Talk:Opera

Archives
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3

English language opera

I'm slowly easing myself back into WP and see that I've mostly missed a very busy period opera-wise. I'm glad to see that this article is at last being reorganised along the lines I argued for over at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Opera, with plenty of "main articles" elsewhere. What currently sticks out like a sore thumb is the English Opera section. First, I think it ought to be called English-language opera, like the German section. That would enable us to avoid having to have sections or articles on Welsh, Irish, Scottish opera and to incorporate American and other English-language operas. Second, there obviously ought to be a "main article". I see that English opera, a rather puny article, exists, but is anyone working on this or a retitled version? (I note that Moreschi has edited it recently). If so, can I help? If not, can I volunteer? --GuillaumeTell 17:07, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi, GT. I'll let Moreschi speak for himself but I believe he may have some eventual plans in that direction. Once we've got this main article sorted out, I intend to rework the separate articles on French and German opera completely (I've already made a start on the latter). Maybe I'll create articles on other national operas too. --Folantin 17:22, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Changed section heading to "English-language opera" ("Opera in English" might be an alternative). I've added general references for most sections. Feel free to add some more if you can. I think once Moreschi writes the new "lead", we can consign the paragraph about what opera is not to the footnotes. As far as I can see from the talk page here, it was only added as a disclaimer after some editors objected this article didn't cover Chinese opera etc.. A few scattered thoughts about asserting opera's notability in the lead: it is one of the most prestigious forms of Classical music (probably the most prestigious in the 17th and 18th centuries?) and some major composers (e.g. Rossini, Wagner, Verdi, Puccini) worked almost exclusively in the medium; the social importance of opera-going, especially in the 18th and 19th centuries; worldwide popularity of opera singers such as Caruso, Callas and Pavarotti in the 20th.--Folantin 08:28, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Re English Opera: IMO the problem with "English-language opera" is that it's too vague. I don't really see why Gershwin should be in there with Britten and Purcell. New World opera is its own genre, and therefore really should get an independant mention, with a link to an independant main article. But I agree that "English Opera" isn't ideal either, so IMO probably "Opera in Great Britain" is best, as that allows for the inclusion of any Welsh, Scottish/Gaelic composers that merit mention, without lumping American opera in, which is, after all, quite different from any UK based genre.

As for child article: anyone who wants to edit it, please to do so. Yes, I do have plans to develop that article, but I've got a lot on my plate at the moment both in real life and wiki, namely this rubbish, this article here, and I'm also trying to work this masterpiece-in-the-making up to GA standard, so I'm kind of busy at the moment, and English opera is on the backburner. Happy editing, basically. Best to all, Moreschi 14:23, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Er, just a moment. Britten is more like Purcell than he is like Glass? Certainly Glass is nothing like Gershwin. What do you think, GT? -- Ssilvers 14:50, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Silghtly facetious point: anyone ever heard Britten's I know a bank after Purcell's Sweeter than Roses? Echoes ain't the word. But I agree, ambivalence is present. I still think, though, that all the various developments in American opera should go together, and not wind up lumped in with a different tradition, which is to me a bit harsh on both genres. But let's see what other people think. Moreschi 15:19, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

For what it's worth, The Oxford Companion to Music article on opera has a section on "Opera in Britain" and another on "Opera in America". More recent US operas already get a mention in the "modern section" of our article. Maybe just a short section on "Opera in the Americas"? Then we can mention (say) the very first US opera (out of historical interest) plus some Latin American stuff (Torrejon, Gomes, Ginastera, Piazzolla). Just a suggestion. --Folantin 15:30, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

The trouble with this is that, say, "Opera in Britain" looks more like "which operas are/were performed in Britain and where", rather than "operas composed by British persons". --GuillaumeTell 17:04, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

