Talk:The Magic Flute/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Branagh's film

I've changed "set during World War I" to "set against a background inspired by World War I", as both Branagh and his production designer Laurence Harvey have said that it isn't meant to BE the Great War, just to remind us of it.

Character list

I have listed the characters here, but the voice types in the score I got the characteras from seem a bit odd. For example I doubt that the third lady is actually a soprano (due to the low nature of the role). So, I consolted another score (also German) http://www.dlib.indiana.edu/variations/scores/vaa0618/large/index.html and found the same labels. Perhaps this is a German system that I am not farmiliar with. Either way, I think that they SHOULD be labled the way they are cast in America. Anyone with a good idea of what that would be is welcome to do that.

Also, perhaps the characters should be listed in English with the German in ( ) insted of the way i have done it, as this is a English encyclopedia.

During Mozart's time, the notion of a mezzo-soprano or contralto had not yet developed. All female singers were called sopranos. I will update to typical casting. DrG 21:29, 2005 August 16 (UTC)

Thanks a bunch Captbaritone

Other sites

Does anyone konw of any other sites with analysis of the Magic Flute (Die Zauberflote)

Title

Wikipedia:Naming conventions says, "Name your pages in English and place the native transliteration on the first line of the article unless the native form is more commonly used in English than the English form." In my experience, English speakers are more likely to speak of "The Magic Flute" than "Die Zauberflöte". Shouldn't the page be at the common English title? (See also Wikipedia:Naming conventions (use English).)

Unless anyone objects in the next day or so, I think I'll move the page to The Magic Flute. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 04:32, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Done. I've also taken care of the redirects in the main namespace. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 06:26, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

You have posted your question on the 13. November 2005, and waited only for 1 day and then moved the page. While it is good that you asked first, I think more time is in order to discuss this serious topic first. Or at least a moving tab with discussion should have been posted. Gryffindor 15:00, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

I apologize if my move was premature. I just thought I was being bold and acting in accordance with the naming conventions. Is there a WikiProject that covers this sort of topic, to which we might appeal to find the best solution? Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 01:10, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

I don't expect to have all of you with me on this one, but I for one would rather see a change of the naming conventions. That would, as I see it, be completely in line with how I recognize Wikipedia as always being very "correct". By that I mean presenting well thought-through formulations of matters rather than just resigning to lazy traditions. For example, I don't expect Wikipedia to use "Rollerblade" when it really intends to say "Inline skate". Bromskloss 20:35, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Another audio example

I'm sad to say that the current audio example (Der Hölle Rache) does not reach very high standards. Having one would still be nice, though. Are there perhaps another one we can use? Bromskloss 21:04, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree. The current audio example is terrible. Dave Foster 20:46, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

I just listened to both linked files. The first is from a live performance by Sandra Partridge (Thailand, 2006). The second version, sung a cappella by Rachel Smith is not very good at all. I've listened to many much better recordings on the web. My current "favorites" are those by Diana Damrau and Sumi Jo, available at youtube.com (and another by Sumi Jo on a CD).AdderUser 14:04, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was move. —Nightstallion (?) 00:56, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Requested move

WP:Use English as per policy. This would be especially timely, since the Metropolitan Opera broadcast it last week. No, Cosí Fan Tutte should not be moved. :} The Magic Flute, Ingmar Bergman's film, should be moved to TMF(fim) or TMF(Bergman).

Voting

Add *Support or *Oppose followed by an optional one-sentence explanation, then sign your vote with ~~~~

• Support Nominator vote. Septentrionalis 06:18, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose - Die Zauberflote is the real name of the opera. Would we also change the names of La Traviata or La Boheme? Should then Luciano Pavorotti be Luke? Consider the opera itself is German, then the title should remain in German. Barneygumble 16:16, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

• Support — the rule is fairly simple: how is the work most widely known to speakers of English? La Boheme is known as La Boheme, not "The Bohemian"; this opera, although occasionally performed in the Anglophone world as Die Zauberflöte, is most widely known as The Magic Flute. That's how the article should be named. See both Wikipedia:Naming conventions (use English) and Wikipedia:Naming conventions (common names). —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 17:11, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

• Support -- In the English-speaking world, this opera seems to be known as The Magic Flute. Atlant 17:13, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

• Reluctant Support -- I consider this an exception because among English speaking people, the opera has better name recognition as The Magic Flute than Die Zauberflöte. There are only a handful of operas like this: Il Barbiere di Siviglia, perhaps. –Shoaler (talk) 20:41, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

