Talk:Amleto

This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Opera This article falls within the scope of WikiProject Opera, a group writing and editing Wikipedia articles on operas, opera terminology, opera composers and librettists, singers, designers, directors and managers, companies and houses, publications and recordings. The project discussion page is a place to talk about issues and exchange ideas. New members are welcome!OperaWikipedia:WikiProject OperaTemplate:WikiProject OperaOpera articles Shakespeare Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Shakespeare, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of William Shakespeare on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ShakespeareWikipedia:WikiProject ShakespeareTemplate:WikiProject ShakespeareShakespeare articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

I'd like to discuss this before suggesting that the 2014 performances be incorporated as a third column in the existing table for the 1865 and 1871 performances.

Firstly, how notable are the understudies and chorus members? To my knowledge, understudies have never appeared on any other roles tables of this kind.

While this may have been an historic performance (which deserves recognition) is it so distinguished as to deserve (and need) all that is included here? Any coments? Viva-Verdi (talk) 13:24, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Casts as they appear in the article now

• 1865 and 1871 productions

• 2014 stage production

Discussion

• I don't think the 2014 production should be listed as shown above. That kind of table is only used for the initial production and, if applicable, for significant revised versions – see
  WP:WPOSG. Do I understand the article correctly that the 2014 production was only for the 3rd act? Not that it would change my mind about the suitability of the cast table, but the text seems unclear in this regard. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 14:16, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Apparently the "revival" table refers to the full version which has just been performed by Opera Southwest with the score and libretto reconstructed. It is obviously a potentially significant performance, but not a significant revision. I agree with both Michael and Viva-Verdi, this table is completely inappropriate, even in a truncated form without the names of the understudies and every member of the chorus (!). It doesn't even belong as a third column in the main role table. At most there can be a separate section on this modern revival/critical edition, but only the singers in the primary roles should be mentioned, and then in prose rather than a table. There should also be referencing to independent sources for that section—aricles, reviews, etc.— not simply Barrese's material. I note that this article was started by Anthony Barrese (the conductor whose project the revival is) back in 2006 [1]. It has since been considerably edited, but I suspect there may be a considerable amount of text left which had been previously published under copyright. See Duplication Detector results for the current version of the WP article. Voceditenore (talk) 15:21, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• I've been
  here. I've added a separate section to the Performance history about the 2014 revival and included the names of the the principal singers, conductor, and director with references (4 of which I extracted from the External links section). The article still needs some work, e.g. a synopsis and bringing the section on the Preparation of the critical edition up to date. It's largely in the form in it was in 2006 when the article was created. Also the section on Faccio's other activities is somewhat out of place and should really go into the Franco Faccio article (if they're not already there). Likewise the repetitious section in that article on The critical edition of Amleto needs to be significantly reduced. In fact, that whole article also needs to be revised and made more coherent. Voceditenore (talk) 17:47, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• I added the 2014 stage production table referenced in this discussion. As stated by
  WP:WPOSG) states that it contains "advice", "recommendations", and "opinions". I understand how personal preferences and interpretations can evolve, but these guidelines do not prohibit as much as is stated in this discussion, no matter what conditions have become customary. Guidelines need to be flexible enough to encompass a unique situation, which I believe this one to be. David Beatty (talk) 20:53, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • The guidelines also do not prohibit mentioning the lighting designer, the costume designer, or any other members of the artistic and technical team. General encyclopedic principles of notability and significance lead to the current practice of not including them. Wikipedia is no ersatz website of the presenting organisation. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 06:43, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Even the title of this discussion uses quotation marks around "standard" because there really is no standard stipulated in the Wikipedia guidelines. There is, however, the opinion of various editors who have not edited the guidelines to comport to their opinions. I agree Wikipedia is not an ersatz website for any organization, but the Amleto page is not about an organization. Wikipedia pages are normally compendiums, bringing together information from a variety of sources - a one-stop-shop, if you will. Therefore, including the creative team (lighting, costumes, etc.) would not be out of the question, especially regarding a contemporary production which represents the first of its kind, and for which there is, therefore, interest on many levels - from conductor to principal roles (which term is not defined in the guidelines: would it be based on the amount of singing, the amount of time on stage, the importance of the role within the story line, or all of these?) to secondary roles to chorus to creative team. General encyclopedic principles were created to address written documents which are necessarily limited in their scope in order to produce media that is not physically cumbersome. Since an encyclopedia, by definition, purports to cover all aspects of a subject, a web-based wiki product does not have - and does not need to self-impose - those kind of physical limitations which printed media have. Each individual reader can decide what is or is not important to read. David Beatty (talk) 18:16, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Opera, so you can get some further opinions. Voceditenore (talk) 19:40, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

