Talk:List of famous operas
|
|
| Contents |
Unclassified
Why do we need to add short descriptions when almost all of these operas have detailed descriptions on their own pages? --rmhermen
- I am starting this to lots of what I call "naked lists". I'm on a crusade to make such "one-liners" a regular feature of lists in wikipedia.
- Plots of operas are damned interesting and I think a page full of them would be fun to read, and also provide nice information for people who want to make the point that it isn't just rap music that's full of lowlifes acting bad.
- If there is no accompanying article, at least there's something
- Many people won't know the difference between La Boheme and Carmen (pretty girls in trouble) and can benefit from a hint or two as to which opera is the one they're looking for.
- Lists are a great way of pulling everything together, but a long list of otherwise unidentified character strings is both uninformative and boring. Every article should have content (even disambiguation pages usually have additional reader guidance beyond the highlighted entries).
- Other people besides me agree, see List of novelists, List of battles.
- They're tons of fun to write. I'm going to carry on with this, but don't worry, I don't know much more about opera, so I'll leave this page to others to carry on and meanwhile I'll see you at List of notable actors.
Ortolan88 08:05 Jul 23, 2002 (PDT)
- It is an interesting idea, indeed, but I have some (respectful) doubts about its current form. There are good reasons, effectively, to have some elements of each single work in this page too, as other good reasons might exist to respect... the religious devotion of Opera's lovers (I'm one, I confess :-). But, it seems to me that to be more coherent with the general spirit and style, these concise notes could be listed as "keywords" (like html meta), as we cannot summarize anything more in the given one line. I regret, but I can't agree on the paragon with the other lists you mentioned: it is useful, there, to have some details that include reasons for listing or details on facts. Here instead we are facing artworks (or presumed ones), which elements (characters, facts, etc) are not "technical data" like we could read in a PC advertising: HD X Mb, RAM Y Mb, Processor: *** Z Mhz and so on. The Threepenny Opera summary is quite new indeed to Opera's lovers: of course it is true, but it is also truly strange (from my point of observation, naturally).
- Moreover, we all would like to invite newcomers to follow links, or to put some new content in empty ones, so (IMHO) I wouldn't give the idea that the works are already described (this way) in these lines.
- What I do think is that, if we can find a way to put these concise elements in a form which could essentially mean a list of keywords, nothing more, it could be an interesting experiment to test it in this page. I'd like to help, in this case, for the little I know. -- Gianfranco
- While I know nothing about opera, I do agree with Ortolan that lists should be annotated (as I wrote on his talk page, yesterday). However, I also agree with Gianfranco that the current annotations here are maybe a bit too short. Why limit yourself to one line/sentence? And even then, a short full sentence is often more useful to me than just some keywords. So I'd rather have "Famous opera by Verdi set in ancient Egypt" than "love, treachery and sphinxes" (please note that both are not meant to be a serious description...). The idea is not to bring back the opera to a few keywords, but to inform the reader of the list about why the opera is in the list anyway, and why he should go read (or edit) the article about it. Jheijmans 23:45 Jul 23, 2002 (PDT)
Change away then, but annotate. Brecht and Weill are the only opera writers who mean anything to me and I put in, in allusive form, everything that I like about their two operas (except the name Alaskawolfjoe). I personally prefer "love, treachery, elephants, and sphinxes" to "famous opera about ancient Egypt" but either one of them is vastly superior to a bare Aida; both of them identify the opera and lead readers on. The one-liners in List of battles are quite serious, compressed, and informative, while those in List of novelists are more whimsical. Both lists work for me.
I do think they should be kept short, three lines or so. The main function of the list is traffic direction. The annotations should contribute to that function, not replace real articles.
- Der Mensch lebt durch den Kopf,
- Sein Kopf reicht ihm nicht aus
- Man lives by his head,
- His head is not enough
- Dreigroschenoper (Threepenny Opera)
But we stagger on,
Ortolan88 09:11 Jul 24, 2002 (PDT)
Ortolan, I think the exact contents of an annotation are subject to personal preferences, as so often. But, I think annotations certainly benefit from full sentences. So "A story of love and treachery set in ancient Egypt.", which has about the same contents as "love, treachery, Egypt" has my preference. That is actually all I wanted to say. Even better - IMO - would be "A famous opera of Verdi about love and treachery, set in ancient Egypt". But that is all my personal preference, and I leave you free to ignore it :-) Jheijmans
Directly taken from Tosca article:
- the story of a painter and his woman, a famous singer, who die because they have helped a breacher political prisoner (that later will suicide) to escape; the woman attempts a corruption of the chief policeman, who defrauds her and by her is killed, but will have his revenge after his death.