• Support -- Some, believing they advocate consistency, say "all titles should be in the works' original language", but the only way to be consistent is to reflect most-common usage, which is clearly, in this one case "The Magic Flute." Satyadasa 21:22, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

• Support --Lox (t,c) 22:28, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose this would clash with the current Magic Flute. Gryffindor 01:18, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

  Just to clarify, my support (and I assume other peoples' support) is to also move The Magic Flute to The Magic Flute (film) as suggested in the proposal --Lox (t,c) 12:52, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose Teodorico 12:47, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
• Support following policy and using the much more widely recognized English name. Jonathunder 21:57, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
• Support - finally persuaded that there are perhaps a dozen popular operas where the English name is significantly more common and we don't have to worry too much about the borderline cases. -- Solipsist 09:02, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
• Support --Francis Schonken 17:44, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
• Support, of course. CDThieme 01:47, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Discussion

Add any additional comments

Branagh is also doing a film, so disambiguate them now is probably a good idea. Septentrionalis 06:35, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

I disagree. In the world of opera an opus is generally called by its original name, because it is almost always the language it is performed in. Performances in English translations (I don't know why) have become uncommon. So the Metropolitan Opera shows "Die Zauberflöte", "Il Barbiere di Siviglia", "Die Entführung aus dem Serail", "La Forza del Destino" etc. If we chose, however, to change it to its English name, this rule should apply to all other foreign operas listed in Wikipedia as well. Currently you'll find Götterdämmerung, Der Rosenkavalier, Il Turco in Italia, La Traviata, Orfeo, Il Pastor Fido, Der Freischütz and so on. Those would have to be renamed, too. Teodorico 08:33, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

I disagree that this is usage. English usage for this opera appears to be strongly The Magic Flute (the Met, which I checked, is an exception; and their broadcast used both). Of the above six operas (and Fledermaus) usage is strongly against translation, except on The Turk in Italy and The Faithful Shepherd (probably because the original sounds so canine in English). And it's not clear enough to move those. Septentrionalis 20:02, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm conflicted on this one. In general I strongly support WP:Use English and this is an opera which is frequently known by its English translation — sufficiently so that I could support the move. However with operas in general, most are known by the title of their original libretto and it is only the most popular ones that become known by their English translation. The problem is what to do on the borderline cases such as Die Fledermaus which is occaisionally performed as The Bat but probably not enough to warrant moving the article to the English title. As such it might be safest to agree to an exception to WP:Use English for operas.

Counter examples might be famous foreign language books (In Search of Lost Time is at its English title) and famous foreign language films (The Battleship Potemkin is at its English title). Ultimately, 'What links here' should be your guide and it is clear from Whatlinkshere/The_Magic_Flute that several people are actually trying to link to the opera. Whatever happens, the Bergman film should be moved to The Magic Flute (film) (or The Magic Flute (film 1975) since it looks like another film by Kenneth Branagh is due this year) and The Magic Flute should become/redirect-to the opera. -- Solipsist 12:45, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

I do recognize the appeal of having a standard of "accuracy" to avoid tedious case-by-case arguments, but I feel that this particular case is fairly strong. In addition to the "What links here" test Solipsist mentions, an English-language Google search for "The Magic Flute" gives 592,000 results; an English-language search for "Die Zauberflote" gives only 473,000. (I deliberately omitted the umlaut, since this includes both entries with and without it in the search; if one searches for "Die Zauberflöte", there are only 194,000 results.) Most other operas are best known in the Anglophone world in their original titles, so there would be no need to move La Traviata or Der Rosenkavalier.

However, this opera is referred to as "The Magic Flute" in sources as widespread as the letters of Cole Porter and an episode of Red Dwarf (which, by a staggering coincidence, I happened to watch just last night). Wikipedia's policy favors common usage over accuracy in article naming — this does not mean that the article should be inaccurate, but that we should work to increase the probability that a casual user searching for a subject will find the article he or she is looking for without having to go through a redirect or disambiguation. I think the opera should be at The Magic Flute, with a disambiguation page (The Magic Flute (disambiguation) pointing readers to the Bergman film at The Magic Flute (1975 film) and the Branagh film at The Magic Flute (2006 film). —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 17:47, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

I regret that a straw man may be seen in this discussion. I said I didn't want to move Cosí Fan Tutte. I don't want to move La Traviata or La Bohême either. Septentrionalis 20:20, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

