Talk:List of operas by composer/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

This list was developed by the Opera Project. I think it's sufficiently complete to appear now in a more prominent/conspicuous position linked to the main Opera article. If anyone has any comments about the presentation of the article, I will be interested to read them.

Kleinzach 22:46, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

I have changed the title to sentence-style lower case as it has been pointed out that this is the normal Wikipedia style.

Kleinzach 11:12, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I agree with the suggestion at the top of the operetta list that that page should be deleted, and merged into The Opera Corpus. Marc Shepherd 14:05, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

What is meant by "the opera corpus"? The article fails to give a useful definition as it ought to, preferably in the opening sentence or paragraph. If someone finds an opera that's not on this list, how are they supposed to figure out whether it's appropriate to add or not?

Without some attempt of definition, this looks like simply a list of operas by composer. It's apparently not limited to, say, the standard repertoire, something that could be defined with a certain amount of effort. So I'd like to see an explanation of what the corpus is, please. --Michael Snow 17:18, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

There is a clear enough definition in the first eight sentences. Operas that merit independent articles (for whatever reason) are listed here, while 'complete works' appear in the articles on composers.

In view of your other comments, please note, as it says in the introduction, "The list is broad and inclusive". No-one is trying to force a personal view of what should be in "the Opera Corpus' on anyone else. (The field is in any case so large that no one person will be knowledgeable about every aspect of it.)

Most of those who has contributed to the list - a large number both directly and indirectly - have been specialists in particular periods, countries, or languages. They have used their judgement about what should or should not be in. Their contributions have been respected and nothing (to my knowledge) has been deleted.

Judging by your user page you have no special interest in opera and you don't normally contribute to articles about it. This list is not a 'beginner's checklist', hence the introductory sentence "This is a list of more than 1,250 works . . . " There are other, more basic, pages that you can read. I would also recommend going out and actually seeing a live opera. That is the best way to develop a real understanding of what it is all about. Regards.

Kleinzach 18:43, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

In what way have "a large number" of people contributed to this list? On Wikipedia it appears to be very new and have very few editors.

If nothing has been deleted, are you ever going to delete things that get added? If so, on what basis? Can you tell me what operas don't merit independent articles? The "merit inclusion in Wikipedia" bit is still circular, self-referential, and doesn't help me distinguish this from a list of operas by composer.

As to my interests, if you read my user page you should find that they're simply not stated. As you observe, I haven't been that active on opera articles, and I apologize for my missteps as to the disambiguation conventions being used. However, I have written the article for at least one that's on this list, along with one that's not. I've also seen one more that's on the list and currently a red link, which I suppose means I ought to start the article. So please drop the condescending tone. --Michael Snow 19:55, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

First of all, you are very welcome to contribute to the article, rectifying links etc that are misdirected, adding titles that exist but are not listed etc. I hope you will not move any more pages without checking with the contributors that the moves are appropriate and do not cause more problems that they solve (as with the Fibich/Janacek operas).

This article as indicated in the first entry above was developed in the Opera Project pages. It was moved here recently in a fairly complete form, hence the history is there not here.

You write "Can you tell me what operas don't merit independent articles?". This list - which I would not be qualified to write - would be of thousands of titles. You must surely realize this, so why ask this kind of question?

Almost all your questions can be answered by looking at the pages in question. I don't have time to have long discussions about hypothetical questions such as deletions, self-references etc. that are largely irrelevant to the way the list was compiled. Enough!

Kleinzach 23:03, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps you've never encountered a hardcore inclusionist contributor. I can assure you that some of them would take the position that there is no opera that doesn't merit an independent article. It is not a rhetorical question, it's entirely real. At this point, I cannot determine any criteria the article uses to determine what's in or out, so the natural assumption is that it doesn't have any. --Michael Snow 23:35, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

It seems sensible to me that if an opera has a Wikipedia article, then it should be listed on The Opera Corpus. This implies that the corpus will grow as Wikipedia grows. I doubt that Wikipedia would ever refuse admission to any bona fide opera article, as long as it's not a vanity piece (i.e., the opera someone wrote for their high school graduation project). (Comment added by Marc Shepherd)

Yes indeed. Please note you can sign your comments with four tildes, like this ~ ~ ~ ~ but without the spaces! - Kleinzach 21:57, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