- This could be a fair description of the work (I wouldn't say less), but it does not mention any carachter, so it perhaps should be:
- the story of a painter (Mario Cavaradossi) and his woman (Floria Tosca), a famous singer, who die because they have helped a breacher political prisoner (Angelotti, that later will suicide) to escape; the woman attempts a corruption of the chief policeman (Scarpia), who defrauds her and by her is killed, but will have his revenge after his death.
- A good reason to have characters here could be that someone might be looking for a work of which he remembers the roles (perhaps because of a famous aria) but not the title.
- I don't think that personal preferences might produce very different results in summarising these works this way: their content does not seem controversially readable.
- I'm only afraid that for some works this kind of description could be longer than the article it links to (I think that, currently, most Melitz's plot summaries recall by now the famous "1911" style, so I'm only talking about the introductory notes of each article).
- The following consideration is aboout carachters: ought we to list them all, work by work? -- Gianfranco
I would say that for the list page, whatever is most memorable or notable about the opera would be the best thing to mention, which is why I mentioned "cigarette girl" and "March of the Toreadors" under Carmen and "Mack the Knife" under Dreigroschenoper.
I agree that a brief summary from the article itself is an excellent way to supply these brief descriptions. A well written article will almost automatically contain something like that. If the article doesn't have one, maybe it should be added to the article and then quoted here in the "list of famous operas" article.
If a character in an opera is the most notable thing (again, I don't know much about operas) then that would be appropriate for the list, but otherwise, it would probably be best to put discussion of the characters in the discussion of the individual operas. It would be a rare opera character who would deserve an article on their own. I can't think of one off the top of my head. Well, "Mack the Knife", I guess, but he's famous from the hit parade, not the opera.
As a matter of writing style, bulleted lists are unusual in that they can consist of anything from a single word to several paragraphs, although all on one page or screen is a pretty good limit. In tech writing, the things we are talking about are called "one-liners", although they can be from one to a few lines in length. It is probably a matter of individual taste whether it is better to say, "The opera tells the story of a consumptive prostitute" or simply to say "consumptive prostitute". The briefer style suits me, but I don't want to discourage anyone from annotating these lists and if you opera folks agree that sentences are preferable, I'll change them, or you can. Ortolan88 08:57 Jul 25, 2002 (PDT)
- Theatre people consider the Brecht-Weill works as plays, and thus the writer Brecht is the big name and the composer Weill of less importance. When they are considered operas, as in this article, I do believe they should be sorted under the composer. The other librettists are not mentioned, why should Brecht be here? Habj 16:42 17 May 2003 (UTC)
Old page at Talk:Famous Operas moved to Talk:List of famous operas/from Talk:Famous Operas. -- Timwi 18:39 18 Jun 2003 (UTC)
Inclusion criteria
Generally I don't like lists on WP but this is a good one, mainly because it is selective and finite (ie, there is a reasonable chance of it being complete, unlike some of the lists I've seen people compiling). However, in my opinion the list could be slightly improved by narrowing the selection from "famous and historically significant operas" to simply "famous operas" with the criterium being those operas which are performed on a regular basis, and hence would reflect the current standard operatic repertoire. This would suggest some delicate pruning; Jacopo Peri's Euridice, Pergolesi's, La Serva Padrona, Menotti, Glass, perhaps a few others. My argument would be that "historically significant" operas can best be treated in the main opera article or under the respective composers. Thoughts anyone? -- Viajero 21:34, 2 Nov 2003 (UTC)
- I don't really have a problem as such with ditching "historically significant" works, but I do think there's a bigger problem with trying to list "famous" examples of anything: how famous does something have to be to get in, and how do you measure it? I mean, of the examples you give, I'd agree that the Peri, Pergolesi and Menotti aren't really famous, but I think some of Glass' works have become very well known (Einstein on the Beach, at least), and other people will, no doubt, feel differently about other works. We can have a go at making a list of the standard repertory or of "famous" operas, but we could do with some indepedent test to decide what to include, I think, and I really don't know what that test would be. So I think I'll leave you to this one! --Camembert