I hope you are not referring to me with your remark about "the straw man", Septentrionalis. If you feel that way, I am very sorry, but I was just trying to make a point with La Traviata by applying the same standard. And if the Met does, I thought I was in good company. But if the others agree with you, that’s perfectly fine with me. You called for a discussion, I made my point. Teodorico 15:04, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

No, I wasn't. I replied to you. Septentrionalis 03:41, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes, but your point appears to be based on an inaccurate understanding of what's being proposed. Just to clarify, the standard being suggested is not "put all opera articles under English names", but "put operas which are most widely known in the Anglophone world under English names under English names". "La Traviata" is irrelevant. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 17:33, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Controversies

I notice that the plot summary avoids certain controversial aspects of the opera: the strong hostility of Sarastro's temple to women, the existence of slavery in the temple, and the fact that Monostatos is black and feels like a racial outcast. Giving these an appropriate treatment is tricky. The plot summary probably isn't the place to deal with them. Perhaps someone with knowledge of published works addressing these issues might add a section on them? I suppose I could, but someone with more specialized knowledge could do a better job. GMcGath 19:09, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

f3???

"Many of the melodies are highly familiar, and include the Papageno/Papagena duet and the coloratura aria, "Der Hölle Rache kocht in meinem Herzen" ("The vengeance of Hell boils in my heart"), often referred to as the "Queen of the Night" aria, which reaches a high f3."

I'm not a singer, so I don't know the exact nomenclature they use with regard to pitches. But shouldn't it be f7, not f3. The system I'm used to is middle C being c4 (though I know that some in the electronic world label it as c3 or something). But i've never heard of it being called c0 before, which would indeed make Der Hölle reach an f3. Is this a system only sopranos use? Am I even making sense?? Crabbyass 16:55, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

That may be a cross between two different pitch nomenclatures. Elsewhere in the article I referred to it as f''', which is a bit tricky to write since you have to enclose it in a "nowiki" tag to prevent it from being interpreted as markup. I believe the notation system in which the C below the bass clef is capital C, the one in the bass clef is lower-case c, and you add a hashmark for each octave above that, is preferred in classical music. GMcGath 17:50, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Someone just changed it to "F6". With a little research, I determined that this person was using Scientific pitch notation. That seems no better or worse than the alternatives, so I added a link to the entry to nail down what it means. GMcGath 16:11, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Where was the premiere?

The article currently says: "It premiered in Vienna on September 30, 1791. The premiere was at an out-of-town but not obscure theater."

If the premiere was in Vienna, how could it have been "out-of-town"? --Metropolitan90 02:00, 19 June 2006 (UTC) Vienna has expanded since 1791. The Globe Theatre was out-of-town too, but it is not misleading to say that Shakespeare put on his plays at London. The name of the theater would be useful though. Septentrionalis 18:01, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Theater auf der Wieden, and yes, quite some distance from downtown Vienna. Lots of details about the history of the theater in Kurt Honolka's 1990 biography of Schikaneder. The the importance of the out-of-town aspect is comparable to on- or off-Broadway for a modern play opening in New York. TaigaBridge 25 July 2006

Synopsis

The synopsis puts Papageno's attempted suicide immediately after Pamina's, and before the two helmetted men lead Tamino into the temple. In fact, the Papageno-3 Boys-Papagena scene is after the Trial by Fire and Water, and immediately before the Monostatos/Queen scene.

I am guessing that when the Monostatos/Queen scene is omitted, they also performed the Papageno scene out of order to avoid an extra pair of scene changes and keep all the inside-the-temple scenes in sequence... but that's not what the score says and not how it is performed today. TaigaBridge 25 July 2006

You're right, and I've fixed the sequence. The changes of scene need to be adjusted to match, and I'd need a libretto at hand to do that. GMcGath 16:50, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Voice Type

The paragraph on voice types (fach) introduced by John1987 on October 18 needs either to be rewritten because it suffers from muddled logic and grammar, or removed because it doesn't add anything to the knowledge about this specific work - a similar paragraph about voice types could be inserted into almost every opera. Michael Bednarek 03:18, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Anecdotes in Noted Arias

Does an encylopedia really need anecdotes like the one in Noted Arias about Sarastro by GB Shaw? And if so, shouldn't they be a) sourced; b) correct? Michael Bednarek 00:49, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Salieri

I think hat there should be something about the confusion concerning Salieri, and the story behind him and the Opera.