"British Opera" then?--Folantin 17:09, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm sure I know less about this than any of you, but I can't believe that Spanish or Portugese language operas by Latin American compsers are more similar to North American English-language opera than British opera. Handel and Balfe were influenced by Italian Opera. But they still wrote English-language opera. Do what you want, but it seems strange to me to separate English language operas by which side of the Atlantic Ocean they were written on. By the way, does William Vincent Wallace deserve a mention? -- Ssilvers 18:41, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Handel is a bit problematic because, while he may have been a German he composed in England, and furthermore he didn't compose English-language opera; his operas are all in Italian with the exception of Acis and Galatea (I can't think of any others off the top of my head). The oratorios are in English, but that's something else altogether. Something else to try and get our heads round, I suppose. Orrey (the source I used for List of major opera composers has "Opera in GB", and this includes Handel, just to confuse everyone. Best, Moreschi 19:10, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Years ago, we lost our tenor just before dress rehearsal for The Messiah. The conductor was referred to a young Japanese tenor who hardly spoke any English, but was supposed to be a crack sight reader. So we get started, and he sings: "Comfort ye" (so far, so good). "Comfort ye!" (nice voice!) "Comfort ye, my Pay-o-play". -- Ssilvers 20:48, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

"British and American Opera"? (Ignoring the Latin Americans). Gluck and Mozart (both Germans) get their major mentions under "Italian opera". Handel should probably get his main treatment there when we talk about opera seria (but still leave the mention of him we already have in the British opera section - he had a big influence on English opera, even if it was negative in many ways). Mozart actually appears in both the Italian and German sections; Gluck in both the Italian and French. As they should. I don't think we should worry unduly about these things. Have you ever heard Telemann's Orpheus? It's an opera in German, Italian and French!--Folantin 19:14, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

The Hoelle Rache sample

I have some doubts whether this recording/performance is suitable for introducing people to Mozart's operas. Personally, I think I would be scared off by it :). The lack of accompaniment could be part of the problem, the singer's strange pronunciation of German could be part of the problem - anyway, whatever the reason, the first 40 seconds or so are almost a torture for me. Maybe it takes a more refined/experienced ear to enjoy it? --194.145.161.227 22:18, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

English-language opera

I found cites for a historical discussion of early opera and antecedents in Britain, and so I added some discussion. Feel free to refine it. -- Ssilvers 05:12, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

User:Daniel.Bryant's sprotect2 tag

User:Daniel.Bryant has put a sprotect2 tag on this article. Perhaps we could have an explanation of why, what and how does it work? - Kleinzach 09:21, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

See WP:SEMI, unregistered and "new2 accoutns cannot edit the page whilst semi-protection is in place, basically it should cut down the amount of vandalism, the article's been getting hit quite a lot recently. David Underdown 10:29, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Protection

Per a request, I have copied this note here explaining my action on the article Opera a couple of hours ago:-

What I have done is used my ability as an administrator to restrict editing for a period of five days under the protection policy; no IP address or user less than four days old will be able to edit the page. This action has been logged on the article's log by the MediaWiki software.

Although administrators generally don't leave protection notes on talk pages (rather, {{sprotect}} etc. on the article), I have added this one per a request to. Daniel Bryant 10:41, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for explaining. Much appreciated. I just wonder how effective a 5-day restriction will be. I'd really like to see a longer period or a permanent block on unregistered editors. What do other people think? - Kleinzach 10:47, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Generally, permanent semi-protection is only afforded to those articles which IP vandals love: George W. Bush, etc. Other articles, including this one, can generally only have short-term semi-protection, to prevent the disruption and to bore the vandals out, basically. Quoting the policy,

Indefinite semi-protection may be used for [a]rticles subject to heavy and continued vandalism, such as George W. Bush; *[b]iographies subject to vandalism and/or POV-pushing that aren't widely watchlisted; [and u]ser pages (but not user talk pages), when requested by the user.

Unfortunately, this article does not fit this criteria; rather, it fits the "temporary protection" criteria (quoting again):

Temporary semi-protection may be used for [p]reventing vandalism when blocking users individually is not a feasible option, such as a high rate of vandalism from a wide range of anonymous IP addresses; and [a]rticle talk pages that are being disrupted; this should be used sparingly because it prevents new users and anons from being part of discussions.

