Wikipedia

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Classical music/Archive 23

< Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Classical music
Latest comment: 15 years ago by Jubileeclipman in topic Undine (ballet) and Ondine (Ashton): Two articles on the same work
Archive 20Archive 21Archive 22Archive 23Archive 24Archive 25→Archive 30

Undine (ballet) and Ondine (Ashton): Two articles on the same work

Latest comment: 15 years ago124 comments22 people in discussion

Background: For some time there has been disagreement about whether ballets are by composers or by choreographers. This is complicated because there will only be one composer of the work, but there can be multiple choreographers working on the same piece of music.

In the case of this particular work, the problem is that while the composer Henze, his publishers (Schott), the German ballet world and the only recording of the music all use the name Undine, the original London choreographer (Ashton) changed the name to Ondine.

Robertgreer has been insisting that Undine (ballet) should be merged into Ondine (Ashton) because "The title of the ballet is Ondine." (level 3 heading). Presumably this would mean deleting material relating to the other (German) choreographers. Anyway I'd grateful if someone here can have a look at this and maybe even help guide this long debate to rest. Thank you. --Kleinzach 02:34, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

This problem continues. Could someone have a look at it? (I'd prefer not to be the only person in the line of fire.) --Kleinzach 05:51, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
I took a look at it. I know neither the music nor the ballet (though I have played a quartet by Henze that was pretty good). But the argument seems pretty silly to me. As long as people can find the article by looking for either name, it doesn't seem very important which name appears at the top of the article. The dancers seem pretty ruffled, so I would let them have their way.
Another unorthodox opinion from... --Ravpapa (talk) 16:06, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
Rav, I am not sure I would dismiss the back and forth as silly, since as far as I can see we now have essentially two competing articles on essentially the same topic, one of which has become something of a hagiography vehicle for Frederick Ashton; our naming conventions should not be subordinated to the passions of a committed knot of enthusiasts. I encourage you to reconsider your characterisation.
Frankly, Kleinzach is right to raise this question here. Am I the only one who expresses some disbelief that a ballet should not be associated with its composer? Who goes to see Coppélia by Saint-Leon, or Петрушка by Diagelev? So, I support Kleinzach on this - the article should be located under its proper name - Undine, and the specific choreographed version by Ashton deprecated accordingly. Eusebeus (talk) 16:55, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
I certainly meant no offense to Kleinzach, and hope he doesn't take it that way. He is quite right to raise the issue here. Perhaps silly was the wrong word. "Moot" might be better.
"Competing" is not quite the right word in this case, either. Except for an added section on the choreography in the Ashton version, and an added section on the music in the Ballet version, they are identical. They could easily be combined, and no one seems to be opposed to that. The only argument is over the name.
Also, in principle, I certainly agree with you that the appropriate naming convention is for the work to bear the name of the composer, and not the choreographer. My point is that, in an online encyclopedia where you would get to the same article whether you write (Henze) or (Ashton), the argument over which one of those to put in the title line of the article seems pretty moot. And since the dance writers feel so strongly about it (expressing, as they do in their posts, a sense of being an oppressed minority), I suggest we bend the rules of obvious logic in this case and let them have their way.
I didn't mean to suggest your response was offensive (sorry!), but rather that Kleinzach is right that the issue is not necessarily a trivial one. We have naming conventions for reasons that extend beyond whether readers can find the right article - redirects can always handle that. But for the purposes of organisation and structural integrity, it is important that we follow established convention. To my mind, it is extraordinary that we list a ballet under an anglicised title with the choreographer (!) listed parenthetically. Relatedly, the WP:UE constraint is problematic for classical works, where preference and praxis often retains the original foreign language title, especially for German and French works. So I think Kleinzach is on the right side of this discussion. Eusebeus (talk) 20:21, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Eusebeus, as you feel strongly on the issue, and I don't, I suggest you pitch in on the article talk page, where your comments will have more impact. --Ravpapa (talk) 05:50, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

It's quite difficult to know what to comment on, and exactly where, as there are 3 talk pages involved (not counting this one, which makes 4), and on any one of them there are up to 5 different threads, all discussing the same issue. The first thing, it seems to me, would be to direct all these disparate discussions to one and only one place, so we're all talking together in one place rather than in sub-groups in many different places. Where would the best place be? -- JackofOz (talk) 06:28, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

The last exchanges about this were at the foot of Talk:Ondine (Ashton) so I think that would be the best place. Thank you for taking an interest in this. --Kleinzach 15:04, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
Forgive me if I'm too lazy to seek out the relevant Talk page, but I just wanted to submit my statement that the music is primary, thus any ballet definitely needs an article about the music by the composer. Any choreography occurs after the completed composition of the music; plus different choreographers will choreograph the ballet differently. To me it's a no-brainer that the ballet must above all have an article on the musical composition. Whether in addition to that a separate article is merited on one single choreographer's specific choreography is a question of notability. If not sufficiently notable, the information should occur on the primary article's page, even if the name of the ballet has been slightly changed by one choreographer. Any problems with the choreographer's revised name of the ballet should be resolved with redirects. (Feel free to move this post to the appropriate Talk page if that is warranted.) Softlavender (talk) 20:11, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
Ondine (ballet) exists as a disambiguation page for the two Ondine/Undine ballets. (Sorry for the lengthy hiatus, but nothing much seems to have happened in my absence!) --Kleinzach 08:39, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
I'd say that Ondine_(Perrot) (which shoud be Ondine (Pugni) anyway) should be moved back to Ondine (ballet), which is where it was for years. Shoemaker's Holiday Over 210 FCs served 08:48, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
Yes, that might be a step in the right direction. I'm forgetting how disambig. pages work, but there is already a comprehensive one at Undine. --Kleinzach 10:15, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
Ondine (ballet) is now a redirect to the disambig page Undine. --Kleinzach 10:46, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