Queen of the Night and Iolanthe

I have removed the following statement

In the Gilbert and Sullivan operetta Iolanthe, Sir Arthur Sullivan included a musical homage to the Queen of the Night's aria when introducing the character of the Queen of the Fairies.

Something similar appeared on the Iolanthe page in November 2005, and was removed following discussion on its Talk page[1]. Feel free to put it back here and/or there if there is any evidence to support this claim. --GuillaumeTell 14:03, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

The Tempest - Relevance?

Could someone explain the relevance of this addition:
03:00, 27 January 2007 Dpwkbw m (The Tempest)
The Tempest - A century & a half earlier, Shakespeare was dealing with virtuous kingship in The Tempest (c. 1611).
I think it should be deleted. Michael Bednarek 05:54, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree. I'm a fan of both works, but their connection is remote at best. Delete. Mlouns 06:35, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Section removed. Michael Bednarek 03:20, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

O zittre nicht

Not enough space (and a typo) in the edit summary for my reversion of the last change. What I wanted to say was that "zittre" is not a noun (which is capitalised in German) but a verb (which isn't capitalised in German), and that's why it shouldn't have a capital Z. --GuillaumeTell 11:33, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Decent operatic ability?

The background section currently states that the vocal lines for Pamina and the Queen of the Night "demand decent operatic ability", which sounds rather off. As we know, the Queen of the Night parts are among the most difficult ever demanded of a performer. It also sounds odd for one to "demand" mere decency. Jlandahl 19:31, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

I've tried to edit and tighten here. While doing this, I noticed that the paragraph immediately above had some material that seemed quite idiosyncratic and cited no reference sources. Going out on a limb, I just deleted it. Cheers, Opus33 16:59, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Low F's for Sarastro?

Flipping through my score, I found conspicuous low F's for Sarastro in only two places: the last note of "O Isis und Osiris" and the word "doch", addressed to Pamina in the finale of the first act. So I reworded the discussion to reflect this. If I have carelessly missed any others please point it out. Opus33 16:11, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Depends what "conspicuous" means, I guess... the trio "Soll ich dich Theurer nicht mehr sehn?" has two, in bar 37 and at the end (the latter is underneath Pamina and Tamino's voices, but still not doubled in the orchestra.) There is another one in the middle of Isis und Osiris, well hidden, and an F# near the end of Act I. Diesen Heil'gen Hallen goes down only to F#. TaigaBridge 06:04, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Taiga. Ambivalently, I changed it back to "a few". Opus33 15:48, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

The Mozart opera list infobox

Hello, I seem to be involved in a slow-motion revert war re. whether the infobox with a picture of Mozart and a list of all his operas should be at the top, or the bottom, of this article. I advocate "bottom", because:

• One should never put trivia at the top of the page; an article should begin with the essentials. And I think it's fair to say that operas like the unfinished L'Oca del Cairo and the juvenilia are Mozart trivia.

• One should also design articles from the viewpoint of the likely reader. In this case, the likely reader is someone who has attended a performance or heard a recording of The Magic Flute and wants to know more. This is a much more likely point of departure than someone who wants to (say) memorize the titles of all of Mozart's operas.

Sincerely, Opus33 15:48, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

I haven't been involved in the edit war, but I might have been. The navigational box is intended to allow people interested in Mozart's operas to get easily from one to another. It is one of a number of boxes for composers whose operas are well represented in WP. These have been developed by members of the Opera Project, and, in the early stages of development, after some experimentation, it was agreed that the boxes should be prominently displayed (with the operas in chronological order one above the other) at the top right of the article, rather than in wide-screen at the bottom, where they would be less prominent and maybe not noticed by some readers. There are currently 25 such boxes, located on (I estimate) 200+ opera articles, and, to the best of my knowledge, you are the first editor to query this.

As far as "likely readers" are concerned, I'd assume that they will be busy reading the actual article, which starts on the left and proceeds downwards in the usual way. They might notice, or even look at, the box - the way they might look at whatever image might be positioned where the box is/was, or at one of the numerous biographical infoboxes that appear on biographical articles (either/any of which might count as, or contain, what some might think of as "trivia") - but, if it isn't of interest to them, they will carry on with what they were doing.

On the subject of trivia, would it satisfy you if the operas were in reverse chronological order?

--GuillaumeTell 17:36, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Hello, this seems to be a recap of the infobox wars, happening in various parts of the WP (particularly involving science or scholarship). I.e. the people who are contributing factual content, and trying to find the optimum way to organize this content, run into editors who (misguidedly, in my opinion) put all the emphasis on formatting.

