 22:42, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

I thought it was from Solomon, not Samson? Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 01:00, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Duh. LOL My mistake. I meant to link to the Solomon article.Nrswanson (talk) 01

43, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Selecting this month's featured audio: Please help!

I went a little overboard - largely because our audio coverage of Verdi was so poor before this that it felt really good to improve it, so my free time disappeared for a few days.

However, there's too many for the portal now. There may be another Verdi month down the line - certainly, there's a lot of works still out there, and it's worth bulking up our audio coverage of him - but, for now, help me choose six from this list of eight:

Thoughts? Also, as always, if you have any requests for operatic sound, see me and I'll tell you if I can do it. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 10:04, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Samson et Dalila

Just to give you some idea what I'm actually doing with these, here's part of my contribution to Samson et Dalila, one of next month's opera of the month. It's a 1916 recording by Enrico Caruso.

Before

After

Okay, a slightly extreme case, but still =) Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 23:18, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Synopses - 2 questions

1. An editor has decided to bold the names of the characters when they first appear in the Tosca synopsis. I haven't reverted, but wonder what other members think of this practice?

2. On several opera article talk pages (including Tosca) readers complain that the synopses are very, very detailed, and a short summary of the plot in addition to a detailed synopsis would be helpful. I tend to agree. Some of them are positively labrythine. What do members think of the appropriateness of adding a short plot summary at the beginning of the synopsis section perhaps in a subsection called Brief summary?

- Voceditenore (talk) 11:27, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

1. Not at all keen. 2. Keen. Was even thinking of this myself the other day. --Folantin (talk) 11:36, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

I personally think a summation might work better as a part of the article's lead in such cases. The lead is supposed to summarize the article's content after all.Nrswanson (talk) 12:20, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

ad 1.: Reading Voceditenore's description, bolding the first appearance of characters seemed quite helpful to me. However, actually looking at Tosca Synopsis changed my mind. While it gives helpful visual pointers as far as the main roles are concerned, it gets a bit distracting when minor roles like the shepherd or the jailer are bolded. The solution cannot be to restrict the bolding to the main roles, as that would open endless discussions on who they are (Sciarrone?). Final opinion: ✗oppose. Michael Bednarek (talk) 13:21, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

That was exactly my reaction too. I don't think it's a good idea Voceditenore (talk) 19:34, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

• Update The members discussing this agreed that bolding characters names in the synopsis is not a good idea. There was support for the idea that providing a short summary of the plot in addition to a detailed synopsis would be helpful, especially when the synopsis is very long and detailed. If no one has any further comments on this by January 26th, I'll archive the discussion. Voceditenore (talk) 14:44, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

I think we are good to archive. I would like to restate though that the short summary probably would be better as a part of the article's lead as opposed to a preface to a longer synopsis.Nrswanson (talk) 14:49, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Agree on location of short summary. Maybe place it at the end of the intro just before the "Performance history" section?. Viva-Verdi (talk) 17:48, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Following a request for just such a summary on the Talk Page of Der Rosenkavalier, I've provided one - what do y'all think? Feel free to improve and shorten it, if possible. --GuillaumeTell 17:54, 25 January 2009 (UTC) (P.S. I'll resist the temptation to summarise the plot of a certain opera as "Nothing happens and Mélisande dies" . )

Excellent! Best, Voceditenore (talk) 19:13, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Opera of the month for February

Well it is about that time to be discussing articles for next month's list. In thinking about the Opera Portal a thought occured to me about trying to coordinate our editing efforts with what goes into the portal. It might be a good idea for the Portal to feature the content we put together the month before (i.e. what we work on in February goes into the March portal). What do you all think?Nrswanson (talk) 00:55, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Good idea. Tht makes it easier to us than having to crack our heads finding suitable articles to publish in the portal. But the problem is, not all articles listed are fully complete by end of the month. Many of them were rated as tubs. - Jay (talk) 09:32, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Sounds like a good plan to me. BTW, somebody (Shoemaker's Holiday?) needs to change "Singer of the Month" to "Opera of the Month" in the table at the top here. After following Voce's instructions for the December/January changeover (see above) I had a look at what needed to be done to make the change for forthcoming months, but I got lost in the code and rapidly reverted myself! --GuillaumeTell 12:04, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Done. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 13:17, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