Reading a little more,

Semi-protection should not be used...[t]o prohibit anonymous editing in general.

Of course, if the vandalism returns at absured levels after the five days, then you could request reprotection, and more-than-likely the duration would increase (no guarantees, but it should, to something like 10-14). Hope that helps in explaining. Cheers, Daniel Bryant 10:52, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Pictures

How many pictures of opera houses does this article need? We already have three and now somebody is trying to add a fourth. Can't we make do with one representative example, e.g. La Scala? --Folantin 14:04, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Right. Since it's an article on "opera", not "opera houses", shouldn't there be images of one of each of these: an opera house (one exterior and one interior?), a famous opera singer (male and female?), a famous composer or two, maybe a page of music, a programme cover from an opera or two, a poster/advertisement for an opera or two, and album cover of an opera recording or two, a statue or painting based on an opera, etc? Best regards -- Ssilvers 18:38, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. The best place fror multiple pictures of opera houses is the article on Opera houses. - Kleinzach 23:05, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, now there's yet another picture. Go ahead and kill at least two of them. -- Ssilvers 05:28, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

I putted all the images that you guys remove in Opera houses. Next time you should add the content before you remove some other guy's job. Bcartolo 15:01, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Opera on TV

Is it worth adding a section on opera written for television (Menotti onwards), or is this covered elsewhere? I couldn't find an article... Barnabypage 12:19, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

There's no article as far as I'm aware. It might be worth writing one. The title probably needs to be Opera for television or Television opera, to distinguish it from all the operas written for the stage which are simply broadcast on TV. Then we could link to it from this page (there probably isn't room to cover it fully here - the main article is bursting at the seams as it is). --Folantin 12:26, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't think there's such an article: if you want to write a separate one and then link to it from here, please feel free. Cheers, Moreschi ^Talk 12:34, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

IMO it should probably be Opera for television. How many are there? Owen Wingrave, Amahl and the Night Visitors . . . - Kleinzach 15:11, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Or, if you really want to have fun, you could write Opera for radio...or is that even opera at all, with no visual element?...Moreschi ^Talk 15:16, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Querelle des Bouffons?

Hello, do you think it is worth mentioning the Querelle des Bouffons in an article about opera in general? Thank you. --Kyoko 20:22, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Probably not. This main article is already too long, I think. The "national" opera sections here are only meant to be very sketchy. The Querelle gets mentioned in the main French opera article (plus it has its own page). --Folantin 20:37, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

That's fine. I don't think it's the sort of thing most opera fans are aware of anyway, unless I am very mistaken. --Kyoko 20:44, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

It's an important episode in the history of 18th century French music but it's too complicated to be treated in a single sentence, which is all we could probably allow here. The section on French opera on this page really gives no more than a brief outline of the major names and the main genres. --Folantin 20:50, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Culture section would be useful

I'm very surprised that there is no cultural section here. The perceptions of opera in different countries, portrayal of opera in film and literature, nothing. Odd, don't you think?

Can you sign please? Thanks. -- Kleinzach 23:26, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Sorry about not signing before, but don't just blow me off, okay? I'd appreciate a real response. 72.77.199.58 03:08, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

No problem. How about registering first and then joining in? This article here is obviously a general intoduction, if you want to do justice to your idea it should probably be in a dedicated article. We can help you write/edit it. -- Kleinzach 03:37, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Introduction

As explained on the Opera Project, I am proposing a new introduction for this article - one that doesn't represent opera as the ugly step-child of music and drama but as the leading member of the performing arts. Here it is. Comments, criticisms are welcome before or after I post it.

Opera is one of the performing arts (alongside music, dance and drama), and its special character derives from combining elements of the others, as well as visual effects. Opera is invariably live and given in a specially-equipped opera house or theatre. It is unamplified to order to feature the beauty of the natural voice. While the scale can be greater or smaller - there are many different genres of opera - performance typically involves artists with different talents such as singers, instrumentalists and often dancers and actors. Usually an orchestra led by a conductor accompanies the singers. The opera world is internationa - in contrast to spoken theatre. German, French, Italian and English etc. works are performed world-wide in their original languages, and artists travel from country to country performing.

