Talk:El cóndor pasa (zarzuela)

Split

I would agree in principle, but the two are close enough anyway that we really need at least greater context on the song as such to justify a split of the content.--Pharos 01:36, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Given the length of the article, I can't see that a split is justified. If the material on the play and/or on the song were siginifcantly expanded, then perhaps. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 19:22, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

The play is pretty much extinct by now, not many people have heard of it and almost nobody associates the name with anything other than the song, splitting the article would cause the information about the play to dissapear. Hdezela 15:27, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't agree that the article should be split. If it were, the information about the play and the origin/heritage of the tune might be lost to most people searching on El Condor Pasa. I think it important that it retain its "roots". I remember hearing the tune in the early 1960's - well before the Simon & Garfunkle (S&G) version was recorded. I have had debates several times over the years with individuals convinced that S&G wrote it, which is not true of course. I do enjoy the "pop" version, but "credit where credit is due". —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Sherljim (talk • contribs) 00:53, 26 May 2007.

I would agree to split this if we can found some more info. because many people are coming here looking for info about the song but the article is a little bit confusing. we can keep the roots of the song by mentioning its origin and placing a link to the PLAY article.(87.109.247.43 05:13, 4 July 2007 (UTC))

Oh, no! How could you??? Splitting up this already tiny article in two mini-mini stubs makes absolutely no sense! (Besides, the first attempt was really sloppy, leaving the two articles absolutely unconnected and giving no background information about the song's history.) Most people will search for the song and find its roots interesting. Please revert the split ASAP! --FordPrefect42 22:00, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Spanish name?

Shouldn't this melody have an original Quichua or some other indigenous name? Or is the SPanish name the original title?--Sonjaaa 01:55, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

not too commercially important at the time(1913), and still now--Andersmusician VOTE 05:30, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

The question was raised before the split of the article. The original name of the play is certainly "El Cóndor Pasa" in Spanish. --FordPrefect42 12:03, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Recent edits (December 2014)

While the addition of extra material is very welcome, the manner in which it was done was very problematic. The editor completely over-wrote the existing article, removing all formatting, valid references, categories, etc. I have edited this extensively to repair the serious format problems and to restore the missing references and categories. However, the article still needs extensive copyediting for grammar, punctuation, and encyclopedic style and tone. Also, none of the new material added has any references. This also needs to be rectified, especially since various possibly contentious claims are made. I have tagged the article for these two issues. Voceditenore (talk) 10:11, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

"Mr. Mc. King"

I have replaced "Mr. Mc. King" with simply "Mr. King". "Mc." (wth a lower case "c") is meaningless in English and confusing to the reader. I don't know why the republished libretto (linked by another editor) has this. It may may be based on a scanning error from 1913 copy. The only viable possibilities are "M. C. King", "McKing", or possibly "Mac King". If "Mc." refers to a first name, then it is unnecessary to add it and given its obvious error, misleading. Voceditenore (talk) 07:13, 16 December 2014 (UTC)