- Einstein on the Beach may be famous, but is it performed on a regular basis, ie, say once a year somewhere in the world? For example, I doubt Les Troyens or William Tell are, hence although they are famous and historically significant operas, I would argue that they are not part of the standard repertoire). Yes I realize, it is tricky; these things aren't cast in concrete.. Viajero 21:11, 6 Nov 2003 (UTC)
- Well good luck with it, anyway. As I say, I shall be staying out of this one :) --Camembert
- Are there really so many operas in the world? If you list them all, perhaps pushing some of the excessively-prolific earlies into per-composer lists, you forestall endless arguments about significance, plus you can say "WP has a complete list of operas", which is a useful selling point when readers are considering where to go for their reference info. For instance, when all the articles in list of ancient Romans are filled in, WP will be the top reference for Romans online, and a rival for the OCD to boot. Stan 21:55, 6 Nov 2003 (UTC)
- There's no way we can have a complete list - there are thousands and thousands, and new ones are being written all the time. We could, of course, have list of operas and list there anything that comes to mind, but I think Viajero's idea is to have something a bit more selective (and useful) than that. --Camembert
- Actually, I don't think that it would be such a selling point, since it for the foreseeable future it would serve primarily to indicate how meagre the offerings here are. For example, there are only articles for some two dozen of the most famous operas, and of those, they offer just plot synopses from public domain sources. Very little original material, no production histories. As for singers... check out Luciano Pavarotti. Need I say more?!?!? There are few good articles here on classical music subjects, but as a whole it will be years before people start mulching their Groves on account of WP. Así es amigo. Viajero 23:39, 6 Nov 2003 (UTC)
- PS, that being said, I rather enjoy the opera corner as quiet as it is. You don't want to even contemplate the kind of edit wars that will take place when diehard opera fans start showing up. It will make Israeli-Palestinian conflict look like a kindergarten... Viajero 23:39, 6 Nov 2003 (UTC)
- The thousands of operas are early baroque, and for most of them, only the title has survived anyway, so those need only be mentioned with the composer. Although Grove may not have much to fear yet, it's a worthy goal to out-encyclopedia them, eh? We want WP to be the place that readers come to first to find out about any opera, famous or obscure. Stan 00:53, 7 Nov 2003 (UTC)
- Sorry, I thought you were talking about making a list, not writing articles. Of course we should try to have an article on every opera ever - I was just saying that trying to make a list of every opera ever is unrealistic (and a bit pointless). --Camembert
- Well, if you have an article on every opera, you need an index to them, right? Stan 05:00, 7 Nov 2003 (UTC)
- Yes, maybe, if you like. What I mean is: we should try to write about every opera ever, but chances are that we never will and we won't therefore, ever be able to say - as you said above - "WP has a complete list of operas". I'm not sure we disagree on anything much, really. --Camembert
Ok Stan, let's set our sights high. The twenty-volume Grove has nearly thirty thousand articles, including:
- 20,374 biographies of composers, performers and writers on music
- 1,465 articles on styles, terms and genres
- 580 articles on ancient music and church music
- 805 articles on regions, countries and cities
- 2,261 articles on instruments and their makers, and performance practice
- 693 articles on printing and publishing
- 1,327 articles on world musics
- 1,221 articles on popular music, light music, and jazz
- 283 articles on concepts
- 89 articles on acoustics
- 174 articles on notation
- 96 articles on theatre directors
- 131 articles on sources
We have a long way to go! -- Viajero 12:53, 7 Nov 2003 (UTC)
- Well then, stop standing around and get busy! :-) Alas, my music library is only about 20 books total, although it does include 1-volume Grove, which is a starting place if nothing else. Stan 13:58, 7 Nov 2003 (UTC)
- No no, can't have you distracted from more important things, like
missile maildirigible mail ;-) -- Viajero 14:07, 7 Nov 2003 (UTC)
- No no, can't have you distracted from more important things, like
Move
Page moved according to Wikipedia:Naming_conventions#Lists. --Jiang 08:19, 27 Dec 2003 (UTC)