• I think that we have now found an acceptable balance in what we currently have in the article, although I am not opposed to seeing the Opera Southwest production info appearing as a third column given its status as a critical edition and significant revival after 140 years. However, I would point out that the article format guidelines were established by a consensus of editors working on opera articles as part of their involvement in
  WP:OPERA. Both editors who have participated here are respected members of that group. I am also a member of the Opera Project. WP works on the basis of consensus, which I believe is the situation that we now have. User talk:David Beatty, given his admitted involvement in the Opera Southwest production, may be a little too close to it to look at this issue dispassionately. Viva-Verdi (talk) 20:03, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • Involvement in an article's subject is exactly what drives the creation of articles and the editing process for virtually all of the content of Wikipedia. Since the guidelines are mentioned again, I have to reiterate that there is more opinion ascribed to the guidelines, as evidenced by this discussion, than there is actual content in the guidelines that supports those opinions. Perhaps editors on the Opera Project are a little too closely involved in preserving their opinions and unwritten details to look logically at the issue of expanding the guidelines to more appropriately reflect the true nature of an opera and its production. For example, while Michael Bednarek mentions there is no prohibition of listing creative artists (scenery, costumes, lighting) in an opera article, I infer from his comment that he believes they have no place in an opera article. However, opera is not just about singing and a conductor, which seems to be the opinion of opera article editors. Opera is a multi-artistic genre, with the grand operas of the late 19th-century and early 20th-century approaching near-cinematic proportions in stage direction, lighting, costumes, scenery, and the use of instantaneous scene changes (Wagner would have loved the use of dissolve). The opera guidelines fail to take into account these visual aspects of opera, not to mention the orchestral aspects, all of which are expected components of opera, first by the composer, to be sure, and, not secondarily, the cast and creative team, and, most importantly, the audience. Reviews of any opera never fail to mention not only orchestra (sorely lacking in the guidelines) but also the extramusical (visual) aspects of the productions, often citing by name the stage director, and members of the creative team. This reply is not limited to the Amleto article, but to any opera article, which should describe a full-scale production, not simply a singing event. Just as Wikipedia movie articles list producers, music scorers, cinematographers, distributors, etc. (are these minute details really important to reading about a movie, using the argument that is being applied here to operas?), the same sort of comprehensive detail should apply when providing information about an opera production (a minute detail, in my opinion, would be to list box office staff, ushers, concession operators, janitors, caterers, etc.). That is where my passion lies, in providing a full picture about opera - any opera - to the Wikipedia readership. Opera goers - even opera listeners (on any live opera radio broadcast the sets, costumes, lighting, and even staging are described to the listener) have an aural and visual experience, which the current opera guidelines ignore. I'm sorry to hear that this is apparently a closed subject - not sorry for myself, but for readers of articles, who must look to sources other than Wikipedia for important details about the full production of any opera. David Beatty (talk) 18:10, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• David. I think you misunderstood Michael. Discussion of the designers and the director is not inappropriate for an article. These details are almost always included for the premiere where they are known (see Lalla-Roukh or L'ultimo giorno di Pompei). However, they are discussed in the performance history section, not in the role table, and they are generally not included for subsequent productions of the opera. What we are discussing here is the appropriateness of having a separate role table for a production which is neither the premiere, nor the premiere of a significant revision of the opera. And I'm sorry, but the names of the understudies and chorus members are minute detail, more appropriate for either Mr. Barrese's website or that of Opera Southwest. Wikipedia is not here to serve as an archive for other organisations. Voceditenore (talk) 19:45, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Hi all, please forgive me if I get the formatting incorrect here, but I haven't edited a wikipedia page since I created this one years ago. I'm glad to see that it's taken a life of its own. I'm Anthony Barrese, the person that's being discussed along with the opera. I spent over 11 years reconstructing this piece and bringing it to light, so, like David it may be argued that I am too close to it. However, I would like to challenge the mods on several fronts. Voceditenore points out that there have been several pieces lost and rediscovered, and I would argue that if it were not for productions like Opera Southwest's 2014 New World Premiere, we would not even be having this discussion. It is very much like the case of Rossini's Il viaggio a Reims which was performed once, and forgotten for over a century. If it weren't for the Claudio Abbado production in 1984, it would not be in the standard repertoire today. I think the cast who re-created the roles for that production are easily as important, historically, as the original cast. But I want to take specific issue with what Voceditenore wrote above: "What we are discussing here is the appropriateness of having a separate role table for a production which is neither the premiere, nor the premiere of a significant revision of the opera." Opera Southwest's production is in fact a significant revision, more in line with Faccio's ultimate concept of the piece. Faccio made significant revisions for La Scala, many of which were cut for the production due to time constraints. For example, the Regina's aria that ends Act III, scene i (the sole aria for one of the major characters) was written for La Scala and cut before the premiere. Before Albuquerque's production, this aria had never been performed. The autograph score has numerous examples of music freshly composed in a new ink with new paper for la Scala, only to be canceled by a pitiless crayon for reasons of saving time. Most of the smaller examples concern internal cuts, but their totality, I believe, constitutes a significant revision, and one more in line with Faccio's intentions. OSW's production restored all of this material. As far as more significant changes go, the La Scala revision cut the final scene of the opera (and play) and brought everything to a head at the graveyard scene. In Boito's complete works, the libretto reflects this, but contemporary sources suggest that the final scene was also cut for time considerations, therefore, OSW's restoration of this original scene, within the context of what is mostly La Scala-intended material constitutes a major revision. While I agree with David that every element of the opera should be credited, I do understand Voceditenore's hesitation when it comes to including understudies and chorus members as minute detail as it does fall out of the current guidelines. I will take my answers off air. Or however it is you folks do this. tonybarrese (talk) 3:11, 22 January 2015