I've taken the liberty of choosing Samson and Delilah. An interesting opera for which I have some excellent sound samples. Change it if you want. For the composer - Well, Arthur Sullivan's one concerted push from FA, if you wanted to go that route. Or, if you'd rather stay out of the subproject, I could get excited about any of the major romantic or bel canto composers. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 17:19, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Um, does the Samson and Delilah article really need that much work on it? I thought the new Opera of the Month was supposed to be along the lines of the Pelléas one we have on the project front page at the moment, i.e. a major opera (or set of related operas) which could do with bringing up to scratch plus articles on related singers and related (but less well known) operas which need improvement or creation. --Folantin (talk) 17:34, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

I thought it was supposed to be a mixture of those and pushes to start increasing our numbers of GAs and FAs? Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 18:14, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, I'm not sure about that (and I'm rather sceptical about the GA process, especially). I like the MO we've been using in January - it's really got me enthusiastic about contributing again. On the other hand, I'm probably going to take a backseat in February (or just continue improving Pelléas) so if you want to try the way you propose then I have no objections. If the project does decide to do Samson then maybe we should create pages on a few more Saint-Saens operas - he's not particularly well represented on Wikipedia at the moment. --Folantin (talk) 18:27, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, ideally, we'd want to take it to FA, but I don't think that's near enough to manage in one month. I do think it'd be good to mix it up, working on articles at all levels, so that we have some higher standards to aspire to, as well as getting articles up to an acceptable state. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 18:43, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Yep, I see the new OotM as a package: main opera(s) to be brought up to at least a "B" level or beyond; some relevant singer articles; some lesser operas which have something in common with the main one (here, suggestions might include: other Saint-Saens operas, other operas on Biblical or "Oriental" themes from the same era etc.).--Folantin (talk) 18:50, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Sounds about right to me. I just think that we should do occasional pushes for GA or FA, to get a better idea of what we should be working towards, as well as the improvement of problem articles (particularly if we're going to use the articles we work on to populate the portal: We could end up only showing average or mediocre articles if we didn't allow the better ones to be selected.) Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 20:10, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Ι do not mind working on Samson et Dalila. I can certainly expand the history/musical analysis section, improve the synopsis, expand the recordings, and improve the refs. I can also create articles on Franz Ferenczy (Samson) and Auguste von Müller (Dalila). Perhaps a set of Biblical themed operas would be good for this month. Rossini's opera Mosè in Egitto needs a synopsis and a musical analysis section for one. Along with that I can create an article on tenor Alexis Dupont (Aaron) and tenor Gaetano Chizzola (Mambre/Aufide). Along with this is the adaptation Moïse et Pharaon (right now a redirect) which I personally think deserves its own article (which is how Grove treats it). Another possibility is Strauss's Salome (opera). It needs much better referencing, copy editing, and I know personally that I have access to references that could expand it as well. Along with that I could create articles on Karel Burian (Herodes), Irene von Chavanne (Herodias), Marie Wittich (Salome), Karl Perron (Jochanaan), Rudolf Ferdinand Jäger (Narraboth), Riza Eibenschütz (The Page), Hans Rüdiger (First Jew), Anton Erl (Fourth Jew), and a few others. Along the same lines would be Antoine Mariotte's Salomé (Mariotte) which needs a synopsis and I could create an article on Édouard Cotreuil (Hérode). Of course there is also Massenet's Hérodiade which is a stub and needs a lot of work. With this one articles on Edmond-Alphonse Verqnet (Jean), Théophile-Adolphe Manoury (Hérode), and Léon Gresse (Phanuel) are possible. Other possibilities include Moses und Aron, Die Königin von Saba, Joseph (opera), La reine de Saba, and whatever else anyone cares to suggest. A stretch could also take us into Handel's oratorios, many of which were staged with costumes and sets during his lifetime like operas. I know this a lot of suggestions but I think we should try and find a topic we all can be interested in contributing to in some way. Nrswanson (talk) 22:04, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

• The new "OtM" format and goals are working well this month. I would be loathe to start moving the goalposts to getting a single article to GA or FA status. Because: (1) Like Folantin, I'm not a particular fan of the process. I care that articles be informative, well-written, and reasonably referenced but not whether they've been given a badge as a "good article" by editors who most of the time haven't got a clue about the actual subject. (2) It takes a lot of concentrated work in a short space of time by at least two people. My feeling is that most active members of the project cannot commit to something like that. It also seriously restricts the choices available. The current format allows for a looser collaboration with members following their individual interests within a larger framework. I like Nrswanson's suggestions about Samson et Dalila and related singers and works. I think we should be able to work out something that can attract as wide a participation as possible. See also my comments below about Composer of the Month and the Relationship between the Portal and the Opera of the Month . Voceditenore (talk) 10:48, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