- What a pity this is now to become a jejeune 'List of operas.' Much less useful. Does everyone understand the difference between a 'List of famous operas' that describes the international repertory, and an incomplete 'List of Operas' with everybody's favorite obscurity added higgledy-piggledy? Wetman 08:25, 27 Dec 2003 (UTC)
- Sorry Jiang, we don't want to turn this list into a list of operas -- there are probably 20,000. As stated in the text, this is a list of operas in the current repetoire (plus a couple of historically signficant items). Much more useful. Thanks for your understanding. -- Viajero 09:37, 27 Dec 2003 (UTC)
- Perhaps we should consider a move to List of Operas in the Standard Repertoire... --Chinasaur
- I agree that's a better title for the page as it is shaping up. There are plenty of operas that are famous that are not in the standard repertoire (repertory?) For example, Il Sant' Alessio, by Steffano Landi, the first opera ever composed on a historical subject; the first Euridice, by Jacopo Peri, and the opera of the same title by Giulio Caccini (does anyone ever do these?) The major drawback to renaming the page is that it changes it: you could argue then that the Peri, which is on the list, should come off, since it's not in the standard rep. Another messy possibility is forking a new page off at this point ... What does anyone else think? Antandrus 23:10, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)
What's the difference between this list and any other list? What's to stop us from adding any old Joe onto List of Jews? It's implied that only famous people/items belong and this can be stated in the article, even commented in the HTML code that only famous ones should be named. The intro of this article makes the criteria for inclusion clear enough. --Jiang 08:56, 12 Jan 2004 (UTC)
- And if you make a move, please click on "what links here" and fix all the double redirects. --Jiang 08:57, 12 Jan 2004 (UTC)
Removals for Consideration by Others
My knowledge and the list seem pretty closely tuned, so i took the liberty of removing the following:
(Mozart:)
(Verdi:)
- Giovanni Battista Pergolesi
- La Serva Padrona (Naples 1733)
("Not famous as an opera, only famous as GBP's only opera." [smirk])
I'll be perfectly happy as long as it takes a week or two of discussion before they each return to the list; i agree there are no solid answers to much of what should stay.
--Jerzy(t) 17:40, 2004 Jul 4 (UTC)
- I agree that these three should be off the list. I remember doing a performance of the Pergolesi when I was an undergrad and it was supposedly a premiere; probably few have heard of it though.
- On the other hand, what do you think about including some others that are done at the Met, and other big houses, from time to time? I thought about adding Bartok's Bluebeard's Castle and Barber's Vanessa this morning but didn't (LA Opera is doing Vanessa next season). It does seem that "standard rep" is a dynamic concept, and what is standard rep in ten years might be different from what was standard rep in 1950. Antandrus 17:49, 4 Jul 2004 (UTC)
- I always thought La Serva Padrona was given reasonably often (at least as often as L'Incoronazione di poppea, which is on the list). I suppose I could be wrong, but my Penguin Opera Guide (which is a trimmed-down Viking) says it has "been performed almost continually since [its] creation". By the way, the intro to the list says "Wagner's Rienzi and Berg's Lulu are missing", but Lulu is right there in the list: not sure which way that inconsistency should be resolved. --Camembert
- In that case I vote for including Serva and Bluebeard's Castle but perhaps not the others; I wasn't sure how well known Serva was on the other side of the Atlantic. Oh, and I think the top text just hadn't been edited since someone added Lulu: personally I feel Lulu should be on the list. But then I know I have to watch out for my pro-Lulu POV, LOL. ;-) Antandrus 18:03, 4 Jul 2004 (UTC)
- Menotti's Consul? By what stretch of the imagination can this be considered standard repertory? And for that matter the rest of the Menotti??? Are any of them ever performed in Europe these days? -- Viajero 18:15, 4 Jul 2004 (UTC)
- Not having followed the uncategorized discussion at the top, and suspecting that it is focussed on the "zero-order" issue of "can we exclude any opera at all, i put forward this question: is the description at the start of the article agreed upon, or even thoroughly thought thru? IMO my reaction means that Viajero has started a fork in this thread; hence see #What Standard Rep?
What Standard Rep?
At 18:15, 4 Jul 2004 (UTC), Viajero asked:
- Menotti's Consul? By what stretch of the imagination can this be considered standard repertory? And for that matter the rest of the Menotti??? Are any of them ever performed in Europe these days?
