Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Opera/Archive 54

Archive 50

←

Archive 52

Archive 53

Archive 54

Archive 55

Archive 56

→

Archive 60

Archives Table of Contents

Amateur opera companies

Then we need to make some decisions about what is considered amateur and what is not. And how does that effect cats? Amateur companies are still put under opera company cats. Should we make a new and different cat for them? And should we create a seperate list for amateur companies? I'm not particularly interested in amateur companies but I do think there should be a place for them within our wikiproject.Nrswanson (talk) 15:02, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Amateurs are non notable. As you will remember we've deleted articles on them. --Kleinzach (talk) 15:08, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

I disagree with you about amateur opera companies. There are hundreds of articles on amateur theater organizations on wikipedia and they do meet notability requirements as they get written up about in local newspapers. Example Category:Community theater. They are notable as being important to the cultural life of individual communities. If someone decides to write an article on an amateur company with accompanied third party source material than I don't see how such articles are not notable. Some of the amateur organizations are quite old as well. For example Theatre Tulsa was founded in 1922 which is older than most opera companies in the US.Nrswanson (talk) 15:16, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Hmm. Would you like to have a list of amateur opera companies in Britain? By my count there are 343 of them. All of them meet your notability criteria as they have invariably been written up in their local community newspapers. . . . How much time are you expecting to devote to this project? Do you need the list for France? for Germany? --Kleinzach (talk) 03:01, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Lol. It is not my notability criteria. It is the notability criteria setout in the wikipedia guidelines. An AFD just wouldn't pass. Remember notability, as the guidelines says, is not about establishing importance but establishing note. I look at these articles kind of like the numerous articles on wikipedia about individaul public highschools and other community organizations. They are notable to the community in question but not really outside of it. However, that is enough to satisfy wikipedia so there you are. The point is I believe that a place should be made available for amateur companies. I am not necessarily saying I am going to research them all and put together a systematic list. But perhaps a new cat for existing pages and a new list page? As pages are created, which I believe they inevitably will be by those outside the prject, they can be added to such lists. Putting an organizational structure in place would not take very long, and if we do it the way we want to then it stops someone else outside of the project doing it. Basically, it makes the project ready for the inevitable amateur company article that crops up. Which knowing wikipedia is just a matter of time. Nrswanson (talk) 08:44, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually to satisfy notability an amateur company would have to be the subject of non-trivial articles in multiple sources.--Kleinzach (talk) 13:59, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

I think, on reflection, that Nrswanson is right. (And WP already has articles on at least three amateur opera companies in Britain and probably more elsewhere.) --GuillaumeTell (talk) 14:49, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Which three? Do they have special circumstances? I think we need to clarify this issue, if only for AFD. In past months we have been putting articles on singers up for deletion if they don't have reviews in reputable newspapers/magazines for performances in bona fide professional companies etc. Are we now going to have a different standard for companies? --Kleinzach (talk) 23:38, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

The nearest we have to a notability guideline for opera is Wikipedia:Notability (music). This attempts to cover (albeit briefly) "composers and performers outside mass media traditions" . One important point about the necessary "multiple non-trivial published works" needed to prove notability is that the publications must be 'independent' and 'disinterested' - which rules out local newspapers that are supporting amateur productions in order to sell copies. --Kleinzach (talk) 10:49, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry to butt in to your projects discussion but I couldn't help but make a comment. I think community performing organizations are viewed under the notabilty requirements for organizations and not ones for the arts. They are notable, not for artistic merit, but for their contributions to community life. Otherwise you would have to get rid of articles on community events like festivles and things like that.Broadweighbabe (talk) 11:23, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Ah thanks, that would be Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies). However the conclusions seem to be the same. Quote: "Organizations whose activities are local in scope are usually not notable unless verifiable information from reliable independent sources can be found." --Kleinzach (talk) 11:51, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