I just read through the discussion at the Ashton talk page, and annoyingly, I think I agree that that's the place where the article should be (possible renamed to Ondine (ballet)). It appears that Ondine was conceived by Ashton as a vehicle for Fonteyn and choreographed before the music was composed, and exact timings were given to Henze, who then composed the music. He wasn't familiar with composing for ballet, so Ashton took him to shows, pointing out what he felt did and didn't work in the music. This doesn't match the typical pattern of Rite of Spring by Stravinsky or Sleeping Beauty by Tschaikovsky, but it appears that Ashton was the creator and driving force behind the work. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:27, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't believe it's possible to choreograph a ballet before the music is written. If Ashton really attempted to do that it might well have contributed to the friction between him and Henze. If you look at all the material — not just from the London/Ashton/Ondine side — it's clear that Henze had his own point of view and wrote the music he wanted to write, music which is now much more appreciated than it was when it was first performed. The fact that the two sides even used different titles for the work is indicative of their relations. P.S. Henze had written his Ballett-Variationen in 1949 and had been a ballet conductor in Wiesbaden, so it isn't true that "He wasn't familiar with composing for ballet" . --Kleinzach 01:02, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

I've left a few comments about this on Talk:Ondine (Ashton). Obviously, the articles must be merged, but how? Perhaps the best solution is to merge to Undine (ballet) which does not specify any name, then resolve the Ondine/Undine problem later. However, there is a strong case for DABing the title with (Henze): the music could be rechoreographed by someone else. The real question then is: which is more notable, music or dance? I suspect the music is. Therefore [O/U]ndine (Henze) would be more appropriate. Jubilee♫clipman 00:26, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

I've noted the results of this discussion here. --Kleinzach 06:50, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Ashton/Henze: redirect, revertions and sections being removed!

I would like to see both articles kept, as this has become a debate about the merits of which is more valuable than the other, when both the music and Ashton's ballet are equally notable. As is the case with many other ballet articles on Wikipedia, it seems quite normal to have separate articles relating to the music and notable ballet productions, so why not do the same here? I absolutely do not want to see Ashton's production of Ondine being merged into a main article about Ondine, because the work is completely different. This is one of his most noted productions, particularly because of the break away from the tradition of using the Pugni score. I think we have a situation here where people are trying to fix somethign that isn't broken. I vote to keep both articles, and for the Henze article to focus solely on the music and for the Ashton article to focus solely on the ballet. In fact, I'm going to go ahead and do that and see what people think. Crazy-dancing (talk) 12:26, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Crazy-dancing: I see you have just changed the name of the article (from Undine (ballet) to Undine (Henze). This needs to be discussed first, hence I have reverted. My view is that changing the name is not relevant to the problem here. --Kleinzach 13:10, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
Ugh. We now seem to have three versions of the article instead of two! Crazy-dancing is rewriting Undine (Henze), following another reversion. I've asked Crazy-dancing if he could do his version in userspace rather than on the encyclopedia itself. We can then discuss this in a sensible way. --Kleinzach 13:33, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

No need for the negativity. We now do NOT have three articles, we are back to two:

  • Ondine (Ashton) - Relates to the ballet by Frederick Ashton for the Royal Ballet
  • Undine (Henze) - Relating to the musical score and removing the previous reference to the music as a ballet. It may have been originally written for a ballet, but it is a musical work and does not necessarily have to be used only for ballet, and even if used for ballet, that does not necessarily mean that the dance work will use the same title.

And as for the discussing in a sensible way, I am trying to be bold, to move things along. 'Sensible discussion', is what has left this merging debate in limbo for over a year now, so something pro-active needs to be done. Crazy-dancing (talk) 14:06, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Crazy-dancing: Why not do your version in userspace? Why do you need to do all these reversions? I think you have reverted about six or seven times (on three pages) within the last hour or so. --Kleinzach 14:16, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
Actually Klein, I was the one making bold edits, you were the one reverting them. As I've explained, I am trying to make a pro-active move to do something to help resolve the situation, so we don't spend yet another year with people discussing it and not coming to any kind of consensus. Instead of just putting obstacles in my way, try helping!!! Crazy-dancing (talk) 14:23, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
Just a heads up... there's some cyclic redirects in there. Undine (ballet) and Undine (Henze) are currently redirected to each other.DavidRF (talk) 14:25, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
It's a train wreck. Apart from 3RR violations the original move was copy and paste. --Kleinzach 14:34, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
Crazy-dancing blocked 24h for edit warring, articles restored to original state (as far as I can tell). --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:43, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Good. Let's talk about this tomorrow. Crazy-dancing may have some good ideas. Let's approach everything with an open mind — tomorrow. --Kleinzach 14:54, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Redux: problem of the article titles