I think only the English title should be listed here - Ruders has always been clear that the English libretto, not the Danish one, is the authoritative one for the opera. Gerry Lynch 17:40, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough. I will remove the Danish title. Thanks. - Kleinzach 20:41, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Shouldn't we just list Candide and A Quiet Place, and leave the rest to the musical theatre project? Also, for Weill, should we leave some of those works listed to the musical theatre project? Ssilvers 06:34, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

As already explained to the musical theatre project, listing here doesn't really imply any kind of ownership. Having half the works of a major composer like Bernstein or Weill might look odd, especially as even a work like West Side Story can be performed in different (both more and less operatic) ways, so IMO this is a non-issue. - Kleinzach 07:09, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm going to reopen this "non-issue" and at least delete Wonderful Town, which is not an opera by any stretch of the imagination --Dmz5 05:30, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Before I revert Adam Cuerden's subdividing of the Sullivan entries and his inclusion of a (IMO) completely unjustified entry for Gilbert, I thought I'd solicit a few opinions here. I've put a note on his talk page. --GuillaumeTell 20:50, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

As I said, my logic is as follows:

1. People looking for Gilbert and Sullivan will probably start at Gilbert first. A redirect there is helpful, however, "See Arthur Sullivan" ignores all the other work he did, which is contrary to all recent moves in Gilbert and Sullivan scholarship (though typical of a few decades ago).
2. Gilbert is far more famous than any other operatic lyricist, and the only one, to my knowledge, routinely named with the composer.
3. The redirect to Sullivan means we need to be clear what Sullivan did with Gilbert, and what with others. Furthermore, "Gilbert and Sullivan" works are notable in their own right, above the rest of Sullivan's works. I am not aware of any other composer for which this holds true.

Quite simply, Gilbert seems to me a special case. - Adam Cuerden ^talk 20:59, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

While I wouldn't object to reverting Gilbert (although it'd be nice to have a separate place to list operas by librettist, with important figures such as him, Piave, Boito, etc.), I think the subdividing of Sullivan works. I often see "Gilbert & Sullivan" and "Sullivan" listed separately. And theirs was a special partnership - I don't know of another operatic partnership that was on such a scale. --User:AlbertHerring ^{Io son l'orecchio e tu la bocca: parla!} 22:53, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Guillaume Tell. We shouldn't have librettists on the opera corpus list. The focus is clearly on composers. Think what would happen if we did the same thing for Metastasio or Eugene Scribe on this page. It might be possible to separate the Savoy operas from the rest within Sullivan's entry, but I think anything more is dubious.--Folantin 08:41, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Per Folantin. List in Sullivan's entry his collaborations with Gilbert, but I wouldn't have a separate entry for Gilbert. Maybe you could redirect "Gilbert and Sullivan" to Sullivan's entry? And there have been other great composer-librettist partnerships - surely Mozart and Da Ponte are more important to operatic history than G+S? What about Metastasio and the rest of Europe? Purcell and Dryden? Wagner and himself? Moreschi 14:59, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

...Hugo von Hofmannsthal and Richard Strauss, Quinault and Lully, Piave and Verdi, Boito and Verdi, Scribe and Meyerbeer, Calzabigi and Gluck. No need to stretch the point any further, I think...As Moreschi suggests, a redirect from "Gilbert and Sullivan" to "Sullivan" on the page would be OK though. --Folantin 15:09, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

And where would Handel's oratorios be without Charles Jennens? O.K, this is getting silly. Provided there are no objections, I'll do a redirect from Gilbert and Sullivan to Sullivan. Moreschi 15:13, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, but none of those librettists is in themselves famous, whilst Gilbert is. In any case, if it is removed, realise I didn't put the opera s I listed under Gilbert elsewhere. Adam Cuerden ^talk 15:30, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Shallow debate, but surely Da Ponte, Metastasio, and most especially Dryden are all famous in their own right?? Anyway, it'll be easy to scatter the Gilbert entry around the rest of the list. Moreschi 15:38, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