-- Kleinzach 05:15, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Maybe have "Usually an orchestra directed by a conductor", not "led by", in British English usage the leader of the orchestra is the Principal First Violin/Concertmaster or whatever else you want to call him. David Underdown 14:48, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

I suggest combining the best of what Folantin previously wrote, and what Kleinzach suggests above, as follows:

Opera is one of the performing arts (alongside music, theatre, and dance), which combines elements of the others and focuses on conveying the drama of the work through music and singing. Opera is generally performed in a specially-equipped opera house, unamplified in order to feature the beauty and athleticism of the trained operatic voice. While the scale of an opera can be greater or smaller – there are many different genres of opera – the music is typically played by an orchestra or a smaller musical ensemble.

Opera emerged in Italy around the year 1600 and is generally associated with the Western classical music tradition. Opera uses many of the elements of spoken theatre such as scenery, costumes, and acting, but is distinguished by the importance of singing and conventions of vocal technique. In contrast to spoken theatre, which is generally performed in the language of the audience, operas are often performed in their original languages, most often German, French, Italian, English or Russian, and opera singers, conductors and directors travel from country to country performing.

Then, the stuff about Chinese Opera, etc. could be moved down further. -- Ssilvers 15:39, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, that was helpful. I have done a new version - hopefully covering all points raised and most of the phraseology - and put it up on the article. Please hack as necessary. One point: I have avoided using the word 'theatre' (meaning drama rather than a building) when possible because usage problems. - Kleinzach 10:04, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

I disagree with the new introduction for the following reasons (most of which are reflected in what I wrote above):

• What makes opera special is the importance of the singing, the kind of singing, and what the article used to call "operatic conventions". Other performance arts combine drama, music and dance, such as musicals and ballet. In fact, most dance also incorporates music and drama. The first paragraph is very misleading. If you did not know what opera was, you certainly would not understand it from this introduction.
• Why is opera more "live" than other performance arts? Besides, opera is often recorded.
• Chamber opera is played by a smaller ensemble rather than an orchestra, and indeed small-scale productions of operas are often performed with only a piano.
• It doesn't mean anything to say that the opera world is "international". Musicals and other theatre, ballet, and other performance arts tour worldwide. The only thing that is true here is that opera is more often done in original languages than theatre and that star singers and conductors travel a lot.
• I thought you wanted to move the Chinese Opera stuff out of the introduction, and I agreed with that.

I really am not trying to be difficult, but I don't think that this is descriptive or even true. -- Ssilvers 05:20, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Before you changed the text, Paragraph 1 was a defintion. Paragraph 2 was description and Paragraph 3 cultural/historical context. What you have done is muddle the first two. (Fortunately, despite your comments, you seem to have left paragraph 3 alone!). (And I was hoping that some other people would have a chance to read it and have a chance to comment!). In answer to your individual points:

• Many people would disagree with your statement that "what makes opera special is the importance of the singing etc." (Try Wagner, or perhaps this quote by the great soprano Lotte Lehmann: "For me acting was always the main thing.")
• The original text didn't say that opera is more live than other performing arts - it said invariably live (i.e. recognizing the existence of a few TV/radio operas). Note that recordings are not stand-alone works, they record performances, either directly or indirectly.
• There are only 21 works in the chamber opera cat, out of about 1,000 total works, so not very significant. ASAIK there is no opera scored for a piano. (Pianos are used for rehearsals.)
• The polyglot nature of opera is much greater than you think. Many non-star artists travel - witness the large numbers of American singers in small German houses. Opera directors will often switch between three or four different languages when they are working with performers. (Dance etc. doesn't involve language etc.) In any case the 'international' comparison was with spoken drama. Before you removed it the sentence read: The opera world is international - in contrast to spoken theatre - and Italian, German, French, English, Russian and Czech etc. works are performed world-wide in their original languages, while artists travel from country to country performing. -- Kleinzach 07:07, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