This problem has proved intractable, not just because of the 'music versus choreography' issue, but also because of the complexity of the article titles. Maybe it would be better if we look at the titles first? These are the pages involved:

  • Ondine (Pugni) which is the unrelated Pugni/Perrot ballet. (It's been suggested it might be renamed using it's full name : Ondine, ou La naïade.)
  • Undine (ballet) which is the main Henze ballet page. I originally suggested '(ballet)' to avoid the Henze versus Ashton authorship problem. (Undine with a 'U' is the name used by Henze, his publisher and the current CD recording.)
  • Ondine (Ashton) which is the Ashton choreography/Henze ballet page that may or may not be merged into Undine (ballet). (Ondine with an 'O' was the name used by Ashton and the Royal Ballet in London).

Any comments. Leaving Ondine (Ashton) aside, are there any article titles that need changing? --Kleinzach 03:58, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

A possible solution

Ballets are designed by choreographers and music by composers. Based on this simple premise, here's a possible way to resolve the organization issues:

Article pages

Disambiguation pages

  • Undine - explicitly addresses both spellings (Ondine and Undine).

Redirect pages

Hatnotes

--Lambtron (talk) 22:34, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

  • Comment Titles with two words in parentheses, e.g. (Ashton ballet) or (Henze music) would be against standard disambiguation practice in which the norm is one word so these titles would not be viable. (P.S. 'Music' would be redundant in relation to Henze) --Kleinzach 00:33, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Ashton

I'm only bothering to comment because I do not want to see the article about Ashton's ballet to be merged into the article about the music, as it is one of his most noted productions. First of all, before anyone makes flippant comments about 'dancers ruffled feathers', I must point out that I am both a dancer AND a musician and have an appreciation for both and believe we should keep two articles, one about Ashton's ballet and one about the musical score. The main issue here is the the naming of articles and this is very simple to solve, as I tried to do before lovers of the status-quo decided to jump on me for daring to try and move things along without spending another 10 years discussing it first.

Plainly and simply, Henze did NOT write a ballet, he wrote a musical score, therefore the title of Undine (ballet) is completely incorrect and should be reverted back to Undine (Henze) as it was when the article was originally created. Choreographers create ballets, composers create music to ACCOMPANY ballet. The term ballet refers specifically to the dance, and regardless of whether the music inspires the dance or whether the chicken happens to come before the egg, the music is not a dance work and can be used entirely independently, whether it be in concert form, or for a different ballet production, or for a dance work that might not even be ballet. If one day someone decided to write words for the score and perform it with vocals rather than dancing, would you still call it a ballet? It should also be noted that many choreographers have used music that was not written for ballet, used compilations of music by different composers and retitled and messed around with arrangements, but the ballet does not 'claim' the musical work for its own and credit for the musical score is correctly given to the composer. So, in this case, credit for the ballet should not be given to the composer, as the music is simply one aspect of a ballet that was created by Frederick Ashton, the director and choreographer who had overall creative control over the production.

So I veto any proposal to merge the Undine (ballet) and Ondine (Ashton) articles. They should remain separate and the former be named Undine (Henze), relating to the musical score and the latter remaining as Ondine (Ashton), relating to Ashton's ballet production. Crazy-dancing (talk) 17:45, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

So tell us. What about The Nutcracker? Or hell, perhaps the ur example, The Rite of Spring, which certainly is quite famous for its choreography? Boléro, which wasn't even a ballet originally? One could go on. Why do those famous pieces have only one article yet you want to insist on two here? ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 19:18, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
Well the honest answer is, I'm only pursuing this quite strongly, because I'm only interested in this one ballet just now. No doubt at some point in the future, someone will quite rightly create separate articles for the examples you gave, I'm certainly surprised to hear that there aren't two articles for the music and ballet of the Rite of Spring for example, as both were considered ground-breaking at the time. I'm not going to get into a debate about which is more important, the music or the dance, because ultimately, they are both equally important. Unfortunately, I do not think there are as many people on Wikipedia who are working towards improving the range of articles on ballets as there are for music, so ultimately the music 'wins out', even in cases where its debatable whether the music would have become notable had it not been used for ballet in the first instance. Crazy-dancing (talk) 19:44, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
This reminds me of the argument that Lorenzo da Ponte wrote the opera Don Giovanni, (not one Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart), and Brecht wrote The Threepenny Opera (not Kurt Weill). (We've really had that one!). In the real world the composer is regarded as the main creator because he/she puts in the vast majority of the work. --Kleinzach 01:33, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
With all due respect, this statement by Kleinzach, is the most ignorant nonsense I have ever read. I would suggest that a few people need to be a bit more open minded and realise that there is more effort involved in creating a ballet than putting a few pretty steps together. But if we're talking relative workloads, Henze had one responsibility, to write some pretty tunes, most likely with the entire music department of the Royal Opera House at his beck and call. Ashton on the other hand was the overall producer of the ballet and as well as collaborating on the music, he also had to collaborate with the scenic designer, costume designer, lighting designer, prop and wig makers and the myriad of other people who were working to create HIS vision of this ballet. Oh, and of course he probably spent about 10 minutes putting a few pretty steps together (yes I am being sarcastic), he didn't have to spent countless hours in the studio first choreographing the steps and then teaching the steps to the dancers and then rehearsing it until it was perfected. Of course, nobody could possibly have put in as much work as the composer, what a terrible existence that must be. - The thing that interests me the most, is that a discussion about a ballet has now been hijacked by the terribly superior members of the Classical Music Wikiproject. I look forward to seeing these same debates popping up by all the musos desperate to give credit for the great and notable works of contemporary music that are now being commissioned and used for a lot of new ballet and dance productions, but then again, I doubt that would happen, as they probably aren't high brow enough for any of you. Crazy-dancing (talk) 02:28, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Straw Poll

