Talk:E lucevan le stelle

Untitled

These are not "lyrics"!!! These are just the words sung by Cavaradossi, but not "lyrics" --Al Pereira(talk) 18:33, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Themes and closing bars

I've added (reinstated) a note that the theme of the aria is essentially the same of the final bars of the opera. This may be a naive comment and the theme may well be first announced much earlier in the work (if so, please expand) - but I think it's more useful to note this, augmneted if appropriate, rather than just saying 'this is one of the best known...' Bob aka Linuxlad (talk) 08:52, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

You added it nicely compared to the earlier that I removed. It is now look more appropriate and I dont have any objections, besides, I agree that the theme is repeated. Cheers. - Jay (talk) 09:36, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

The earlier addition ("The music is thematically similar to the closing bars of the opera (as Tosca jumps from the ramparts)") was also completely appropriate, clearly written, accurate and of benefit to the article. I can't understand why it was removed in the first place. (I'm not the one who added it, I'm just commenting.) Linuxlad, the more detailed rephrasing is OK too, but I'm just wondering if it could be more clearly put. Right now it says:

(The clarinet theme which introduces the aria is to restated forte in the closing bars of the opera, as Tosca jumps from the ramparts)

Perhaps without the "to" and the parentheses?:

The clarinet theme which introduces the aria is restated forte in the closing bars of the opera, as Tosca jumps from the ramparts. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 10:34, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Or maybe add "be"?:

The clarinet theme which introduces the aria is to be restated forte in the closing bars of the opera, as Tosca jumps from the ramparts. Voceditenore (talk) 10:57, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Since in the romanza the same melody is performed firstly by the clarinet and then by the tenor ("O dolci baci, o languide carezze"), there is no reason to refer to the clarinet talking about the "perorazione" at the end of the opera. --Al Pereira(talk) 00:54, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

I've rephrased again to focus on the theme being repeated and where. However, in a separate and preceding sentence, I've mentioned that the aria is introduced by a clarinet solo. Virtually all descriptions of the aria's music mention this, and Mosco Carner even states that it's a fairly unusual introduction. Therefore, I think it's worth mentioning here. Personally, I would also change the description at the beginning of the article from 'romanza' (a more technical term and one which very rarely used in English descriptions) to the more commonly used term 'aria'. Both Julian Budden (Puccini: His Life and Works - Page 219 et al.) and Mosco Carner (Giacomo Puccini, Tosca - Page 102 et al.) refer to 'E lucevan le stelle' as an aria not a romananza. Equally, I would change 'incipit' to 'opening bars' (or something similar). This is not an encyclopedia written for musicologists. Nor is it an encyclopedia written for an Italian readership. It is an encylopedia written in English for general interest readers. It should be accurate yes, but it should also be accessible and clear - in the same way that Carner's and Budden's writing for an English speaking readership is accessible and clear. I'm not going to push the point, but it's something to keep in mind. Best wishes, Voceditenore (talk) 06:07, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

The use of the clarinet solo is very important and should be mentioned; I said that the theme cannot be identified as the clarinet theme. Aria is generic but correct, romanza is more exact and I would prefer it. The form A-A is typical of the romanza (see for instance the example from Bizet in Romance (music)). Opening bars is ok. In general, I think that the encyclopedia should be first at all accurate, as well as accessible and clear if this is possible. --Al Pereira(talk) 11:51, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Worth noting too that the music isn't identical - in particular the final bars are in the major, surely... Linuxlad (talk) 11:30, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

the final bars are in minor (it's only a little "coda"). --Al Pereira(talk) 11:51, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Literal translation

I noticed some changes were made to the literal translation of the aria, which I'm afraid I don't think are an improvement. First, the use of the English past progressive for the Italian imperfect results in an English translation that does not sound like normal English and probably does not accurately represent was the text says. To say that the garden gate 'was creaking' suggests it needed to be fixed; to say it 'creaked' suggests the sound made by someone moving it to enter. The editor used the simple past for the other verb in the same sentence, because 'a footstep was touching the sand' would make no sense at all. It may be that the use of imperfetto indicates that this same scene happened many times (to be translated, perhaps, 'the garden gate would creak...'). I suggest we check with User:Voceditenore or User:Al Pereira for a second opinion on the correct tense to use.