I replaced Kleinzach's version for discussion. By the way, drama is the literary form. Theatre is the performing art, according to the relevant Wikipedia articles. Here is another attempt at an introduction for this article that I think is clearer:

Opera is one of the performing arts, which combines music, acting and dance, and focuses on conveying the drama of the work through music and singing. The special character of Opera derives from the sound of the trained operatic voice. It is generally performed in a specially-equipped opera house, and the music is typically played by an orchestra or a smaller musical ensemble. Like other forms of theatre, opera employs scenery, costumes and lighting, but it eschews amplification so that the sound of the human voice may be heard unaltered.

Opera emerged in Italy around the year 1600 and is generally associated with the Western classical music tradition. In contrast to spoken theatre, which is usually performed in the language of the audience, operas are often performed in their original languages, most often German, French, Italian, English, Russian or Czech, and opera singers, conductors and directors often travel from country to country performing.

The stuff about Chinese Opera, etc. could be moved down further. Best regards, -- Ssilvers 13:03, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Three quick points. (1.) I have tried to make the intro as neutral as possible. Sentences like "The special character of Opera derives from the sound of the trained operatic voice" (Ssilvers) describe a point of view. (2) It's better to keep history separate from the description in paragraph 2. (3.) Let's avoid theatre/drama terminology problems (largely a US/UK thing) that exist elsewhere on WP. Our perspective here is that of opera. -- Kleinzach 23:45, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

(1.) How is the new language better?: Opera's "special character derives from the combination of elements of the others, as well as visual effects conveyed by scenery, costumes, and lighting." This language would better describe musicals. The first paragraph is not a useful definition of opera. (2.) Putting up this new language the way you did is not collaborative. There was and is no WP:CONSENSUS here. IMO, the old language is preferable. Since it looks like no one cares enough to discuss this except for the two of us, I assume that this new introduction will remain. Therefore, I took out the most obviously untrue statements in paragraph 2. (3.) I don't see how we can disregard the definitions of theatre and drama in those Wikipedia articles. If you disagree with them, go to those articles' talk pages and raise your objections. In any case, you should at least de-link "drama" if you are not going to use it in the sense given at that article. -- Ssilvers 13:26, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Not a lot of time for this but I see the Drama article has tags all over it so it's hardly a reliable reference for anything, also Theatre starts with a definition which invalidates your point, i.e. if theatre had an unambiguous meaning it would not need to be defined. Anyway I don't see much relevance. As I said before (I think) this is all about the big picture. Time for someone else to comment - though I see you have made another edit. -- Kleinzach 14:12, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to weigh in but I don't have enough time at the moment. I think we should get straight to the point: opera is a form of music drama associated with the Western tradition of "classical" music and it began in Italy around the year 1600. To be honest, I'd rather go back to my version [1] with the necessary modifications. --Folantin 14:33, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Let's discuss this when you have more time. When I started this I didn't realize that it was your version that was here, however I realized this was a potential mine field so I did post my version on the Project page first, and I remember you agreed that the introduction needed fixing and expanding. There are some aspects of my intro that I feel strongly about, but perhaps we can work it all out when you have time. I'm willing to work towards an intelligent compromise that doesn't cross anybody's red lines. The important part for me is the first sentence. -- Kleinzach 15:03, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

OK, but I've added a first sentence which tries to define what opera actually is (compare these [2]). Opera= sung drama. We really need to get that across. --Folantin 09:12, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

That's certainly an improvement! -- Ssilvers 12:44, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

"the characters sing most or all of the text" worries me a bit - there is a lot of spoken dialogue in Carmen, though it's usually cut. And then there's G&S! I rather favour Amanda Holden's definition in the Viking Guide: "any dramatic work that can be sung (or at times declaimed or spoken) in a place for performance, set to original music for singers (usually in costume) and instrumentalists." --GuillaumeTell 17:55, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