That we follow Kleinzach's suggestion above and redirect all of the current articles to Undine (ballet), with an agreement to merge the Ashton choreography to a section of that article.

Objection. To "redirect all of the current articles to Undine (ballet)" is not my suggestion. (I've explained about the names problem above). If Crazy-dancing someone wants to make his own poll/proposal that's fine. He should not make one in my name. --Kleinzach 02:16, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

If you would like to get your facts straight, I did not make this proposal, my proposal is the one in 2nd Straw Poll Crazy-dancing (talk) 02:34, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
Right you are. I have struck through your name above. --Kleinzach 02:41, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

--SUPPORT--

  1. Eusebeus (talk) 19:59, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

--OPPOSE--

  1. Very strongly oppose Crazy-dancing (talk) 20:04, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
  2. Grimsworth (talk) 20:42, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
  3. Very strongly oppose — Robert Greer (talk) 21:24, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
  4. Very strongly oppose. Ballet is dance and music is, well, music. There are compelling reasons to separate these two distinct topics into two articles, though there is nothing fundamentally wrong with having some "cross pollination" between them. This proposal would necessarily treat one of these important topics as a subsidiary of the other, which is not justifiable unless (1) one topic is clearly more significant than the other, and (2) the subsidiary topic lacks sufficient independent content to stand on its own. —Lambtron (talk) 21:47, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
  5. Scillystuff (talk) 22:04, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
  6. Oppose. We routinely split (for example) books from films based on the book. As for the Nutcracker, mentioned above, I think it's likely that Balanchine's version deserves an article of its own, and possibly others do as well. Not that I'm always a splitter, but Ondine (Ashton) looks substantive enough that I can't see a reason to merge. Just work out how best to factor the material between the two articles. - Jmabel | Talk 22:25, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
  7. Oppose for the reasons put forward by Lambtron and Jmabel. TJRC (talk) 23:41, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
  8. Oppose. ATTENTION ALL PARTISANS (pun intended, i.e. supporters and guerrilla fighters):
a) Wikipedia is meant to be accessible to all - not only for or by afficionados!
b) With all due respect - I had never heard of Henze before reading this discussion, while I had heard of the ballet Ondine.
c) Adopt Lambtron's naming suggestions as the most comprehensive and informative.
d) Please stop wasting our time!

Shir-El too 23:39, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

2nd Straw Poll

  • Retain two articles, titled Ondine (Ashton) and Undine (Henze), one focussing on the ballet and the other on the musical score
  • Retain Ondine (Pugni) without change
  • Point all confusing redirects to the Undine disambiguation page and perform a tidy up of that page

--SUPPORT--

  1. Crazy-dancing (talk) 22:57, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
  2. TJRC (talk) 23:39, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
  3. Shir-El too 23:57, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
  4. Robert Greer (talk) 02:34, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
  5. There is clearly no consensus for merger; we should make the best of what we have. Macdonald-ross (talk) 11:25, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

--OPPOSE--

  1. By WP:ENC. We are here to serve the readers. They will be confused by multiple articles on single subjects. Wikipedia shouldn't be a random collection of fan-oriented articles. P.S. I'm ignoring the second and third proposals which don't seem relevant. --Kleinzach 02:02, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
  2. --Ravpapa (talk) 06:59, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