May I clarify a bit? Imagine for a moment there is no infobox, and I'm trying to write a cogent lead paragraph. I would be completely nuts to start out like this:

The Magic Flute is Mozart's 23rd and last opera. In the sequence of composition, it follows Die Schuldigkeit des ersten Gebotes (1767), Apollo et Hyacinthus (1767), Bastien und Bastienne (1768), La finta semplice (1769), Mitridate, re di Ponto (1770), Ascanio in Alba (1771), Il sogno di Scipione (1772), Lucio Silla (1772), La finta giardiniera (1775), Il re pastore (1775), Thamos, König in Ägypten (1779), Zaide (1780), Idomeneo (1781), Die Entführung aus dem Serail (1782), L'oca del Cairo (1783), Lo sposo deluso (1784), Der Schauspieldirektor (1786), The Marriage of Figaro (1786), Don Giovanni (1787), Così fan tutte (1790), and La clemenza di Tito (1791).

But that's exactly what the infobox, in effect, forces me to do.

In fact, any sensible editor would never include such a paragraph at all; rather, the correct thing would be to add a link to List of Mozart operas. I ask: why should normal editorial standards fly out the window, just because we're dealing with graphics? Sincerely, Opus33 19:41, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Just a few more points.

• You shouldn't confuse this navigational box for operas with the infoboxes for composers and singers which unnecessarily duplicate information in articles' leading paras.
• Even when the navigational box is present, it is ridiculous to read the beginning of the article as anything other than

  The Magic Flute (German Die Zauberflöte, K. 620) is an opera in two acts composed in 1791 by Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart to a libretto by Emanuel Schikaneder. The work is in the form of a Singspiel, a popular form which included both singing and spoken dialogue.

• You don't address any of the other points that I made in my previous comments above.

--GuillaumeTell 20:53, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't see that there is a huge amount of difference between having a navigation box top right or Schikaneder. Both serve to fill space opposite the table of contents. At the moment the navigation box faces white space which looks bad design-wise. I would think the easiest solution would be to return the navigation box to top right and the put Schikaneder below. It would also looks much better if the illustrations were alternated left and right. -- Kleinzach 02:54, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't have a very strong opinion either way, except that the placement of the Mozart Operas navigation box has been consistently at the top right of every Wiki page for a Mozart opera. I think that's a good spot to have this kind of navigation box. There are others, without a picture, which lend themselves to be positioned at the very end of articles (e.g. Template:UKPrimeMinisters); IMO the Mozart Operas template should be at the top right. Michael Bednarek 05:10, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

I think we should standardize all the formats in our articles (opera related). As what Michael said, it has been consistently at the top right, it goes the same with other composers operas; refer Verdi's, Puccini's, and Handel's etc. In my opinion, it is more appropriate to make them all the same. - Jay 05:25, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

As there is a clear consensus for having the navigation box at the top I have replaced it. I have also tried to rearrange the other illustrations a bit so that the page as a whole looks better. Comments? -- Kleinzach 05:53, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Ok, Kleinzach. My main comment is to emit a weary sigh, but since you asked:

• Consistency is no argument, right? If I'm right about this navigation box, I would be right about all the others, too.
• The infobox/navigation box distinction made by Guillaume is immaterial; the point is that both devices share the drawback of putting unimportant material at the top of the article.

No edit wars planned.

Opus33 16:06, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Does it really matter where it lies, upper right as a vertical box or at the bottom as a horizontal box? If you put it at the bottom, I don't think anyone would really see it, so I suppose that's one argument for putting it at the top. I don't think anyone really reads it as unnecessary information (I don't; it just makes navigation between his different operas easier). -- Cielomobile ^{talk / contribs} 06:07, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

About "Controversies"

If you add in the controversies, you should also point out that many stagings try to avoid the offensive elements in the libretto by changing some of the dialogue or details of the staging. Examples: (1) Sarastro is often identified as the Queen's estranged husband and the father of Pamina, which makes his "abduction" of her more palatable. (2) Monostatos is played as a white man, and all references to the "Moor" are deleted. (3) The priests decide in the end that Pamina deserves to be treated as an equal, thus abandoning their earlier contempt for women. Also, some stagings (including the Bergman movie) have Sarastro abdicate his power in the end, making him seem less an arbitrary tyrant. According to Mozart scholar Edward Dent, this detail was suggested by the great German writer Goethe. CharlesTheBold (talk) 01:24, 17 March 2008 (UTC) In many stagings