I've changed it a bit and added a few clarifying sentences. --Folantin 18:13, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Now the first paragraph covers a lot of what is in the second paragraph, so you could delete the second paragraph and just keep any sentences from it that are not covered in the first paragraph. However, the whole thing is more like what we had before, except that it's unwikified. Here's a crazy idea: go back to how it was before, which was basically OK. By the way, I think the third paragraph does not belong in the intro. Why spend so much space in the intro discussing non-Western traditions, when we already said that Opera is based on the Western classical music tradition? Best regards, -- Ssilvers 19:31, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

You're probably right, although I think we should still mention the famous singers in the new version. --Folantin 19:40, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

OK, but why only mention 20th century singers? Was no one so famous before that? Were no conductors as famous as the greatest singers? Best regards, -- Ssilvers 20:31, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

I didn't only mention 20th century singers (from the early days of the art form performers have won international fame for their vocal skill.) but the names I gave are a selection of the ones most readers will recognise. Add others from earlier centuries (Senesino, Farinelli, Melba?) if you wish. As for conductors, they tend to be famous for being conductors of classical music in general rather than opera in particular, so I'm not sure why we should single any of them out for mention. Plus opera managed without a conductor as such for most of its first two centuries of existence, whereas the form is completely impossible without the singers. --Folantin 20:48, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

I've just read the current version of the lead, and, with three well-filled paras, it is simply too long (and almost looks as if it needs someone to stick in a "wikify" tag!). If the 2nd and 3rd paras are that important, they should get their own heading(s) and appear in the TOC. --GuillaumeTell 20:39, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Actually, it's probably not long enough for an article this size (see WP:LEAD). Some of the repeated material in the second para can be slashed (assuming we keep the current version). The third para can go completely (or we can consign it to a footnote). We then need to summarise the contents of the rest of the article in the intro. --Folantin 20:53, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

I disagree with the new first sentence: Opera is a form of musical drama in which the text is wholly or partly sung. This is fine to say if you are an critic/composer or whatever, but it is a point of view. This is an encylopedia and we should aim at the most neutral, overarching, all-embracing, general definition possible. The text which now leads Para 2, (a kind of second-chance definition?) is neutral: "Opera is one of the performing arts (alongside music, drama and dance), and its special character derives from the combination of elements of the others, as well as visual effects conveyed by scenery, costumes, and lighting." This should lead the article.

Why is this important? When I was working with the Arts Project on the categorization of the arts in general, people questioned whether opera was a genre of music or so-called 'theatre' and referred to the definition on this page.

Para 1 was originally definition and Para 2 was (bare bones) description. What we have now is Para 1 (definition then a lot of description much of it superfluous), and Para 2 (definition then description, some of it repetitive, e.g. second orchestra reference). The beginning of the article should be about essentials. Having composer names in the first paragraph IMO is a bad idea, let alone the singers. (How many people will agree on the primacy of Caruso, Callas and Domingo? Isn't this an open invitation to edit wars?).

I am in favour of deleting the first paragraph altogther and then looking at the rest to see if it can be improved. -- Kleinzach 01:03, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Opera's special character does *not* derive from the combination. First, dance is optional. Opera's special character derives from the type of singing and music that is used to convey the drama and the fact that the singing is more important than in any other form of staged, dramatic performance. -- Ssilvers 02:50, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree with SSilvers here. I had a look at several definitions of opera (follow the link above). Another example from the Concise Oxford: "dramatic performance or composition of which music is an essential part". There's also this [3]: "Opera. A wholly or mostly sung drama written for operatic voices" (though I'd change that "mostly" to "partly" per GT). All the definitions mention "music" and "drama" (or their equivalents) somewhere. The early Italians called the form dramma per musica or dramma musicale. Opera can get by without scenery, dancing etc. if necessary; it can't do without words and music. Singing defines opera; if the characters don't sing at some point, then I can't see how a piece can be called an opera. The opening sentences are there to provide a succinct definition for readers who don't know what opera is. As for the singers, I chose them because they were the names likely to be most familiar to non-specialists (I could have added others, such as Pavarotti, of course). I think virtually everybody has heard of Caruso and Callas. It's important to get the idea that opera depends on a specialised kind of singing in there as early as possible and mentioning a few famous names should give readers a good indication of what this singing entails. (As I say, I'm also quite happy to go back to the previous - i.e. early May - version and we can modify that if people prefer). --Folantin 07:48, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