You are welcome. And let me know what you decide. I am not watching this page but I am curious.Broadweighbabe (talk) 12:03, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Those guidelines say "Notable means "worthy of being noted" or "attracting notice." It is not synonymous with "fame" or "importance." Please consider notable and demonstrable effects on culture, society, entertainment, athletics, economies, history, literature, science, or education." That seems to fit amateur companies. Also in terms of verifiability why would a newspaper article reviewing a production (not just advertising) by an amateur opera company be unacceptable. It seems to me that newspapers are "reliable sources" that give "verifiable information" that is "independent" from the subject of the article. At leat where I live, the amateur company is reviewed in more than one newspaper so there are "multiple sources". Also, what if the subject of the newspaper article were about the company itself. The article also says "the organization’s longevity, size of membership, or major achievements, or other factors specific to the organization may be considered." Some of these amateur organizations are quite old, dating back to the 19th century or early 20th century. Surely that alone would make it notable. I think notability is really something that has to be looked at on a case by case basis. There are going to be some amateur companies that don't meet the guidelines but others that do. And we should be prepared for those that do.Nrswanson (talk) 13:48, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Do you intend to include amateur companies (that meet your definition of notability) in the lists (List of Latin American and South American opera companies etc.)?--Kleinzach (talk) 15:23, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Once again, it is not my definition of notability but wikipedia's. It is just the reality of how things are. I am ok with not including amateur companies on the lists as long as we have a place (a new article?) to put them and a way to categorize them (new cat?). If you want to seperate them from professional companies, than we need to find a different place for them and have a clearly defined definition of what constitutes professional. Otherwise, people who create articles on amateur companies will start adding them to the lists and cats already in place. And these amateur companies still fall into the scope of our project so we are responsible for them.Nrswanson (talk) 16:37, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I disagree.--Kleinzach (talk) 02:47, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

So you believe that all amateur opera companies will fail the notability requirements of wikipedia?Nrswanson (talk) 11:42, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I tend to agree with Kleinzach in this. There are a number of notable amateur musical organisations. I'm particularly thinking here of some of the long-standing British symphony choruses. Various brass bands and Welsh choirs would also qualify and so would the Cambridge Footlights. However, a typical local theatre or opera company would not be notable. The litmus test will be what happens when someone creates an afd.--Peter cohen (talk) 15:14, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I disagree. There are tons of articles on local festivals and other community centered organizations/events throughout wikipedia. Under your logic all of those would be deleted by AFD and somehow I don't see that happening. My interest is more theatre as a member of the wikiproject theatre and articles on community theatre organizations are accepted by wikiproject theatre. This might be a topic that effects more than this project. Perhaps there should be a larger discussion across the performing arts projects?Broadweighbabe (talk) 15:17, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

As Peter cohen has noted, we understand that amateur organizations can be notable under special circumstances. However this project is focused on professional companies and famous singers, many of which still lack or have inadequate articles. Extending coverage to thousands (and it would be thousands) of amateur organizations would be lunacy. Of course if someone wants to start a project on community arts projects or whatever that's fine . . . --Kleinzach (talk) 23:07, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Kleinzach I am not suggesting a switch in focus at all. I am just saying that there will be amateur articles cropping up (probably only a few dozen here or there) and that when they do we should have a system in place to cat them and list them. That way we can keep amateur companies seperate from professional ones on the lists and cats that we already have. This is not about pushing for writing articles on amateur companies because I have absolutely no interest in doing that personally and I doubt anybody else does in the opera wikiproject. I'm not even interested in putting together a comprehensive list of them. Just whatever ones already have articles on wikipedia. Then if some editor decides to create an article on one they won't try and add it to a pro list or add a cat that mixes in with pro companies.Nrswanson (talk) 23:20, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Good. In that case back to square one, please don't include amateur companies in lists. --Kleinzach (talk) 00:10, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Well duh! I was for that to begin with. My whole suggestion was to create a seperate page for amateur companies so that they wouldn't be on the lists we have right now.Nrswanson (talk) 00:32, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Maybe better to leave it? If you have some spare time, there is the To do list with lots of pages crying out for attention. --Kleinzach (talk) 07:17, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Character list in plays and operas

There is currently a discussion on the inclusion of character lists on articles relating to plays, musicals, etc. at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Theatre. I know operas already have roles lists but for the sake of uniformity across the performing arts I would encourage you all to join the discussion. All opinions are welcome.Broadweighbabe (talk) 11:13, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Vocal registration and voice type

I have listed these articles for peer review. I thought I would let you all know. Wikipedia:Peer review/Vocal registration/archive1 and Wikipedia:Peer review/Voice type/archive1.Nrswanson (talk) 18:40, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Tenor

I have recently made some changes to this article, including adding resources. I would love feedback from you all. I have one question regarding the terms Leggiero tenor and Light lyric tenor. Some sources lump these two together and others make destinctions. I went ahead with what was in Boldrey but I wanted to know what you all thought was more standard practice. Boldrey himself seemed to blur the terms at times. Nrswanson (talk) 23:34, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

I have my doubts about the Spinto/Dramatic/Heldentenor (note no hyphen) divisions. I think we should make a distinction between 'Jugendlicher' Heldentenor and the 'real thing'. I'd probably list the 'Jugendlicher' with the 'Dramatic' roles. --Kleinzach (talk) 07:13, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes I wasn't sure about that either. I went with what was already in the article. Boldrey describes the Spinto tenor but he doesn't really list roles for it saying that these voice are capable of doing full lyric parts and dramatic parts that are not too heavy. I am having a harder time with this voice type because several different books break things down differently. Another problem is that some of them lump the Light Lyric tenor under Leggiero tenor and others don't. It's a headache. I am perfectly happy restructering it any which way suggested here as long as I am not deciding it by myself. There are just so many different opinions. Perhaps the easiest thing to do would be to mirrior the German fach categories. What do you think?Nrswanson (talk) 16:59, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