In starting this sub-section, i said in response:
- Not having followed the uncategorized discussion at the top, and suspecting that it is focused on the "zero-order" issue of "can we exclude any opera at all?", i put forward this question: is the description at the start of the article agreed upon, or even thoroughly thought thru?
More specifically,
- The intro aims it at "reflect[ing] the Operatic Repertory" (note the odd use of upper case as if a proper name could apply), but
- immediately blurs this by claiming it to be precisely something else, "the most famous and historically significant operas".
Well, what opera could be more "historically significant" than Claudio Monteverdi's Orfeo? (Not on this list.) Is historical significance more than a red herring here, and if not, why no effort to ID the works that make Mozart stand out for mucking with the libretto, and Wagner, for Gesamtkunstwerk (movie music, am i wrong?)? What about the work that made verismo a live option?
But i am dissembling, because my purpose in mentioning History is to disrupt the presumption that the intro has done more than lay to rest the "list of all operas" would-be-disaster, and thereby present us with a reasonable starting place.
The point about what is performed in Europe is of interest: is it more important to document, in an English 'pedia, the works that are regularly performed in each country that has a lively operatic life, or in each of those countries where English is primary, or in any of the countries where English is primary? Can we make each of those collections of info available within a single list? Is it worth having separate lists for them?
And don't forget that operas move in and out of the rep just because of the performers who are available.
- I think we can fudge this point okay; I haven't seen Salome billed (at least on the West Coast) in a long time and I think you've got the exact reason, but I see it's still in the list already, so I'm not so worried. --Chinasaur 05:03, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)
I guess what i'm arguing is that we don't know enough about what it is we are listing to resolve these disagreements.
--Jerzy(t) 20:37, 2004 Jul 4 (UTC)
History and dynamics of the opera repertory
The addition of Ascanio and Alzira must have been a show-off ludibrium. Orfeo and La Serva padrona raise more serious issues, discussed by User:Jerzy. Antandrus raises a major issue: "It does seem that "standard rep" is a dynamic concept, and what is standard rep in ten years might be different from what was standard rep in 1950." Absolutely! This aspect should be treated in a subsection at Opera, which I'm starting as a stub right now. Please go and help!
Can any Wikipedian append simply the number of CDs available to this list of operas, so that a reader can judge whether some opera not on the list is "famous" or not. 'Famous" is so easily assessed. The 21st century repertory is directly reflected in available recordings. This axiom should be in the introduction. Any disagreement? Wetman 23:39, 4 Jul 2004 (UTC)
The development and dynamics of the idea of a repertory, part of Sociology of Opera (subsection at Opera?) can make good material. The question "is a repertory of Opera real, and if real is it permitted" is less interesting to me personally, part of the subject Political correctness. Wetman 23:39, 4 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Translations
- It's also tough to be sure whether to have the English or original-language titles.
- Many users of this page may be people who've recently (e.g.) started dating an opera fan, and want to read upon the work they're about to see; they may have the "wrong" version of the name. Might it not be useful to include both both versions, with the more frequently used one first, with the only exceptions being English-original works and names that belong to the language of the opera? For instance, even tho i've never seen such references to Lucia, IMO "Lucy of Lammermoor" (whether or not that was Scott's title -- who's read it??), adds to accessibility.
--Jerzy(t) 17:40, 2004 Jul 4 (UTC)
- It's The Bride of Lammermoor, and I'm not really sure providing a translation in that particular case would be useful because, as you say, it's never used. Some of the more common bilingual titles are given already however (Die Zauberflöte, for instance) and, yes, maybe this could be taken further (The Girl of the Golden West, anybody?). --Camembert
- Good point, Cam! (Tho i was deprecating the fame of the Sir Walter Scott source, not of the title per se, but obviously what do i know.) I conclude that in that case, that trivium belongs in the Lucia article instead. And Viajero's comment hightlights what i was noticing, that the article is Girl of the Golden West, and merely piped (by me, IIRC!) on this page. --Jerzy(t) 18:27, 2004 Jul 4 (UTC)
- Girl of the Golden West was commissioned by the Metropolitan Opera and premiered in N'Yawk (billed as Fanciulla del West?)! And Verdi's Don Carlo is subtly different in some details from his Paris Don Carlos. But Wikipedia's redirect links save anyone from despair, after all. Wetman 06:07, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Order of operas
I notice many (perhaps all that have not been screwed up by people like me adding operas w/o having their dates) of the operas are in chronological order within author. That's an amenity i expect in the author article, but IMO it serves little purpose here. Wouldn't it be more useful to order them alphabetically, since for many of its users the chrono order is esoterica that they'll look on the composer page for, when they're ready for it, anyway?