As a latecomer to this erudite exchange, may I say that I think the tone of the early May opening better than the revised version proposed above, which has me judice an air of special pleading? I don't think I can add much to the above attempts at a definition, but Prima la musica, poi le parole is and always has been true, whatever Wagner's theories. No canary fancier I, but it must be conceded that opera is performed by singers who may or may not be able to act. No-one became an opera star by acting well and singing badly, unless you count... No no! Tim Riley 13:40, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Prima la musica, poi le parole is echt-POV, witness Richard Strauss who carefully left the dispute between the poet and the composer unresolved in Capriccio. I haven't had a chance to look at this for the past few days, but I see we still have the singers (with - pause for uncontrolled laughter - Joan Sutherland!) etc. in the first paragraph. Hmm, perhaps we can all make a new effort to bring some intellectual rigor to this discussion?

Before then please see Music drama and the opening of that article Music drama is the term ascribed to the revolutionary medium of artistic expression created by the German composer Richard Wagner. It was in large part through this novel form (my emphasis) that Wagner had a major effect on the course of European classical music. . . . Also see Category:Music dramas. So it's not a good idea to start our flagship article with the sentence Opera is a form of musical drama etc. I am as good a post-Wagnerian as the next contributor, but this is an encyclopedia with a NPOV policy. -- Kleinzach 03:52, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

John Deathridge (Viking p.1173): Posterity is still oblivious to the fact Wagner rejected the term 'music drama'. Whichever way you look at it, opera is a combination of music and drama. It's basically a play set wholly or partly to music for singers trained in the operatic style(s). All the definitions I've looked at have said something along those lines. The famous singers should be mentioned somewhere in the introduction. Before last week, they weren't even mentioned in the article, which is a bizarre state of affairs. Again, I'm quite happy to revert to the early May version, as some have requested here, and we can work from that. --Folantin 07:37, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

John Deathridge (and your good self by extension) may well be right. (I don't use Viking.) So, are you going to re-write the Music drama and reclassify the category? -- Kleinzach 08:25, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

I have no intention of working on that article in the immediate future but I do think it is under the wrong title and should be moved to something like "Wagnerian drama" or "Wagner's concept of drama". Wagner certainly doesn't have a monopoly on the phrase "music drama". --Folantin 10:36, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

I'll present the long version of my argument shortly. It doesn't look as though a compromise is going to be possible, but let's see. As to the rest of the first paragraph, I think most of it should simply be deleted. Why Enrico Caruso, Maria Callas, Joan Sutherland, Luciano Pavarotti? Lowest common denominator? Because no-one has heard of any 19th century singers? Or for that matter Chaliapin, Ponselle, Flagstad, etc.? And why in the name of the sacred groves, Rossini, Wagner and Puccini? Why those three? I might understand Mozart, Wagner and Verdi! But Rossini, Wagner and Puccini aren't even anybody's lowest common denominator, are they? (Of course later in the article a paragraph on composers and a paragraph on singers would be perfectly reasonable.) -- Kleinzach 08:17, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't understand your objections to naming those singers. I chose them because they are immensely famous and they were/are great artists. This is our most basic article and if any page should be addressed to non-experts it should be this one. I clearly stated my reasons for choosing those particular composers: "some celebrated names, such as Rossini, Wagner and Puccini, are almost entirely associated with the genre." I might have added Donizetti and Bellini there too. The idea is that you can become an extremely famous composer by writing nothing (or almost nothing) but opera, which stresses the importance of the form. Of course, we can eliminate these problems by going back to the early May version and improving that. I do, however, think we should probably be addressing the other inadequacies of this, our core article. Cheers. --Folantin 10:29, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Suggestion: Why don't we (1) go back to the May version and tweak that; and (2) move the discussion of famous opera singers down into the body of the article. Also, if we examine WP:Lead, I think we could probably do a better job of giving an "overview" of the article i in this intro. -- Ssilvers 13:10, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. Once we have a section on famous singers then we can summarise it in the introduction anyway. (Another vague thought: at the moment we have rather a lot of space devoted to the history of opera in various contries; once we have revised the main "national opera" sub-articles, maybe we can compact this material a bit). I'll consign the para nobody likes about other musical theatre traditions to a footnote (or it can be deleted entirely). --Folantin 13:16, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