--COMMENTS--

So are you for or against? Personally I don't see any relevance in discussing the Pugni as I don't think it needs changing in any way. The ballet production is not sufficiently well documented to produce a separate article, and it is more notable for the music anyway, so in that respect that article is fine as it is. I only mentioned it here as other people have included it in the discussions above. Crazy-dancing (talk) 23:25, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
Why did you bring up the Pugni at all? If you didn't see any relevance, and you shouldn't, it shouldn't even have been mentioned. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 03:15, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
I think I already answered that. I only addressed the Pugni, because other people seem to have brought it up during the course of the discussion. Like I say, I don't see any problem with leaving that article exactly as it is. Crazy-dancing (talk) 04:05, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Kleinzach: Here you write "We are here to serve the readers." But above you wrote "Titles with two words in parentheses, e.g. (Ashton ballet) or (Henze music) would be against standard disambiguation practice..." and quote WP guidelines. WHICH IS IT? Guidelines are NOT inflexible and Wikipedia is meant to SERVE, not dictate: someone looking for knowledge may need to know the difference. Shir-El too 23:57, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
Shir-El too: Actually, I don't understand your point. Why should there be a contradiction between a general principle and a technical aspect of the way the encyclopedia is structured? --Kleinzach 00:30, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
How convenient that all of a sudden, the musos seem to be incapable of understanding an opinion put forward by people opposing the merging? I think it's quite simple to understand - the need to differentiate between Wikipedia guidelines and how to best serve the readers, because following guidelines is not always the best approach. So in this case, a ballet that is most commonly attributed to its producer and choreographer (a fact supported by most search engine results), should be presented as such to the readers, not as the work of a composer who, regardless of whether or not he has a growing reputation amongst musicians, is virtually unheard of within the ballet world. Yes, this goes against the conventional wisdom of Wikipedia, but it presents the facts in a way that serves the reader, and for the benefit of musicians who know nothing about him, Ashton was not a conventional choreographer. Crazy-dancing (talk) 12:11, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
That arugment STILL doesn't explain why there needs to be more than one page on the ballet. The naming issue would still be there, true. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 15:13, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
Nobody said there 'needs' to be more than one, only that it would be appropriate, because the ballet is most noted as a work by this choreographer, and the score, as Kleinzach and others have mentioned, is by a particularly notable composer. Crazy-dancing (talk) 18:00, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
Surely all major ballets are composed by notable composers and choreographed by notable choreographers? --Kleinzach 23:55, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
Yes, you could say that about major ballets, but Ondine is not really a major ballet. With the exception of the original Pugni/Perrot ballet, Ashton's production is the only particularly famous ballet production of Ondine and even though the score has been used for other productions, they have not achieved anywhere near the same success. Also there are plenty of ballets with music by famous composers that have flopped, and equally, there's famous ballets with music by completely unknown composers. Crazy-dancing (talk) 00:42, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Canvassing

Wikipedia has strict policies on canvassing, see WP:Canvas: "Messages that are written to influence the outcome rather than to improve the quality of a discussion compromise the consensus building process and may be considered disruptive." .

Unfortunately Crazy-dancing has just been doing this. Here is his message to another user: "Important! - Round up what few ballet enthusiasts you know on Wikipedia and get them to vote on the proposed merging of the Ondine articles . . ." (see here, here, here, and here). --Kleinzach 02:34, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Too darn right I've done some canvassing, to make sure people who are looking at this from a ballet perspective know what is being discussed, because it seems to me that this discussion has been hijacked by the Classical Music Wikiproject, who have moved the discussion away from the actual discussion page where this SHOULD be being discussed, and who now seem determined to bash down any opinion that is in favour of keeping an article about a ballet, actually focussed on the ballet. As I said before, much as I do not want to get into a slanging match, I'm slightly fed up of reading the sniffy opinions of the Classical Music lobby, who regardless of whether or not anyone has ever heard a note of the music before, seem determined to write this article as if this ballet is Henze's creation and a greatly notable musical work, when it is in fact Ashton's creation and a DANCE show. It is Ashton, not Henze who had overall creative control over the production, the music was written to suit his needs as a choreographer of ballet, and the music is simply on aspect of a complete production which is Ashton's creative vision. Crazy-dancing (talk) 02:56, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
For the record, the discussion here was noted at Talk:Undine (ballet) under the section 'Merger'. --Kleinzach 03:23, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
Something being, to use your own word, 'noted', is not the same as making it very clear to people where to put their opinions, and it is only chance that brought me to this page in the first place. You were very quick to criticise my attempts to break the deadlock the other day, saying that everything should be discussed sensibly first, but I think they should also be discussed fairly too, and not on a talk page for the Classical Music project, who are biased and who seem happy to be making their own decisions without consultation with ballet minded folk, who on the original discussion page (now archived), have been very much against this proposed merging ever since it was first suggested Crazy-dancing (talk) 12:12, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
The argument above really doesn't, however, give any reason why a ballet needs to have articles about both the music and the choreography. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 03:12, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
The reason is simple, it is because in some cases, one is equally as notable as the other and in some cases, the dance production can in fact be more notable than the musical score. As Kleinzach said earlier in the discussions, in the case of Ondine, the music is appreciated more now than when it was first performed, whereas the ballet was an immediate success and is widely considered to be one of Ashton's most notable works. Quite a few times, I have noticed people refer to 'conventions' in this discussion, however in the case of some ballet works, Ondine being one example, the 'conventions' don't necessarily apply. The convention is that a composer writes music, choreographer listens to music and creates the ballet to fit the musical score. In days gone by, even if the music was commissioned for a specific production, with a storyline in mind, the composer was still the main creative driving force behind the production, so by default, people refer to Swan Lake as being Tchaikovsky's etc and rightly so if the creation of the ballet is driven primarily by the composer. Now look at the less conventional idea, which is more in line with the creation of Ondine. Just consider the possibility that it is the choreographer who is the main creative force behind the production of a ballet. They know what they want to do choreographically, they have a story and narrative planned out, set and costume ideas in mind, and so rather than the composer inspiring the choreographer, it is the composer who is having to work to the choreographer's creative brief! Surely you are looking at a completely different scenario when the choreographer is telling the composer what they WANT, rather than having to choreograph to what they are GIVEN? And believe it or not, dance is not always inspired by the music. Frederick Ashton was well known for making particular demands of composers, and it was mainly his approach to creating ballets which has led to the current state of affairs, which sees composers regularly having to work to the choreographer's concept rather than their own. In fact, some modern choreographers such as Wayne McGregor and others, are creating choreography and then asking composers to write music to fit the choreography rather than the other way around. I would have thought people with an interest in classical music would more than understand how creative environments often see people breaking with convention, so why not expand your mind to consider the FACT, that this ballet was ASHTON's creation, his concept, his ideas, his creative vision and Henze's music was just one part of the puzzle. Crazy-dancing (talk) 04:02, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
you are giving an argument that may apply to this particular ballet, but Melodia's question remains relevant in a general sense. It would be good to have a standard way of doing it which did not depend on detailed knowledge of the composition history. An example of a ballet where the music is both separately famous, but not analyzed either in a separate article or in the main one, see Swan Lake. There are other articles where this might be the case: I think the music qua music may often not be treated as fully as it ought. I would propose that we consider a general article for the ballet as a whole in every case, with separate articles when justified for the music and for the choreography of a particular realization. I notice that in general we write about the dramatic works and dramatic elements of works in more detail than music--of course, to discuss the music adequately requires a relatively technical discussion. I cannot write such myself, but i can understand them at least a little when i read them, & I think it's one of our general lacks. FWIW, I was asked to comment, but i do not closely align myself with the opinion of the person who asked, although I recognize he is far more expert than I. DGG ( talk ) 21:17, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Moreschi's thoughts