All these details are worth including in the article (properly sourced). The principal forces at the 2014 are properly mentioned and augmented by several external links; there is no need for a 3rd column. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 04:19, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Michael, as I mentioned (probably totally inappropriately on voceditenore's wall/page/blogthingy), there's really no way to source any of that, since it's all based on research done on the full score (i know, i know CoI), so other than making a separate page for the 2014 OSW Amleto production (which would probably come across as more biased and bush-league than what we're trying to accomplish here), I'm not sure how to accomplish that. You guys are arguing that unless it's a significant revision there's no need for a 3rd column. I'm arguing that in addition to being a revival, the totality of the changes that were made in our production constitute a revised version that is closer to what Faccio intended at La Scala, but because of time constraints, he wasn't able to accomplish. Since nobody here knows anything about the details of the performance, I don't know how anyone can make a judgment about whether it constitutes a "revival" or a "revision." Again, apologies in advance for any kind of formatting booboos. Tonybarrese (talk) 05:02, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia articles don't rely on judgements, but on

reliable sources. If the 2014 version was such a significant event (and I really don't doubt that), there should be some serious coverage of it, in which case a specific article about it might be viable. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 12:38, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

Michael Bednarek, please see below. The event was covered by a substantial amount of local, regional, national, and foreign press. In a city of fewer than a million people, with an annual operating budget of around $650,000, that is simply unheard of. In my mind a specific article about the event is in much more danger of coming across as self-serving ("see what we did in small but mighty Albuquerque!") than this pesky "third column." Nobody in the opera world doubts the importance of the event and that it is unprecedented in this era (considering the city and company). The event itself was broadcast locally and will be rebroadcast on Chicago's WFMT to millions. In addition to the musicolological reasons that I outlined above (and below), if this piece does gain any more attention beyond the ABQ production, it will be specifically because of the ABQ production that it did. In that case, I argue (and you counter argue) that the cast that helped bring it back to life is just as historically important as the cast who put it in the grave. Tonybarrese (talk) 15:46, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Tony, the OSW performance was not a 2nd revision by the composer. It was what you postulated from your research would have been the revision he would have made, had he made one. Yet he lived for another 20 years after the opera's last performance without doing so, and I see no evidence in this article that he had given serious thought to, let alone worked on, such a revision and further performance. What the OSW performance did was restore some material apparently cut from the revised La Scala version before its performance. Many, many revivals of operatic works have done this sort of thing. Some of them have made even more radical changes to the libretto, e.g. Marta Domingo changing the ending of La rondine, or to the score, e.g Berio's new completion of Turandot. A separate role table for the OSW performance is neither justified nor congruent with the way other operas are treated here. As Michael points out, the principal singers, director, scenographer, conductor/editor of the critical edition) etc. are covered in the article in considerable detail and in a weight proportionate to the event. In fact, arguably over-generously—some of it is repetitious and in my view and needs to be tightened up. Like Michael, I think a separate article on this revival is conceivably possible, but only if this event has proved significant enough to have attracted substantial further analysis and coverage (outside the standard local pre-performance articles and reviews), and especially if it is in peer-reviewed journals. Voceditenore (talk) 12:57, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Voceditenore, I refer you to your own article on Le_duc_d'Albe which, in my opinion is very much like the Berio revision of Turandot. That is, it has music newly composed for the opera by a contemporary composer. It has its own "column," yet is arguably much further from Donizetti's conception of the piece (as it has music written by someone of a completely different era that he could not possibly have sanctioned), than ours was of Faccio's conception. It seems quite inconsistent to have the Donizetti opera represented as it is, but Turandot isn't (I can't beleive we're arguing over columns). Faccio did indeed live for another 20 years, but, he clearly never really wanted the piece performed again. If we go with that logic then the whole Amleto article should be scrapped. In the above argument I tried to go into some preliminary detail about what we did with the edition. I don't expect the layperson (not to mention the mods, who, intelligent as they are about 19th century opera, have never produced a critical edition to my knowledge) to follow through pages of minutiae, detailing exactly what was and wasn't cut for what reasons. Suffice it to say, the La Scala production was most of what the composer wanted, but not all of what he wanted. There is a letter from Boito to Ricordi after Faccio's death, in which Boito outlines with some specificity the changes that he and Faccio discussed making (mostly in the first act). At the time both Ricordi and