I also wish we could avoid sentences that run backwards using, as in 'creaking was the gate of the garden'. I think the editor is trying to avoid ending the line with 'creaked' because it is ugly (and it *is* ugly), but I think the problem has more to do with the fact that 'creaked' is a drab word in speech, and would be horrid if sung. But I haven't been able to come up with a good alternative (whined? sounded? made a sound?). Changing the word order doesn't really solve the problem and it gets us into the realm of phrasing like 'And footstep its precincts invaded' of the allegedly singable translation. In adding the literal translation my goal was to avoid distorting the meaning of the aria, as the 'singable' translation does, and to write in normal English. Normal, non-backwards English better serves the goal of communicating what the aria means (in my opinion). In addition, my sense of the original Italian is that it is not highly rhetorical/poetical in tone -- it is meant to be an evocative memory, not an ode -- so poetic English forms may be further away from the intent of the original than more straightforward language. David.thompson.esq (talk) 16:16, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

I have no objections if you want to revert the edit of 84.72.9.232 because it's not an improvement. I only restored it because it's clearly not vandalism, as Cluebot asserted. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 02:01, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

I'd endorse reverting those edits. The "new" literal translation is rather dreadful. "Literal" shouldn't mean adhering slavishly to the word order of the original language and it also requires taking a certain amount of liberty with the tense translation rather than sticking slavishly to the past progressive in English every time the indicativo imperfetto used in Italian. 1. They are not completely equivalent. 2. Sometimes the verb tenses used by the librettist are chosen for their poetic/melodic sound rather than a precise rendition of time sequence. This translation by James Meena for Opera Carolina is more or less what it should look like and closer to the previous version in this article. Voceditenore (talk) 16:53, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks to you both for the input -- I'm going to revert, and then steal 'grazed' for 'sfiorava' from the translation user: voceditenore indicated. - David.thompson.esq

Thanks for your feedback. I entered those edits because, as an opera addict, I'm annoyed by the excessive liberty that libretto translators take – often for reading brevity – which kills the poetry that the original author put in. The MET itself surtitled "sulla tua bocca lo dirò" with "I will kiss you". Regarding the tense edits, the meanings reflect closely those in Italian language. About how they sound, I can't say well enough, as I'm not mothertongue. For sure, no italian speaker would use a progressive tense to express memories either. As the translation referenced by user: voceditenore is definitely more authoritative and more accurate than the stuff we inherited on this page, would don't we just adopt it in its entirety? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.72.9.232 (talk) 23:24, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

I would hesitate to take something verbatim from a published source. However, we have established that the simple past tense is the best English equivalent to the Italian. The translation is basically correct and has consensus. Let's leave it alone. David.thompson.esq (talk) 06:29, 10 January 2014 (UTC).

Just a few comments with regard to your very interesting discussion. a) "creaked" may be felt to be ugly, but is perfect for Italian "stridea"; and the English translation is not meant to be sung. b) "trembling" is more precise and certainly more appropriate than "feverishly" in a "languid/languorous" context. c) With regard to the use of the simple past tense as mentioned above, I would only add a few words on the Italian "imperfetto indicativo". - In the Italian text we have three types of the "imperfect" tense: 1) "descriptive imperfect" in the first two lines; 2) "narrative imperfect" in the subsequent four lines; 3) "imperfective imperfect" in "le belle forme disciogliea dai veli". The first type was correctly rendered in the first line and avoided in the second ("And the earth was scented" instead of "And the earth was scenting the air"). The second type was correctly rendered with the simple past tense, whose equivalent could be used, here, also in Italian (but with a different stylistic effect). The third type was appropriately rendered with the simple past tense, but in a case like this the English past progressive would also be acceptable. d) I would replace the heading "Singable English" (which is simply misleading) with "Free Translation". - Thank you for your time! HumbleEB (talk) 08:26, 13 May 2016 (UTC)