(I admit that the date and city are so compact as to be worth the slight distraction, and premier cities of, e.g., Fanciulla & Aida are great fact-lings.)
--Jerzy(t) 18:27, 2004 Jul 4 (UTC)
- Alphabetical order is more important in printed media. On a web page, one can easily locate an item of interest by using the browser's "search" function. Keeping a composer's operas in chronological order seems to me to make more sense. - Nunh-huh 06:13, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)
- I'm partial to chronological order by composer, but that might just be the pedantic residue of too many years of graduate school. Anyway, unless the scope of this list changes there probably won't be too many operas under any given composer. Antandrus 06:17, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)
New Purges
Wonder if anyone else is feeling like we could stand to do another round of removals? Here are my suggestions, for your consideration:
- Pearlfishers - true it's getting performed more lately, but not that substantially and do we really think this is going to stick around as a standard item?
- Midsummer Night's Dream, Albert Herring - These don't strike me as standard, but I may be out of the loop on that.
- Oedipus
- Glinka - I thought we were excluding regional favorites, and I don't see these as standard outside russia
- Makropulos Affair - It's at the Met this year, but it's definitely not on the scale of Jenufa or Kobanova for popularity.
- Menotti - I dunno this stuff that well, but do all these really belong?
- Bastien und Bastienne - This really ought to go, while Clemenza should perhaps be added?
- Attila - I have my doubts
- Mignon - The article says it's rarely performed...
- Mahagonny - The music is popular, but is it performed much?
Okay, that turned a little too much into "Which operas have I seen/heard of", but that's why I need feedback. To me things like pearlfishers are likely enough to be transient that we can skip them. Otherwise maybe we should include betrothal in a monastery too. Similarly, if we include Makropulos affair I feel like we should include Bluebeard's Castle (not just because they're both creepy). Anyway, for your consideration. --Chinasaur 23:06, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- hmm, Chinasaur does have some dodos there... The closer this list reflects current realities of production (and of recording, too), the more interesting and useful it is. --Wetman 03:00, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- These are tough calls. I think Oedipus is out; I've never seen or heard it. It might be popular in Romania. I think Pearl Fishers is in, but then I've been hearing it all my life; maybe it's falling out of favor. Menotti--Amahl should stay, but I dunno about the others. B&B, out, Clemenza in. Attila I never hear. Mignon in, I think. Mahagonny I have never seen except on TV, but it does get radio air-time, at least in the US. It is hard to make judgements on peripheral items in the canon, and it is always possible that something is regionally or nationally popular somewhere but not somewhere else. Interesting ... Antandrus 03:55, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- If we're going recording too, then I'll say pearlfishers in. Amahl I agree and likewise I dunno about the others. I thought part of the description of the list was that we were leaving out some national favorites that aren't internationally popular. --Chinasaur 05:31, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Famous operas vs. operas currently being staged
Recently an anon editor massively reduced number of operas on this list, based on their inclusion or lack thereof in an online database. I'd like to point out that this is a List of famous operas, not a List of operas currently being staged, though there certainly may be a justification for making such a (separate) list. Antandrus 05:29, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
OK, after another slash by the anon, I revised the page, rather than completely reverting it, in an attempt to make clear that this is a list of famous operas. If the anonymous user would like to create a list of operas in the current repertory as defined by what operas are currently in production, I would encourage him/her to do so: a historically significant opera, or an opera well-represented on recordings, is not necessarily one which is currently in production. Thanks. Antandrus 03:08, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- I am frustrated by the fact that nearly every link here is a pipe to "standard operatic repertory". Either all of those links are wrong, or the title of this page is wrong, or some combination of both. I'll leave the page as it is, but that does not mean I think it is acceptable. 207.75.180.58 02:50, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Why don't you start an article on the current operatic repertory? That's a different topic from historically significant operas. You can change the piped links to whichever is more appropriate.