• Um... this is getting to be like hearding cats.;-) Nrswanson, under the Future portal audio section, you said "Well I personally would like to feature Handel in April since it is the 250th anniversary of his death." Does this mean that you are also proposing some combination of his operas, singers, and related articles for the March Opera of the Month? If so it would be good to come to some kind of general agreement about this with the details to be worked out later. Are other members broadly in favour of a Saint-Saëns-centered February Opera of the Month and a Handel-centered March Opera of the Month? I'd be in favour of that. Opinions below please... Voceditenore (talk) 19:14, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes to the Handel. I was going to wait until next month's discussion to bring that up but I would like March to be a "Handel push" much in the same way that we did a "Puccini push" in December. I hope you all are interested. If not, I certainly understand. I am fine with either featuring Saint-Saëns or doing a series of maybe three "Biblical operas" by different composers for the opera of the month for February. See suggested groupings below.Nrswanson (talk) 19:25, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

I suppose, if we wanted, we could swap February and March, to give us some more time to polish up. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shoemaker's Holiday (talk • contribs) 17:16, 27 January 2009

Proposals

Here are two proposals I have for "February Opera of the Month". I intentionally left out the composers for the operas in the first proposal as the articles on Camille Saint-Saëns, Arnold Schoenberg, and Karl Goldmark are in fairly good shape. I also chose for the first proposal to only list articles that were directly linked within the opera article itself. All of the singers listed have biographies in either Grove or Remiens's A concise biographical dictionary of singers. For the second proposal I used a format much similar to the one for January. The other operas by Saint-Saëns in Proposal 2 all have articles in Grove.Nrswanson (talk) 20:03, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Proposal one

The Operas for the month of February are three Biblical Operas: Samson and Delilah, Moses und Aron, and Die Königin von Saba. We would like to expand these operas to at least B Class. Work related to these opera articles includes:

People connected with Samson and Delilah

• Articles for improvement:Eduard Lassen (conductor)
• Articles needed: Ferdinand Lemaire (librettist; currently a redirect), Auguste von Müller (Dalila), Franz Ferenczy (Samson)

People and things connected with Moses und Aron

• Articles for improvement:Helmut Krebs (Aron), Hans Rosbaud (conductor)
• Articles needed:Der biblische Weg (play the opera is based on), Hans Herbert Fiedler (Moses), Helmut Kretschmar (Youth), Hermann Rieth (Ephraimite)

People connected with Die Königin von Saba

• Articles for improvement:Hermann Salomon Mosenthal (librettist)
• Articles needed:Gustav Walter (Assad), Hermine von Siegstädt (Astaroth), Theodor Lay (Baal-Hanan), Hans Freiherr von Rokitansky (High priest), Marie Wilt (Sulamith)

Proposal two

The Opera for the month of February is Samson and Delilah by Camille Saint-Saëns. We would like to expand this to at least B Class. Work on articles related to this opera and its composer includes:

People connected with Samson and Delilah

• Articles for improvement:Eduard Lassen (conductor)
• Articles needed: Ferdinand Lemaire (librettist; currently a redirect), Auguste von Müller (Dalila), Franz Ferenczy (Samson)

Other operas by Saint-Saëns:

• Articles for improvement: Henry VIII
• Articles needed: Ascanio (after Paul Meurice’s play Benvenuto Cellini), Hélène, Déjanire (after Sophocles Trachiniae)

Other works based on the story of Samson:

• Article for improvement: Samson, an oratorio by George Friderich Handel

Comments

Please let me know what you all think. I would be happy with either proposal but I personally prefer proposal one.Nrswanson (talk) 20:31, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