...and Hofmannsthal is one of the most famous poets and playwrights in Austrian literature, Boito composed some pretty famous operas in his own right, 19th century French opera would be unimaginable without Scribe, Gluck's reforms would not have happened without Calzabigi, etc. etc...--Folantin 15:51, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Orrey describes Boito's Mefistofele (or whatever) as "one of the finest Faust operas". Moreschi 15:55, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, what I mean is that people don't tend to go to an opera by Piave and Verdi, but do go to Gilbert and Sullivan. The other librettists tend to be known by cognoscenti, but not by the general public, whereas Gilbert is recognised readily by those who haven't dug very deeply into opera. Adam Cuerden ^talk 16:02, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Depends which nationality the opera goer is...But if you mean some people might come here looking for "Gilbert and Sullivan", then the simple redirect Moreschi suggested would easily solve that. --Folantin 16:16, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Apologies, apologies! I have just split up the Gilbert entry and added ones for the various composers, I've done this because I am doing new stats, as well as to remove the anomaly of the Gilbert entry. After doing that I discovered this discussion which must have happened while I was in France. Anyway I think it's logical for composers to appear under composers in a list of composers. I'd be delighted to put Gilbert in a list of librettists. Regards to all. - Kleinzach 04:27, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Thinking about the discussion above, I would certainly be in favour of starting a librettists' opera corpus. It would give a new perspective on the repertoire. A large undertaking, though we could begin slowly with Metastasio, Da Ponte, Scribe, Hofmannsthal and of course Gilbert. - Kleinzach 01:59, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

I like the idea: create a separate page, or make a new section here? Moreschi ^{Want some help? Ask!} 10:20, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Separate page, I think. Metastasio is so complicated he probably needs a page all by himself. --Folantin 10:22, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

The beginnings of an experimental version are here: User:Folantin/Userspace Folantin2. Feel free to tinker with it. I suggest we limit ourselves to librettists who already have their own articles on WP. --Folantin 15:17, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Looks good - the beginning of a genuinely useful list. Yes, it should be a seperate article, perhaps List of opera librettists as there isn't another one. At some point we might think of adding new articles. Librettists have been relatively neglected until now. -Kleinzach 15:29, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

It's now at that address in mainspace. Let's continue the discussion on the talk page there. Cheers. --Folantin 16:00, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

What are the criteria I have to know before I will add some operas, that are probably not important in the world history of opera, but quite important in the Czech or Slovak operatic history? Thanks, Okino 20:12, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

This shouldn't be a problem if it's possible to write articles on them using neutral, third-party sources (in other words avoiding conflict of interest). If these were fairly significant works within the Czech and Slovak traditions and were performed (or if unperformed, had some other claim to notability) then feel free to add them. --Folantin 20:25, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

The Czech music tradition is less known, but very long, so Your remarks are quite dishonesting ;-) - and also the Slovak operas were performed. :-) Thanks, I will do it soon. --Okino 20:49, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

The second paragraph has just been changed by User:Stephen from:

Thousands of operas have been written . . . . This list is intended to be a selective one of those special works that merit inclusion in Wikipedia in their own right as separate articles.

to:

Thousands of operas have been written . . . . This list is intended to be a selective one of notable works.

Perhaps Stephen could explain his rationale? The original paragraph was designed to dissuade people from adding works that they (or anybody else) were not going to create articles about. My understanding is that this is in line with WP policy of not creating red links that are not going to be used. -- Kleinzach 04:10, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

As this is an article in the mainspace, it shouldn't refer to Wikipedia in the text. If you want to guide editors to what consensus has been agreed to include, then use <!-- Some text like this --!> as a comment, and it won't render when the page diaplays, but only shows when edited --Steve _(Stephen) ^talk 06:25, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

OK I see your point. Would the following be acceptable:

Thousands of operas have been written . . . . This list is a selective one of those special works which would merit inclusion as separate articles in an encyclopedia.

The problem with <!-- Some text like this --!> is that it is disregarded by 90% of contributors. Thanks. -- Kleinzach 07:04, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure there is a policy which frowns on articles referring to Wikipedia itself, and if there is, whether it's a good policy, but the language of the current sentence is rather stilted, as was the previous version. I agree with Kleinzach that comments in the code will probably be disregarded; doing so will also fail to convey its message to the reader. Here's my attempt: This article is intended as a list of notable works.