- In general, the entire topic of opera is poorly covered on Wikipedia at the present time; the opera article itself is barely a skeleton, indeed a skeleton still missing many bones. Feel free to add missing parts. I think this list, however, is fairly well focused by its title. Antandrus 03:58, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Friends, I would suggest that there are two useful lists being mooted here and that one need not eclipse the other. This list is self-explanatory as it has evolved. A list of operas currently being performed, the other useful type of list, is already available online, however, and Wikipedia shouldn't crib their effort nor attempt to rival it. Why aren't there a good few paragraphs here about the absolutely most current repertory, using the phrase "as of 2005", so that it will be flagged as something that must be kept up-to-date? Then a strong link to the best worldwide repertory site (is it OperaBase?), or to the best few, if there are several. We're not running out of paper: there's room for everything!--Wetman 04:34, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- You suggest that the list is self-explanatory; I disagree. What makes an opera famous? One could argue that an opera is more likely to be well-known if it is currently being staged. Chances are, everyone who's familiar with opera has heard of Don Giovanni, because it's extremely popular and performed all the time. One could also argue that the famous operas are the ones which are mentioned in all the history books, like Orfeo. But if all you did was go to your local opera house, you probably wouldn't know how significant Orfeo was, indeed you might never hear it performed. Conversely, if all you did was read opera history, chances are you wouldn't know just how popular Don Giovanni still is.
- I believe that Wikipedia should not have a "List of famous operas". As User:Wetman has suggested, there are two lists here. One I think should be entitled "List of operas in the standard repertory", and the other should be entitled "List of historically significant operas". This page should be renamed to one of those, and the other should be built from parts of this page and from the history of this page. The currently pipes to "standard operatic repertory" would become links to "List of operas in the standard repertory", and both lists could be linked from Opera.
- Also, OperaBase indexes everything, but while that makes it a powerful tool, it will not, so far as I know, help you unless you already know what you're looking for. Someone with no opera knowledge looking to find out which operas are popular nowadays would probably not be able to do that using OperaBase—they would need someone to tell them, "Maybe this one. No, try this one. How about this one? etc." I found a link to [1] (http://www.operadata.co.uk/) which sounded like a good bet, but as of right now they are down for maintenance. [2] (http://operaworld.com/cornerstones/) has a believable top ten list, but there are more than ten operas in the standard repertory. I suspect Wikipedia would actually be performing a service if someone were to keep a "List of operas in the standard repertory" up to date. 207.75.178.86 17:57, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Nominations for new inclusions
I love the idea of a standard rep list. I would vote to remove the historically important operas from this list that are not in rep. I would also like to see added the following: Bluebeard's Castle, Ernani, The Golden Cockerel, Lakme, Louise, Martha, Mignon, and Merry Wives of Windsor. These are certainly performed more often, world-wide at least, than most of Britten. Comments? --DrG 04:22, 2005 May 20 (UTC)
- I second all of your suggestions: I think they're all famous enough to go on the list. Antandrus (talk) 04:26, 20 May 2005 (UTC)
Duplicate lists
I hope I'm not opening a big can of worms, but I took one of the suggestions on this page and created the List of operas in the standard repertoire. This list is not based on fame, available recordings, or significance, but on the total number of performances at major opera houses. (Because of this, most of these operas are also well-recorded and also on the famous opera list.) --DrG 14:09, 2005 May 20 (UTC)
- Hi, I am not crazy about the idea of having two different lists which are largely overlapping. A better solution, IMO, would be to make this page more accurately reflect its title by removing the small number of historically significant operas from this list and make sure they are listed as such in the main opera article. Obviously space isn't a consideration; it is just seems uncessarily complicated. If we want to keep this information, the top 25 can be likewise listed on the main opera page. -- Viajero 14:30, 20 May 2005 (UTC)
DrG's list is highly specific, if the source of the information were given. If the two lists are collated, which operas on this list would be dropped out? Would that be a loss of valuable information? However appended or whether connected to DrG's list or this one, the historically significant operas from this list shouldn't be lost. I agree that the two articles are duplicative. --Wetman 18:25, 20 May 2005 (UTC)
- I realize that Wetman wants to keep those historical operas listed here, so I have another proposal: what about creating a second section in this article for historically significant operas which aren't performed much. The main list will then be, for all intents and purposes, the standard operatic repertoire and we can merge in whatever additional operas have been added to that newer page. One page, covering all bases. -- Viajero | Talk 11:25, 21 May 2005 (UTC)
- Comaring the lists
- In the standard list, but NOT in the famous list: Bluebeard's Castle, Ernani, The Golden Cockerel, Lakme, Louise, Martha, Mignon, and Merry Wives of Windsor. (which is why I nominated these operas. See above.)