As someone who's seen and loved the ballet...it is clearly ridiculous for there to be TWO articles here, duplicating each other. There simply isn't enough content to justify it, pure and simple. Plus, you can't get away from the fact that Ashton wasn't just using Henze's music: this was a collaboration between the two, from which the ballet grew. To treat the end result as somehow the product of two totally separate ingredients is just silly: plus, any meaningful discussion of the ballet fails without discussion of the music, and vice versa.

As to where the article location should be...well, that's difficult now, isn't it. Ultimately it doesn't matter, of course, because we have redirects to get the reader to where they want to be, but clearly this is something of an emotive issue, and it simply isn't true to say "obviously the composer, because he's done all the work" or "obviously the choreographer, because he's done all the work": the score for Ondine is a truly impressive creation, as is the choreography, and it's fair to say that both are equally responsible for the ballet's success in more modern times and that comparing Ashton to Da Ponte doesn't really work, because Mozart set da Ponte's score just as Ashton choreographed Henze's music (ballet music, however, is an infinitely more important tradition than opera libretti). It seems right, therefore, to merge the two at Ondine (ballet) (the English name is more common), where we can have an article incorporating both musical and balletic elements. Nobody really cares about Pugni, so his earlier creation can just stay where it is. Moreschi (talk) 00:25, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Sounds like the best idea to me. Only potential problem with be Ondine vs Undine, but when all else equally valid, WP:USEENGLISH probably applies. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 01:11, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
I've argued for Undine (above), but we've spent enough time on this. I would be happy to endorse the 'Moreschi solution', i.e. merge to Ondine (ballet). --Kleinzach 01:19, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
I agree with this option 100%, as it is neutral and does not place a greater value on one contribution over the other, which was my main concern. I wonder though if Pugni/Perrot should also be retitled in a similar manner for neutrality, perhaps becoming Ondine (1843 ballet) citing the original performance year, or as someone else suggested using the full title of Ondine, ou La naïade. Crazy-dancing (talk) 10:32, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
Yes, renaming to the full name seems fine. Moreschi (talk) 10:46, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Ondine Proposal & Vote

First Proposal

---Support---

  1. Crazy-dancing (talk) 10:45, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
  2. Moreschi (talk) 11:00, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
  3. As reasonable compromise. --Kleinzach 13:07, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
  4. Robert Greer (talk) 13:26, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
  5. Lambtron (talk) 14:07, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
  6. Macdonald-ross (talk) 15:35, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
  7. Deskford (talk) 17:13, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
  8. Eusebeus (talk) 08:38, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
  9. This appears to be the best immeadiate solution Jubilee♫clipman 21:19, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

---Object---

---Comment---

Done
As we seemed to have consensus on the naming and location of the article, I have moved all the existing content of Undine (ballet) to the new location, along with the talk page and I have also merged in what little information needed to be transferred from the Ashton article, although most of the text was duplicated between the two articles anyway. Both have now been made into redirects and so the Ondine (ballet) article is ready and waiting for editing Crazy-dancing (talk) 20:23, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
You should have left this job to somebody who understands about file structure. I've fixed a whole lot of double redirects but we still have a number of disconnected talk pages:
Can someone help with these? It's way beyond my technical ability. Moreschi? Thanks. --Kleinzach 23:18, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Second Proposal