On this tangent: what's notable? Take the very first work in the list: Paul Abraham's Ball im Savoy. I don't think there's an article on it in any Wikepedia, but it was once very popular in Germany and has been made into a film (1935); it is still being performed today in Germany and Austria. I believe it belongs on this list, but there may never be an article on it. OTOH its red presence here might spur someone into writing one. Michael Bednarek 11:05, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

The problem with 'notable' is that it is no longer a word around here, but a WP-speak policy.

We have many opera articles for which equivalents are not available in the other wikis. The idea is to include works when there is sufficient information available to write an article. (One test of this is whether there is a separate article in Grove.) I'm not sure who originally compiled the Paul Abraham list. It does look long to me, and perhaps some of the names should come out? However if Ball im Savoy is still being performed that should justify its inclusion. -- Kleinzach 11:31, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Should Beethoven's opera be listed twice? Michael Bednarek 11:21, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Good point since Leonore redirects to Fidelio. Sometimes we list a second version, perhaps in a different language, but here we just have one article for both - so I'll delete Leonore. Thanks. -- Kleinzach 11:39, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Newly registered User:Schwarze wolken has just added well over 100 titles - all red links of course. Maybe we should explain that this list is of links which we intend to turn into articles - This list is intended to be a selective one of notable works (preamble) - not a list of all operas ever written. We do need complete lists of works for notable composers, but these should go in the articles on the composers. Having a huge list here does not achieve anything in itself. What we are trying to do in build a encyclopedia not lists. (We particularly want to avoid creating links for lost works that no longer exist and are not going to be performed). -- Kleinzach 05:38, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Hello there. I've gone back and deleted a few of the "indulgent" red entries. Let me know if it's any better. Thanks. Schwarze wolken 15:01, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Someone has added (virtually) the complete list of Albinoni operas. How many of these will be viable as articles? How many of them still exist/are still performed? -- Kleinzach 02:19, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

I think Michel van der Aa should be alphabetized under "A"; that's how DEFAULTSORT at nl:Michel van der Aa and de:Michel van der Aa is used. I also suspect that's how he is listed in the phone book. Michael Bednarek (talk) 09:45, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Grove have some 'van's under 'V' some not. There are redirects so it's obviously done deliberately. I wonder what the rule is on this? Is there a Holland Project or something like that? --Kleinzach (talk) 10:34, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Incidentally neither of your links nl:Michael van der Aa and de:Michael van der Aa work for me. --Kleinzach (talk) 10:37, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

They do now (sometimes the fingers have a mind of their own).
Also, nl:Categorie:Nederlands componist and de:Kategorie:Niederländischer Komponist list all names with "van" under their surnames, none under "V"; the Category:Dutch composers does likewise, except for Michel van der Aa – I'm going to change the DEFAULTSORT on his page. Michael Bednarek (talk) 12:18, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. --Kleinzach (talk) 13:36, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Someone has added: Gérard Pape (1955– ): Les Cenci, Ivan and Rena, A Little Girl Dreams of Taking the Veil, Monologue. Are there any references available to show these have been publicly performed? --Kleinzach 23:34, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

I was the person who added Pape to the list. I don't know of sources documenting specific public performances and, as a glance at the article on Pape will show, two of his operas are not yet finished. What exists of these two operas (the prologue and act 1, scene 1 of Les Cenci, and the prologue and one scene, "Battle" from Weaveworld) have been recorded and released on CD, however, as has the completed Monologue.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 18:36, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

OK, it is not specific, but the liner notes to the CD including "Battle" from Weaveworld and Monologue (reproduced on the Kalvos & Damian website) refer to the former as a commission by CNAT (National Center for Art and Technology) of the city of Reims, and states that Nicholas Isherwood "premiered the new version" of Monologue in 1995. Does that help?—Jerome Kohl (talk) 18:59, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Further research turns up the Concerts 2001–2002 éditions musicales européennes website, which documents the German première of "Battle" by the Neue Vocalsolisten on 15 May 2002 in Stuttgart.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 19:19, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Erling Wold's A Little Girl Dreams of Taking the Veil has been performed and is available on CD and I added that. Is there a different opera of the same name that we are talking about?