- In the famous list, but NOT on the standard list. Composers not on standard: Handel, Glinka, Cherubini, Cilea, Dvorak, Glass, Menotii, Monteverdi, Peri, Poulenc, Prokofiev, Purcell, Ravel, Shostakovich, Stravinsky, and Weill. Additional operas: Puritani,Lulu, Pearlfishers, Albert Herring, Billy Budd, Midsummernight's Dream, Alceste, Iphigenie, Vixen, Thais, Idomeneo, Seraglio, Clemenza, Khovanshchina, Cenerentola, Frau ohne Schatten, Nabucco.
- I am still not sure how to proceed. Famous list seems to include famous operas to music historians, not so good operas by very famous composers, almost everything by famous opera composers, and operas in English we think deserve to be more famous. :)
- I created the stanard list because this seems to be a sensitive topic, and I didn't what to delete anything famous. I also wanted to include the list that reflected what was actually being performed. If you want to delete, merge, or separate the list, that's fine with me. --DrG 05:24, 2005 May 22 (UTC)
I think that Viajero's idea is a good one, and that we can have a separate section for "historically significant operas not often performed" on this page. I've taken the liberty of adding a couple from the first decades of the 17th century. I also think that the items on this sublist should be annotated with at least a single line explaining the historical significance of the item. Antandrus (talk) 22:50, 22 May 2005 (UTC)
- I'm not sentimental about inclusions and exclusions, but at any point an alphabetical current repertory will be skewed in reference to a historian's view. The difference is telling (no Handel etc), and should be analyzed a bit for the reader. The repertory list is self-explanatory, once one knows which opera companies (roughly) it represents. But the "historically important" list (by date?) needs a brief introduction, referring and linking to an unwritten History of Opera and the brief "disambig" Antandrus mentions. The two lists may quite sensibly overlap a bit. That's my thought... --Wetman 23:47, 22 May 2005 (UTC)
Operas removed
These are the operas that were removed from the page by DrG. I agree with this, just thought it would be useful to have it recorded on the Talk page. Perhaps someday someone might return one or more to the list of historically significant operas. -- Viajero | Talk 11:43, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
- Luigi Cherubini
- Médée (Paris 1797)
- Antonin Dvořák
- Rusalka (Prague 1901)
- Mikhail Glinka
- A Life for the Tsar or Ivan Susanin (Saint Petersburg 1836)
- Ruslan and Lyudmila (Saint Petersburg 1842)
- Sergei Prokofiev
- The Love for Three Oranges (Chicago 1921)
- War and Peace (Moscow 1944)
- Maurice Ravel
- L'Heure Espagnole (Paris 1911)
- L'Enfant et les Sortilèges (Monte Carlo 1926)
- Kurt Weill
- Rise and Fall of the City of Mahagonny (Leipzig 1930)
- Threepenny Opera (Die Dreigroschenoper) (Berlin 1928)
- This is a good idea. Everyone can review. --DrG 13:34, 2005 May 24 (UTC)
- I'm not sure about removing Prokofiev's "War and Peace." In Europe at least, it is played fairly often and the music is especially well known. --67.161.115.23 07:35, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
New idea about standard operas
This idea just crossed my mind. What if we eliminated this page altogether. Instead we create a new sub-category of operas, something like Standard international repertory. Then we just include the standard operas in that category. We could also create Historically significant repertory and others, like Standard American repertory. Does that make things easier or harder? What do you experienced wikis think?? --DrG 07:33, 2005 May 26 (UTC)
- The two main problems with switching from lists to categories, IMO, are 1) that you lose the ability to annotate (i.e. the nice explanatory line or two after the historically significant opera, telling a visitor just what the heck it is), and 2) you lose the ability to put in a redlink for an as-yet-unwritten article. Redlinks are how we grow. I think that items like operas need to be both on lists and in categories. (I have no objection to starting the categories you mention, by the way, I think they're a good idea--I just don't want to lose the lists.) Best, Antandrus (talk) 14:52, 26 May 2005 (UTC)