Boito were very enthusiastic about such a production coming to light. For whatever reason, it never did. The most significant change, as I said was his cutting of the final scene (which includes the sword play for sport, and everybody dying, and which follows Shakespeare's final scene). This was done for reasons of time constraint. So, from what we could piece together based on extensive study of the manuscript, and letters, what Faccio wanted was the Scala material, but with the final scene restored. That is much clearer in my mind than Donizetti wanting one of his operas done with music by a 20th century composer. As for the event proving "significant enough to have attracted substantial further analysis and coverage (outside the standard local pre-performance articles and reviews," this production, in a town of fewer than one million people, with a company that has an annual operating budget of around $650,000 was reviewed by the corriere della sera of Milan, London's Financial Times, American Record Guide, Opera (U.K.), HuffingtonPost, The Santa Fe New Mexican, and The Albuquerque Journal (not to mention an award nomination by the international opera wards 2015^[1]. Most of these reviews are cited on the Amleto page itself which I've been trying to clean up since last night. I don't think I need to tell you that coverage of that kind for a city of that size and an opera company of that size is practically unheard of in the opera word. We certainly could make a separate page, but it seems a simpler and cleaner way to inform the general public about this important revival (and I use the word "important" only regarding the outside attention it garnered [it remains to be seen if the rest of the world finds it important in the future]) would be for this irksome "third column" to appear in the main article, rather than duplicate much of the same information on a "2014 revival" page, which may end up seeming more self-promoting than a "third column" (which, again, in my mind is no more self-promoting than the "Duc de d'Albe" "third column.") Ciao. Tonybarrese (talk) 15:32, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Tony, Le duc d'Albe is not my "own" article. I simply created it many years ago. I did not add the second role table. I was not even aware that it had been added and, frankly, I don't think it belongs in that article either. Also, that opera is a very peculiar case, because even the first version was not completed by the original composer. Another peculiar one, which I also created but do not "own" is Otto mesi in due ore, which has a role table for the first performance only, and in my view rightly so. Voceditenore (talk) 16:03, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Voce, I understand that you see a big difference between the roles table and a separate page. I guess my problem (and the problem of all of us at OSW) is that there seems to be a double standard. The duc d'Albe page has been up for quite awhile, yet nobody had noticed this problem with the role section (it is still "uncorrected," and since I am not a mod, and don't have any dog and that fight, AND I think it should stay up, as it is a significant revival, I'm not going to touch it). Yet the "problem" with our role section was corrected very quickly, and then seemingly bragged about that you took "bold" action. The whole conversation here seems to revolve around "who are these unknown people, and why should we care?" At least a few times we've read "IF" this was a significant event, yet even a cursory look at the page will show you that this was a significant event (see all the reviews). I really am trying to believe that this comes from a desire to see a format adhered to. But the treatment (or hands-off non-treatment) of the duc d'Albe page vs. the Amleto page makes it look like a double standard when it comes to a post created by a mod and one by a non-mod. In any case, I still think a separate page about OSW 2014, really comes across as awkwardly self-congratulatory and not really historical, and since I'm not interested in writing a separate page like that, I guess we keep the page as it is. Tonybarrese (talk) 21:41, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Le duc no longer has two casts in the "Roles" table. As as there is enough information, with appropriate references, in the 2014 revival section, that should be fine. But let's not see understudies, chorus members, et al displayed there. I support the other editors in not wishing to see the third column. Viva-Verdi (talk) 23:24, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

conflict of interest editing, it often receives increased scrutiny. Editors who focus on solely on an article about a project with which they have been very closely involved can often fail to take a broader perspective and may well be unaware of various guidelines and practices here. Finally, there are no "mods" here. Wikipedia has administrators but they do not intervene in deciding content. You can read more about their role at Wikipedia:Administrators. Neither Viva-Verdi, Michael Bednarek, nor I are administrators. We are simply editors who have been working in this field on Wikipedia for many years and are long-time members of WikiProject Opera. Voceditenore (talk) 10:01, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

Voceditenore I hear what you're saying. It all comes down to the table, and in the end, the mods (volunteers, whatever) and I have a difference of opinion. A lot of these operas that were completely unknown until an edition or production came along would not even be in wikipedia if it weren't for those editions and productions. Of course I have a conflict of interest, but, being a working musician, I also know a lot more about the subject than you. I appreciate the attempts to have consistent guidelines, I just disagree with them. All best. Tonybarrese (talk) 15:42, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]