Gérard Pape's A Little Girl Dreams of Taking the Veil is indeed not the same as Erling Wold's, though naturally it is based on the same text.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 20:11, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

This is all useful information, but I don't understand why we are listing the operas here, rather than on the biographical page. Or are you about to write articles on all these works? What we want to avoid is this list becoming a huge repository of red links to minor works that are never going to have articles. If that happens we can no longer use it for systematically extending our coverage as we have done for the past two years.

In the preamble to the list it says: "The principal works of the major composers are given as well as those of historical importance in the development of the art form. . . . This list is intended to be a selective one of notable works." --Kleinzach 00:20, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

OK, I seem to have overlooked this. It seems to me that a few hundred, if not many thousand titles need to be removed from this highly selective list, if only "principal" and "notable" works are supposed to appear here. I'll get right to work pruning obscure and outright forgettable items.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 05:03, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Let's keep our feet on the ground. This list only has two thousand titles so we do not need to remove "many thousand titles" which in any case would be an impossibility. It wouldn't even be a good example of irony. --Kleinzach 00:59, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Right now I am systematically going through the opera composer cat and pulling out operas that will make viable articles (I have only listed works where a web search has found useable sources. I have not added operas where little or no information could be found). I view this as useful as it will help direct future expansion on topics that could and should be covered. I have also been using Grove as a guide in selecting operas of significance within the career of each composer.Nrswanson (talk) 02:01, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

That's good. With the print Grove it lists Grove articles on specific operas at the foot of the biographies. That's what we have used in the past. Is that what you are seeing when you use the online Grove? --Kleinzach 03:48, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Not exactly what I see online no. I've more been reading the articles on the composers and pulling works mentioned in composer bios as important within the composers career. I've then done searches for info on the operas. If I have found enough info on the opera's history, roles, recordings etc. I have gone ahead and added it to the list. I've been careful to select operas that could be fleshed out into at least a start class article. Overall I have found this exercize helpful as I am finding a number of notable opera composers not on this list, some of them already with articles on their operas. I'm not putting anything on here that I wouldn't be willing to create and work on myself.Nrswanson (talk) 03:59, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Mmm. OK. but please understand that the more red links we have, the greater our planned coverage of individual works and the harder it will be to accomplish that coverage. Many titles that are discussed at length in Grove biographies do not have their own Grove articles. We are already planning more articles than Grove - which is said to have around 1,800 to 2,000! --Kleinzach 04:08, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

I do understand. I am done adding composers from U-Z. I am going to be adding composers from S-T and then I am going to stop and write some opera articles for a while. After that it is back down the alphabet. I'll probably be working on this systematically for a long time. I think the fact that we will end up covering more works than Grove is a good thing.Nrswanson (talk) 04:20, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

It's good thing providing we can at least produce start-class articles on them. --Kleinzach 04:54, 9 September 2008 (UTC) P. S. Are you also maintaining the red link opera count? --Kleinzach 04:56, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

No I am not because it looks like the red link count is already way off.Nrswanson (talk) 05:26, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

The red link count was correct at the time of my update at 18.32 on 5 September. It's bad if we no longer have an accurate figure only 4 days later. Can you see how many red links you've added since then? (I assume you are checking any blue links that you appear to create.) --Kleinzach 08:34, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't think so. I myself have created articles turing red to blue without adjusting the statistics and without another project member noticing. (This was prior to my interest in the Opera Corpus) I think an accurate red link count can only be maintained by a bot as we can't control who is going to create what articles when. Simply adding by hand doesn't account for articles created by users outside the project and/or project members not interested in the corpus. This is a statistic that I think is impossible to accurately maintain without a bot and I view it as a waist of time to try and maintain it otherwise. Also recent mass removal of red links by Jerome Kohl have further confused the issue; throwing the accuracy of all the statistics out the window.Nrswanson (talk) 16:47, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

How does the "machine count" work? It fails to register Liza Lim as a female composer. I'm less concerned about the promotion of women's visibility in the arts than about the counting process. Michael Bednarek (talk) 04:22, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

It was done by another editor using AWB. The composers and blue and red operas were counted. We also discovered about 70 redirects which I have attempted to correct (a big job.) Women composers were not counted. (No big surprise there! AWB doesn't have a sex-recognition module), so please add any women to the list at the foot of the article - and the count -by hand. (The composers by period count was also compiled some time ago so that is inaccurate now as well.) --Kleinzach 05:08, 8 September 2008 (UTC)