I think it's important to cover all the different voice types: Italian, German and French. You can of course do a section e.g. 'Jugendlicher Heldentenor' and say it is specifically German. --Kleinzach (talk) 00:23, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, if there's going to be a general discussion here, I'll re-post some of what I've already posted on Nrswanson's Talk page:

First, some nit-picking: the list of leggiero tenor roles is sort of in alphabetical order but not quite: if Count Almaviva is alphabetised as A (correct) then Don Ottavio and Don Ramiro ought to be alphabetised as O and R - which might draw your attention to Ramiro appearing twice in the current list.

Second, more substantially (and I am not a singer or student of voice), I wonder if you're basing your classification a bit too heavily on one book (which I don't know, incidentally, but that's what it looks like from reading the article). The whole fach system isn't really very cut-and-dried, and, what's more, different countries have different systems. Do you have access to the Oxford Dictionary of Opera? One of the things it says (sv "tenor") is "many subdivisions exist within opera-houses: the commonest in general use (though seldom by composers in scores) are given below...", and it goes on to list French, German and Italian terms. The WP article is mostly English/Italian, with a bit of German - but if you look at fach, it goes into a lot of fine detail about the German system. Altogether, the whole thing is a big can of worms, with an awful lot of roles and an awful lot of voices not fitting cleanly into any one category. (I'm just getting up an article on Ragnar Ulfung, who sang Don Jose, Don Carlos, Otello - and then Mime, Herod and Dr Blind.)

Back to nit-picking. What is Wunderlich doing in the leggiero category? Sure, he sang the Mozart roles [including Tamino, which is in your "full-lyric" category], and Almaviva (no doubt without "Cessa di più resistere"), but could you see him as Ramiro or Tonio? Also, he sang heavier roles such as Palestrina. In the same category, Chris Merritt is now singing character-roles... Anyway, I won't go on, except to say that the Heldentenor list really ought to be divided in two: most singers of Siegmund, Parsifal, Tristan and Walther never go on to sing Siegfried - examples are Vickers and King from the past and Robert Dean Smith from today. Furthermore, what is Loge doing in this list? In my experience, the role is normally sung by a character-tenor or one who can also sing David in Meistersinger.

--GuillaumeTell 21:49, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

No Free Image placeholder graphic

The current campaign to put a 'No Free Image' graphic (left) on all biographical pages (for living people?) has so far only affected two or three 7 or 8 opera pages, however if anyone is interested in the discussion/proposal it is here. Best. --Kleinzach (talk) 12:52, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

However see Barbara Bonney for the insistent use of this on an opera page. --Kleinzach (talk) 00:57, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually there are probably more than that as I have removed tags from several pages. But regardless, this is a problem not just involving this project but wikipedia as a whole. I regularly edit articles in other areas and I don't like them on those articles either.Nrswanson (talk) 04:18, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Also these image placeholders are an integral part of the biographical infoboxes.--Kleinzach (talk) 06:56, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you Kleinzach for all the work you have put into this.Nrswanson (talk) 07:20, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Not at all - light relief after the singer cats. There is now a centralized discussion at: Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Image placeholders. --Kleinzach (talk) 08:06, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

For anyone deterred by the idea of reading 140+k on this subject, there are now some simple proposals here. --Kleinzach (talk) 02:25, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

This debate will close at midday GMT/UTC on 23 April. --Kleinzach (talk) 01:01, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Hmm. The discussion has now been restarted by a small group of editors refusing to accept the closing date, previous discussions, or the proposal, agreed by more than two editors to one, to stop using image placeholders. --Kleinzach (talk) 15:24, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Aubrey Allicock for PROD/AfD?

An article on this distinctly non-notable baritone (See his web site bio) has just been uploaded by... er...User:Aallicoc. He then proceded to create a series of copyvio articles to fill in the red links on his Wikipedia article. See his now highly decorated talk page. I'm pretty sure this should be Prod-ed/AfD-ed. Any takers? One bright spot is that I discovered his 'article' on Will Crutchfield. We've been wanting/needing an article on him for a long time. I've reduced the article to a stub and re-written to remove the copy vio. Have also added several sources for anyone who wants to expand it. I'll also try to work on it over the next couple of weeks, barring further imbroglios at OP. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 14:41, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