---No Change---

  1. Kleinzach 13:18, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
  2. Robert Greer (talk) 13:26, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
  3. Eusebeus (talk) 08:38, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

---Retitle---

  1. Crazy-dancing (talk) 10:45, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
  2. Moreschi (talk) 11:00, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
  3. My preference is Ondine, ou La naïade, with Ondine (Pugni) redirecting to it. Lambtron (talk) 14:07, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
  4. Respectfully. Shir-El too 20:57, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Comments

  • Should the vote agree to retitle the Pugni/Perrot article, I think retitling as the year would be the best choice, as that production was known by two different names, whereas the year it was first performed is reliable and well documented. Crazy-dancing (talk) 11:03, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
  • The present title is in a normal ('disambiguated') form. (There is no precedent that I know of for a 'title, or subtitle' style of name.) In any case the problem we need to address is the other work. --Kleinzach 13:18, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
  • The reason I am now proposing the change of title to the Pugni article, is because it could be proposed in Wikipedia titling guidelines that if there are multiple productions of ballets, or other theatrical productions, created by different choreographers or composers etc to the same story, that a neutral title be given to an article, rather than using names in the article titles. Crazy-dancing (talk) 13:39, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
Done
I have now also acted on this as there are only two objections. Although I would have preferred to use the year of first performance, I have followed Lambtron's suggestion and moved to Ondine, ou La Naïade (ballet), as both are equally acceptable, and I'm happy to give way to avoid a long winded debate on the matter. Crazy-dancing (talk) 22:20, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
Hmm. You don't disambiguate an unambiguous title! The title should be Ondine, ou La naïade (note the capitalization). I'll move it. Also, as a general point, you shouldn't strike out other people's messages as this is a convention used when someone changes their mind over something. --Kleinzach 22:49, 10 November 2009 (UTC) P.S. I have also fixed the redirects so they all point to the new title. This is something that must be done when you move a page. --Kleinzach 22:54, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
Yes, I did question myself on that one, I had a feeling I didn't need the ballet in brackets, thanks for correcting Crazy-dancing (talk) 23:16, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Polite Notice - Possible solution to Ondine merging

I am creating this notice to invite all interested parties to vote on the proposal to merge Undine (ballet) and Ondine (Ashton) to a new article at Ondine (ballet). You can read the discussion and add your vote to the poll at:

Look forward to seeing you there to help resolve this situation, thanks!

This is a copy of the polite notice I have placed on the talk page of everyone who has taken part in this discussion, both here and on the article talk pages. If I have missed anyone out, please feel free to pass on the message, so we can get a speedy resolution Crazy-dancing (talk) 11:33, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

view from outside

given the vcvarious proposals and polls, and strike outs, I don't think it's the least clear what the proposal is at this time. I first saw the notice about 5 minutes ago--and it looks to me as if you tried to resolve this with the first few hours afterwards, and declared a decision at 20:23 UDC, less than 9 hours after the notice. I'm not a regular here, but the parts of Wikipedia where i tend to be most, discussions about a particular article run for 5 to 10 days or more, not 5 to 10 hours. The discussion above is of the nature of an RfC, and RfCs run for 30 days normally [1] . If the question is about this particular ballet, it may not matter too much ; if it is about how to handle musical dramatic works more generally, or even ballets generally, it needs a full RfC properly announced. Wikipedia can move fast, but it needs to move not so fast that only the intimately involved participants can discuss it.
As for the issue, as I said above, I only care that the musical elements get full treatment--where they get it in a separate article matters less, and what the article should be called matters even less than that. DGG ( talk ) 20:49, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
Agreed — that it was closed with indecent haste — however the resolution seems to have been approved unanimously, so unless there are any objections it should be workable. --Kleinzach 02:13, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
I understand this was a quick decision, but I like to think of it as 'lancing the boil'. To be honest, if you trace the merging debate back before it arrived here on the Classical Music talk page, you would see that this is a discussion that has been going on for over a year with no consensus being reached. Someone came up with a suggestion that seemed logical, is an acceptable compromise for both sides, and enables us to make one high quality article that addresses all aspects of this production, both from the musical point of view and the dance. It may seem a rushed decision, but after many months of indecision on various talk pages, I thought it best to work fast with a solution that is at the very least palatable for all concerned and breaks the deadlock over 'if' the merge should take place. There may well be a few niggling details that need ironing out, but at least now there is ONE article, with ONE talk page where those discussions can take place. And with that in mind, I propose that someone from the Classical Music project should now archive this discussion, with a note that all future discussions should take place at Talk:Ondine (ballet) Crazy-dancing (talk) 02:22, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
Hmm. We try to to allow other users enough time to read the discussions. Topics normally remain open here for two weeks after the last posting. --Kleinzach 03:01, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
I understand of course. What I perhaps SHOULD have said is, from now on, if anyone has any comments or suggestions about improving the article its self, that those discussions should take place on the article talk page. Crazy-dancing (talk) 03:09, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
I have made some comments on my talk page, at [2]. DGG ( talk ) 05:17, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