• Prefer Proposal 1 but happy with either Voceditenore (talk) 08:07, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Prefer Proposal 1 (though I have to say that hardly anything in Die Königin von Saba actually comes from the Bible - 1 Kings 10 is about the Queen's visit to Solomon, but there is no mention whatsoever there of Assad, Sulamith, love-triangle etc.). Why not also add in the "Other operas by Saint-Saëns" section from Proposal 2 as well? Maybe also other operas by Schoenberg, too? --GuillaumeTell 12:01, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
    • I suppose we could do that, although I personally don't see the need given all the operas in the composers of the month section. In my view it would be too much to swallow with new operas in both. We could make the three composers the composers of the month instead of doing the French or Italian sets.Nrswanson (talk) 12:22, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
      • I think we're getting slightly off course here. Samson and Delilah and Moses und Aron would be more than enough by themselves to focus on as the main operas of the month. Proposal 1 seems more sensible. --Folantin (talk) 12:33, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
        • Agreed. Proposal 1 is best left as it is.Nrswanson (talk) 12:51, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
        • Also agree, in fact I suggest just Samson and Delilah and Moses und Aron and leaving out Die Königin von Saba for now. Better to set realistic goals. But if you all want to keep it in it's ok with me. Voceditenore (talk) 13:13, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
          • That is fine with me. I am happy with two or three.Nrswanson (talk) 13:22, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
• Note on filling in the form. I just noticed that two days ago, someone had already filled in the form with "The opera of the month for February is Camille Saint-Saëns's Samson and Delilah. The goal is to get it to good article status." before it had even been discussed. I've removed it. Can I ask that people please do not fill in the form before the contents have been agreed. The place to make proposals (and discuss them) is here on the talk page itself. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 13:29, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
  • I think shoemaker added it in good faith, but there is no harm done. It seems to me that we now have a consensus for proposal one with the possible modification of removing Die Königin von Saba. I am going to add proposal one to the form above minus Die Königin von Saba. We can always add Die Königin von Saba if others want it put back.Nrswanson (talk) 14:41, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

I have a possible recording for Die Köningin, if you want it still. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 23:22, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

I've added a brief note to March, saying that Handel is planned; details TBA. I think that fits the discussion so far. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 18:27, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

• Sorry, but I've just deleted that too. Those templates are to be filled in after a consensus has been reached. They're not really places to chat about what might happen or how the discussion is going. It's confusing to visitors and it both complicates and pre-empts the discussions. By all means, though, start a separate section on the March Opera of the Month where it can be discussed. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 18:40, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

February Composer of the Month

As per our discussions in December, [2] we're using CoM to continue filling in the red-links in the Opera corpus, unlike the Opera of the Month which is more focused on improvement of existing articles. The January CoM has done well. All 4 articles requested for three Spanish composers have now been written. I did María del Carmen and in the process expanded the article on its librettist, Josep Feliu i Codina, from a one sentence stub to a proper article, and created one on a related singer, Conchita Badía. The fact that the CoM selections are unrelated to the OoM ones, means that we can cater for a wider variety of interests amongst editors. Here are some possibilities for February....

Italian composers

1. Umberto Giordano (1867-1948): La cena delle beffe, Mese Mariano
2. Ruggiero Leoncavallo (1857-1919): Chatterton, Edipo re, Goffredo Mameli, La jeunesse de Figaro, Maià, Der Roland von Berlin, Zingari
3. Pietro Mascagni (1863-1945): Zanetto
4. Antonio Smareglia (1854–1929): Nozze Istriane
5. Vincenzo Valente (1855–1921): I granatieri

or

French composers

1. Alfred Bruneau (1857–1934): Angelo L'enfant roi, Messidor, L'ouragan, La rêve
2. Gustave Charpentier (1860–1956): Julien
3. Camille Erlanger (1863–1919): Le Juif polonais
4. Albert Roussel (1869-1937): La naissance de la lyre, Le testament de la tante Caroline
5. Erik Satie (1866 –1925): Geneviève de Brabant'

or... (please suggest) Voceditenore (talk) 11:18, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

General note: since we're using CoM to continue filling in the red-links in the Opera corpus (which is a good idea) then we probably need to revise the corpus itself in the areas we focus on because I'm not sure the selection of operas there is always ideal. On this month's suggestions: I'll pass on the Italians (not my area at all); of the French, I could do "barebones" articles on the Roussels and maybe the Satie, IIRC the Charpentier is an unfinished/unperformed work, I'd have a hard time finding anything on the Bruneaus. I'd suggest throwing in Fauré's Prométhée. But, on the other hand, I'd rather go with other people's preferences for February since I'll probably be taking a backseat to a certain extent. --Folantin (talk) 12:27, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

I could do either, but would greatly prefer the Italians. I'd also prune the number of operas for Leoncavallo down to 2 or 3 and perhaps also prune Giordano down to La cena delle beffe. I tend to agree with you re the Opera Corpus itself, but revising it could be a real can of worms.;-) [3]. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 12:55, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