• Update: have now prodded the article.Voceditenore (talk)
• Further Update:The proposed deletion tag was immediately removed. I have now nominated this article for deletion. The AfD discussion page is here if any Opera Project members wish to comment. I have also listed it in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Voceditenore (talk) 22:28, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Portal:Opera for May 2008

6 more days to go, we need to decide on:-

• Selected article
• Composer
• Singer
• Selected picture

Any suggestion? - Jay (talk) 16:17, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I think it's worth looking at birthdays, anniversaries of first performances etc. I've not got immediate suggestions for this month, but RVW and Puccini have important anniversaries (50 years from death, 150 from birth) in August and December respectively. Stockhausen would have been 80 in August too. Maybe we can have one as the composer of the month and an opera by the other as an article that month. If someone has the energy to look through what happened in years 58, 08 etc., then we may be able to fill in several months ahead. I've still got to buy my Proms programme which has composer dates in it.--Peter cohen (talk) 13:06, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Here are the ones I could find:

• 28 May, 1608: premiere of Monteverdi's L'Arianna at the Ducal palace, Mantua
• 15 May, 1808: birth of Michael Balfe
• 15 May, 1858: opening of the present Royal Opera House, Covent Garden
• 5 May, 1908: Birth of bass Kurt Böhme
• 17 May, 1908: birth of bass David Franklin
• 19 May, 1908: premiere (by Diaghilev's company) in Paris of Rimsky-Korsakov's final revised and reorchestrated version of Modest Mussorgsky's Boris Godunov, with Fyodor Shalyapin in the title-role
• 25 May, 1908: opening of the present Teatro Colón, Buenos Aires

GuillaumeTell 18:03, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

I like the anniversaries ideas. You might the (birth/death)lists here quite helpful:

http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~benhdj/Music/index.html

These are the composers with May birthdays:

http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~benhdj/Music/Composers/Birth/May.html

If you can read Italian, Amadeus has a really detailed searchable Classical Music/Opera Alamanc. For example, here are the search results for:

May 1808

May 1858

May 1908

You can also leave all fields blank except the month if you're not fussed about 100th, 150th etc. anniversaries. (I'll also add these sites to the Online research guide for future reference.)

Best, Voceditenore (talk) 23:10, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

I actually used Amadeus for the list that I produced up above. It's also very useful for finding the names of role-creators and conductors, though one has to be careful to distinguish premières from revivals, and many cast-lists aren't complete. The amount of Italian required isn't large, and maybe a few important translations (e.g. "dirige = conductor") could be included. --GuillaumeTell 00:04, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, and I have created archived pages for the articles (Selected article, Composer, Singer, Selected picture). Will change the contents on 29th or 30th - Jay (talk) 16:01, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

La reine de Saba

Need help - look at the voice range in the box below and also at http://www.charles-gounod.com/vi/oeuvres/operas/saba.htm . I am guessing "dugazon" is mezzo-soprano while "chanteuse falcon" is soprano based on some readings (correct me if I am wrong). But what is "duègne"?

Role	Voice type	Premiere Cast, February 28, 1862 (Conductor: - )
Balkis, the queen	chanteuse falcon	Gueymard
Benoni	dugazon	Hamackers
Sarahil	duègne	Tarby

- Jay (talk) 01:46, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

I think it's the French version of 'duenna' (a female chaperon). I guess the person who put all the French stuff in this article didn't know either! Operissimo say the role is a mezzo-soprano. By the way I think it's fine to put falcon and dugazon in parentheses, e.g. soprano (falcon) etc. --Kleinzach (talk) 03:52, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Falcon is closer to dramatic soprano, as the link I originally supplied hopefully makes clear. I think it's reasonable to speculate duègne is what Kloiber would call a Spielfach (and I've searched fruitlessly for a singer with that name), but guesswork may as well be labeled as such: duègne (cast as mezzosoprano). The issue is whether to use modern terms or original (with paranthetical explanation of modern casting methods). For some anacronistic if not downright fanciful descriptions see Così fan tutte. Sparafucil (talk) 04:53, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Slightly strange article: Music of the Enlightenment

I think we could safely do without Music of the Enlightenment. Anyone disagree? Moreschi (talk) (debate) 16:56, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Oy! How did you ever find it? Looks a little like an essay someone wrote for a class. "During this period, chords began to become a major part of music, making the tone more audible." Um, OK. Delete. Antandrus (talk) 17:24, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

I was just going to say the same thing. Has "class essay" written all over it. Adds nothing that isn't already in other articles, and few things that... er... shouldn't be in any articles. There are now a lot of schools and universities making "add the essay to Wikipedia" a part of the assignment. Here's an example of a current one that went disastrously wrong and was the subject of a recent AN/I. Voceditenore (talk) 17:51, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Duly prodded. Moreschi (talk) (debate) 19:21, 8 May 2008 (UTC)