View from the inside

The straw poll I threw up was massively and immediately opposed thanks to Crazy's meretricious canvassing, general freak-out and overall over-the-top, adolescent temper-tantrum. The one that will now pass is basically the same, save for a single letter which most general readers couldn't care less about. In trying to resolve a problem that would be an issue at any wikiproject, WP:CM participants have been accused of ownership and elitism. We have been subjected to lengthy screeds that most of us I am sure couldn't care less about and our good faith has been repeatedly challenged. Frankly, the behaviour here has been appalling, verging on insanely, as in characterised by complete absence of reason, rude. CrazyDancing and all the canvassed drive-by cohorts who jetéd in here and ignorantly endorsed this implicit view should be ashamed of themselves. So, my thanks to DGG for taking the time to review the issue and comment accordingly, unlike the mindless OMG oppose-the-evil CM crowd of the other canvassed editors. If Crazy Dancing never comments here again, it will still be too soon, unless it takes the form of an unequivocal apology. Eusebeus (talk) 08:59, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Most of us have been at pains to assume good faith and give the benefit of the doubt to a new user, however the Crazy-dancing account is actually not a new one. It was registered in July 2007 and has been very active during the past 12 months. --Kleinzach 00:06, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
FWIW, my own opinion expressed in the straw-poll was not the result of any canvassing (which I oppose). I simply see dance-ballet and music-ballet as two different arts. A particular ballet is a merger of both, but it's quite reasonable to have two different articles, one about the ballet as music, and one about the ballet as dance. The opinions that this represents two articles on one topic is a reasonable one, but in the end, I disagree with it. I think the dance and the music are distinct topics and see no reason why they can't have distinct articles. I would feel the same about, say, the Nutcracker, wich could be treated as several works: Tchaikovsky's musical work; Petipa's choreographic work; Balanchine's choreographic work; Nahat's choreographic work, etc.; as long as there was enough worth saying about each. TJRC (talk) 00:39, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
Perhaps a compromise is possible here? From the reader's point of view, it's important to be able to easily identify the Ondine ballet page, but there is no reason why we can't have specialized subpages (branching off the main one) that go into specialized detail about the choreography or whatever. Would that satisfy you? --Kleinzach 03:04, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
I just have a note about the canvassing. I understand why its not kosher to canvas, but on the other hand, I can understand why he felt the need to do so. Its an whose scope spans multiple wikiprojects and a member of WP:BALLET disagreeing with the WP:CM consensus and the discussion was occuring here on the WP:CM which most of the members of this wikiproject have on their watchlist. In the future, a single note on the WP:BALLET discussion page pointing back to here would likely have the intended affect of gathering ballet editors and avoids the canvas. Since then, someone else has done that. DavidRF (talk) 01:23, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Concern about the current rewriting of the article

I'm concerned about the current rewriting of the article including the new lead, see Talk:Ondine (ballet). --Kleinzach 04:02, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Is this now essentially dealt with?

Aside from a few minor editing details and moving talk pages to the correct places (or linking them from the relevent places) - and apologies where due - is this issue now resolved? Jubilee♫clipman 21:26, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Not entirely. The merger was done, but the article was rewritten to emphasize the original Ashton production, removing the official Schott publication character names (which Ashton didn't use in London). I haven't put them back because it was obvious that they would be removed again (by an editor oblivious to community sanctions) if I did, and also because most people here have enough 'ballet drama' and want to spend their time (understandably) elsewhere. The lead was also revised to stress the importance of Ashton. Despite all this, the overall content of the article, perhaps as a result of all the controversy, is quite good. --Kleinzach 23:16, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
Perhaps you would like to read again Kleinzach, because I already reinserted the alternative character names into the synopsis section, in a new paragraph, specifically comparing the titling and character names used for the original production, with those in the published score. Why does it not surprise me to find that that is not good enough for you? And thank you to Jubilee for the improvements to the lead paragraph. I may have been a tad overzealous in highlighting the importance of Ashton, but as the person who ultimately produced the ballet, there did need to be more emphasis made of his contribution than in the earlier lead. Anyway, I'm off to go and be oblivious to community sanctions somewhere else. Cheerio Chaps and Chapesses xxx Crazy-dancing (talk) 02:49, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
Hmm. Next time don't 'unblock' yourself by faking someone else's signature (as here). --Kleinzach 04:29, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
I didn't fake anything. I did attempt to unblock myself, and I also sent an email to the administrator who blocked me, explaining why I had. It didn't work, but no biggie, 24hr block, probably wasn't worth the hassle. The administrators must be delighted to know that they've always got you to run around checking up on people! And for the person above who accused me of adolescent temper tantrums... plese note that I'm happy to just move on from this, it's a shame that the likes of Kleinzach can't do the same, and feel the need to make petty comments and go around announcing to all and sundry what a disruptive person I am. It seems to me you are all very good at pointing the finger, but not so good at seeing your own faults. Crazy-dancing (talk) 15:35, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

No then? ;0) --Jubilee♫clipman 19:14, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Classical_music/Archive_23&oldid=1190133475"