I personally have better sources for the French set than the Italian set, but I am ok with either. If we do the Italian ones I am happy to work on La cena delle beffe. There are four in the French set that I can work on: Messidor, Julien, Le Juif polonais, and Le testament de la tante Caroline. If we decide to go with proposal one above and not proposal two, we could add some of Saint-Saëns's operas to the French list as well.Nrswanson (talk) 19:13, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Should we consider just having one composer as composer of the month, and if we finish the operas in his set, then add another, or would that cause more problems than it solved? Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 13:12, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

I think we should stick to the system above (of blue-linking red-linked operas by several composers) and change the title to "Composers of the Month" (plural) to reflect that. --Folantin (talk) 13:15, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, can we please stick to the current system. It's better to have an accurate record of what we chose and how well it succeeded rather than monkeying around with it while it's underway. If all the red links turn blue before the end of the month, great! Why turn it into the task of Sisyphus? Also, one of the main purposes of the CoM is to give further choices for editors who want to contribute. It's better to have at least three composers. Agree with Folantin about changing the header. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 13:45, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Folantin and Voceditenore. Plus it is nice having more choices. Some composers are more interesting to me than others.Nrswanson (talk) 14:15, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Proposal

I would like to suggest the following modified set of French operas, all of which have articles in Grove, as French seemed to be the prefered grouping above. Since we are doing Samson et Dalila this month I thought it would be good to add Saint-Saëns to the list. I removed the operas from the prior list that weren't covered in Grove/Oxford. We can always add them back if any of you were particularly attached to something I removed. Nrswanson (talk) 02:22, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

French composers

1. Camille Saint-Saëns (1835 –1921): Ascanio, Hélène, Déjanire
2. Alfred Bruneau (1857–1934): Messidor
3. Gustave Charpentier (1860–1956): Julien
4. Camille Erlanger (1863–1919): Le Juif polonais
5. Albert Roussel (1869-1937): Le testament de la tante Caroline

Comments

Please make any comments, complaints, or suggestions about the list.Nrswanson (talk) 02:26, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

• Could I get some feedback please. I'd like to get this topic settled. Thanks.Nrswanson (talk) 14:26, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

• OK, if we go down this route then I'd like to add Roussel's La naissance de la lyre and Fauré's Promethée - that way we'll have completed our operatic coverage of those two composers. --Folantin (talk) 14:31, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
• I'm OK with this list and Folantin's additions, but I would remove Camille Erlanger (1863–1919): Le Juif polonais (it already has an article). Perhaps replace with Erik Satie (1866 –1925): Geneviève de Brabant. I have sources for it. Voceditenore (talk) 14:36, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

• Those seem like reasonable suggestions.Nrswanson (talk) 14:47, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Relationship between the Opera Portal and the Opera of the Month

Note that the Opera Portal now changes every two months, unlike the Opera of the month. Jay, I think it would be a good idea to change the heading of the portal for Composer of the month and Singer of the month to Featured composer and Featured singer respectively. Also, while the Opera of the Month tends to be thematic, there's not a particularly good reason to always make the Portal thematic (Puccini for December/January was a special case given the 150th anniversary). In fact, a variety of articles, photos and sound files from different periods and nationalities gives a good idea of the incredible breadth and diversity of the subject. Something to think about... Best, Voceditenore (talk) 11:35, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

• I absolutely agree that we shouldn't have to do a theme for every portal. I do however think that it would be better to feature content that we have recently worked on. That way our efforts can be rewarded if only in a small way. It's also a good motivator for the project to get stuff done.Nrswanson (talk) 11:47, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

• I agree about the motivation factor, and perhaps more importantly, recent work tends to be better referenced and formatted. I'm not against a thematic slant to the portal, but I just don't think we need to tie ourselves to it slavishly, especially since there there will be recent work from 2 completely different OoMs available each time the portal changes. Voceditenore (talk) 12:12, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Good idea, I admit that I sometimes got confused because of the titles - I just changed the box titles to Featured composer and featured singer. About articles to be published, I’m happy with your suggestions. I have always hope for project members to participate by giving ideas and helping in the selection / suggestion for all of them – Selected article, Selected picture, Featured composer and Featured singer. Lets finalize the articles before 29th - Jay (talk) 12:20, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

If I'm the only one doing sounds (at the moment I am), it's easier for me to theme the sound part, as it lets me focus on a smaller part of all the things available. It needn't carry over to the rest of the portal, unless there's a major anniversary. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 18:22, 22 January 2009 (UTC)