OK. I bit the bullet and reverted to a prior version. I hope it was one of the few unvandalised versions, but if anybody has a preference for taking this back to a different time stamp, then go ahead. I'll try to summarise the history of opera in a single paragraph (per WP:LEAD) some time today. Cheers. --Folantin 13:32, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Going back to the May version?

I don't think going back to the May version is particularly helpful. I originally tried to start this discussion on the Opera Project (May 15), then here (May 22). Now it is June 4 and we are suddenly switching versions all over the place! When I've had a chance to write out my ideas - as I said I would - I'll start a new section on the definition of opera so we can discuss the main issue a lot more thoroughly, carefully and deliberately than hitherto. The singers/composers won't pose much trouble if we agree that they are to have their own paragraphs in an appropriate, logical section. (Incidentally I had to laugh, if there was one singer capable of disproving that opera has anything to do with drama (or texts) it was dear old Joan Sutherland, the lady who tried to abolish consonants!) Until later. -- Kleinzach 14:45, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

BTW I can't understand why the third paragraph has been deleted! I thought this has been accepted by everybody! (It was not written by me so I am not arguing for my own text.) -- Kleinzach 15:04, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Because it is more important to discuss what opera *is* than what it is not. Also, it has not been deleted. Rather, Folantin put it into a footnote, which seems like a good solution to me. Note also Folantin's offer above to add another paragraph giving an overview of the rest o the article per WP:LEAD. -- Ssilvers 15:07, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes. Footnotes are useful for adding nuances. They also leave us less vulnerable to attack from Wiki-pedant "slashers" who are likely to turn up complaining this article is too long (i.e. over 32k) and should be broken up. I think up to 50k (?) is defensible for a topic this important but we should aim to be succinct where we can. As I've already said, we can cut some of the history material once the sub-articles are up to standard. --Folantin 15:19, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

It's impossible to discuss the introduction if you continue to edit the article every 5 minutes. It's been 9 times in the last hour. -- Kleinzach 15:25, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

General reply to Kleinzach: Those were mostly minor edits (typos and such, plus getting rid of some possible advertising someone had placed in the article which I'd only just noticed). I'm quite happy to consider any changes you'd like to make and I apologise for not reading your version more carefully earlier. It's just that in May there seemed to be a mass of conflicts on operatic topics on WP (plus I was caught up in real life events). One thing I would say, as a veteran of several Wiki-wars, is that it's probably not a good idea to approach rewriting the intro on this basis: I am proposing a new introduction for this article - one that doesn't represent opera as the ugly step-child of music and drama but as the leading member of the performing arts. Opera is a fusion of music and drama (though it's certainly not an "ugly step-child"). Showing that it is a leading member of the performing arts is fine, but the leading member is just asking for trouble round these parts. Best. --Folantin 15:35, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

OK, I've experimented with summarising the history in one paragraph. The results are here [4]. I'm sure there's something to displease everybody and no doubt it reflects my own personal knowledge with all its preferences and areas of weakness, so feel free to alter it as you like. It's currently about 3k long, by the way. If you feel it's beyond redemption, just say so and you can either try to come up with your own version along the same lines or we can try a different tack. Whatever the case, I think we will have to have a summary of some sort to conform to WP:LEAD. Thanks. --Folantin 16:32, 4 June 2007 (UTC)